Vrinda P. Kittur., Goa V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa., Panaji

CO 23/PAN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1271 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 17-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 17-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K M MAHESH
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRINIVAS NAYAK
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Depreciation; Search and seizure; Share purchase agreement
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 18 9 /PNJ/201 5 (ASST. YEAR : 200 9 - 1 0 ) ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI GOA VS. SMT . VRINDA P . KITTUR, NO. C - 1, SPARSHA, LA - MARVEL COLONY, NEXT TO NIO, DONA PAULA, GOA. PAN NO. ADPP K 9982 M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO. 2 3 /PNJ/201 5 (ASST. YEAR : 200 9 - 1 0) SMT . VRINDA P . KITTUR , NO. C - 1, SPARSHA, LA - MARVEL COLONY, NEXT TO NIO, DONA PAULA, GOA. VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI GOA PAN NO. ADPP K 9982 M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SHRINIVAS NAYAK C A. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI K.M. MAHESH - D R DATE OF HEARING : 17 / 0 8 /2015 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 1 7 / 0 8 /201 5 . O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 2 , PANAJI , DATED 28 /0 1 /201 5 . 2 ITA NO. 18 9 /PNJ/2015 C.O.NO. 2 3 /PNJ/2015 2. IN GROUNDS NO. 1 TO 3 , THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF 3.47 CRORES TOWARDS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN S ON SALE OF SHARES . 3 . A T T H E V E R Y O U T S E T , B O T H T H E P A R T I E S B E F O R E U S A G R E E D T H A T T H E F A C T S A N D T H E I S S U E I N V O L V E D I N T H E S E G R O U N D S O F A P P E A L A R E S I M I L A R T O T H E F A C T S A N D I S S U E I N V O L V E D I N G R O U N D N O S . 1 T O 3 O F T H E A P P E A L O F T H E ASSESSEE S H U S B A N D I N I . T . A . N O . 1 8 7 / P N J / 2 0 1 5 V I D E O R D E R D A T E D 1 3 / 0 8 / 2 0 1 5 . T HEREFORE, T H E D E C I S I O N T A K E N I N T H A T C A S E O F T H E H U S B A N D O F T H E ASSESSEE M A Y B E F O L L O W E D I N T H E P R E S E N T C A S E O F T H E ASSESSEE . 4 . W E F I N D T H A T T H E T R I B U N A L I N T H E C A S E O F T H E ASSESSEE S H U S B A N D S H R I P R A K A S H V . K I T T U R IN I.T.A.NO. 187/PNJ/2015 VIDE ORDER DATED 13/08/2015 I N ASSESSMENT YEA R 2009 - 10 , H E L D A S U N D E R : - 3 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED 14,62,12,500/ - FROM M/S. ELEGANCE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. WHEN REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME, ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT 14,62,12,500/ - WAS F O R CARRYING OUT CONTRACTUAL WORK AND ALSO ADMITTED PROFIT OF 5 CRORES FROM THE SAME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED FROM THE DETAILS OF SHARE TRANSFERS CALLED FROM REGISTRARS OF COMPANIES, GOA, IT WAS FOUND THAT MR. PRAKASH KITTUR - ASSESSEE SOLD HIS 500 SHARES IN M/S. ELEGANCE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. ON 23/02/2008 TO M/S. VANQUISH INVESTMENT AND LEASING PVT. LTD. AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN DETAILS OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON SALE OF SHARES OUT OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS OF 14.62 CRORES. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO A MOU ON 17/11/2007 WITH M/S. INDUJA TRADERS PVT. LTD. AND M/S. VANQUISH INVESTMENT AND LEASING PVT. LTD. ACCORDING TO WHICH , 100% SHAREHOLDINGS OF M/S.ELEGANCE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. WAS AGREED TO BE SOLD TO M/S. INDUJA TRADERS PVT. LTD. AND M/S. VANQUISH INVESTMENT AND LEASING PVT. LTD. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MOU, THE ASSESSEE SOLD HIS 500 SHARES IN M/S.ELEGANCE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. TO M/S. VANQUISH INVESTMENT AND LEASING PVT. LTD. HE NOTED THAT IN THE CASE OF MR. TAHIR ISANI AND MR.MANSOORALI ISANI , 250 SHARES WERE SOLD FOR A CONSIDERATION OF 3.50 CRORES. HENCE, CONSIDERATION FOR TRANSFER OF 500 SHARES SHALL BE ADOPTED AS 7 CRORES , OUT OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS OF 14,62,12,500/ - . 3 ITA NO. 18 9 /PNJ/2015 C.O.NO. 2 3 /PNJ/2015 4 . ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE BOUGHT 500 SHARE S OF M/S. ELEGANCE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. ON 02/04/2007 FOR 50,000/ - AND TRANSFERRED HIS SHARES ON 23/03/2008 TO M/S. VANQUISH INVESTMENT AND LEASING PVT. LTD. BUT AS NOTICED FROM THE BANK STATEMENT, HE HAS RECEIVED 7 CRORES DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008 - 09 RELE VANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. THEREFORE, A SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN IS ON SALE OF SHARES, IS BROUGHT TO TAX AT 6,95,50,000/ - ( 7,00,00,000 50,000) IN THE HANDS OF MR. PRAKASH KITTUR AS THE ASSESSEE IS GOVERNED UNDER SEC. 5A OF THE ACT. RS. 3,47,75,000/ - (HALF OF 6,95,50,000/ - ) IS ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE BALANCE IS ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE SPOUSE OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. O N APPEAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING THAT THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED 14.62 CRORES FROM M/S. ELEGANCE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. IN THE NAME OF M/S. UNICORN DEVELOPERS , PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE SEARCH STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THIS WAS A CONTRACTUAL PAYMENT RECEIVED BY HIM AND HE ESTIMATED HIS PROFITS FROM THIS CONTRACT AT 5 CRORES . THE ASSESSEE, HOWE VE R, DID NOT FURNISH COMPLETE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN THE SAID CONTRACT. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT ASSESSEE OWNED 500 SHARES OF M/S. ELEGANCE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WORKED OUT THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN S AT 6,95,50,000/ - ON THE PREMISE THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL PAYMENTS OF 14.62 CRORES , 7 CRORES WAS TOWARDS REPURCHASE OF 500 SHARES FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ENTIRE RECEIPT OF 14.62 CRORES WAS TOWARDS CONTRACTUAL PAYMENTS AND 500 SHARES ARE STILL HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEY WERE NEVER SOLD BACK. SINCE 500 SHARES WERE NEVER SOLD BACK, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY CAPITAL GAINS ARISING TO THE ASSESSEE. IN HIS OPINION, THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION ON PRESUMPTION AND SURMISES WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH RELATING TO RECEIPT OF 7 CRORES TOWARDS RE - PURCHASE OF 500 SHARES. HE, ACCORDINGLY , HELD THAT THE ADDITION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND DELETED THE SAME. 6 . BEFORE US, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER . 7 . THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT FROM THE COPY OF SCHEDUL E INVESTMENT ATTACHED TO THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31/03/2009 THAT IT INCLUDED INVESTMENT IN M/S. ELEGANCE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. 50,000/ - . HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS COPY OF AUDITED BALANCE SHEET WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TOGETHER WITH HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE 4 ITA NO. 18 9 /PNJ/2015 C.O.NO. 2 3 /PNJ/2015 ASSESSING OFFICER. THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED THE BALANCE SHEET AS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE ARGUED THAT IF THE ASSESSEE SOLD 500 SHARES WORTH 50,000/ - OF M/S.ELEGANCE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., THE SAME WOULD NOT HAVE APPEARED IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE AS ON 31/03/2009 . HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORIGINAL SHARE CERTIFICATES ARE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND COPIES OF THE SAME ARE ENCLOSED AT PAGE NOS. 14 TO 16 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AT PAGE NO. 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE DETAILS OF THE PAYMENTS MADE BY M/S. ELEGANCE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. TO THE ASSESSEE ARE GIVE N , WHICH ARE AS UNDER: - DATE RECEIPT PAYMENT BANK 19/03/2008 5,000,000 CBPL 23/04/2008 13,012,500 SBI 13/05/2008 10,000,000 CBPL 21/05/2008 10,000,000 CBPL 24/06/2008 5,000,000 CBPL 26/06/2008 35,000,000 CBPL 05/08/2008 5,000,000 CBPL 15/09/2008 30,000,000 CBPL 18/09/2008 25,700,000 CBPL 07/10/2008 7,500,000 SBI HE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER PAGE 7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF M/S. ELEGANCE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. S SHARES IS 23/0 2 /2008 . HE SUBMITTED THAT AS IT CAN BE NOTICED THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLEGES THAT THE SHARES OF M/S. ELEGANCE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED ON 23/02/2008 ON WHICH DATE NO CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE , WHICH ITSELF GOES TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS NO TRANSFER OF SHARE S BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S. VANQUISH INVESTMENT AND LEASING PVT. LTD. AS C LAIMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ADDITIONS ARE PURELY MADE ON HYPOTHETIC BASIS TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SHARES TRANSFERRED BY THIRD PARTY MR. TAHIR ISANI AND MR. MANSOORALI ISANI AND HAVE APPLIED THE SAME RULE TO ASSESSEES CASE WHICH IS TOTALLY BASELESS AS THE ASSESSEE NEVER TRANSFERRED HIS SHARES. THEREFORE, TAKING INTO CONSIDER ING THE ENTIRE FACTS , ADDITIONS WERE RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 5 ITA NO. 18 9 /PNJ/2015 C.O.NO. 2 3 /PNJ/2015 8 . HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE OF 14,62,12,500/ - FROM M/S. ELEGANCE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. WAS TOWARDS CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS. THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE OF 14,62,12,500/ - FROM M/S.ELEGANCE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. WAS SHOWN AS INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 AND FOR THIS , ASSESSEE ENC LOSED COPY OF BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT TOGETHER WITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME AT PAGE NOS. 16 TO 25 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND ALSO PLACED A COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 DATED 30/03/2013 PASSED UNDER SEC. 143(3) OF THE ACT AT PAGE NOS. 309 TO 325 OF THE PAPER BOOK , IN WHICH THE INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE, HE ARGUED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MIS DIRECTED HIMSELF WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION OF 6 ,95,50,000/ - BEING 50% OF THE SAME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE BALANCE 50% IN THE HANDS OF HIS WIFE ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS FROM SALE OF SHARES OF INVESTMENT IN M/S. ELEGANCE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. AND PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DELETING THE SAME BE CONFIRMED AND GROUND S OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE BE DISMISSED. 9 . AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD 500 SHARES OF M/S. ELEGANCE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. TO M/S. VANQUISH INVESTMENT AND LEASING PVT. LTD. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION. HE FOUND FROM THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED 7 CRORES DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008 - 09 FROM M/S. VANQUISH INVESTMENT AND LEASING PVT. LTD. WHICH HE HELD TO BE THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS SALE OF 500 S HARES OF M/S. ELEGANCE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED 500 SHARES OF M/S. ELEGANCE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. ON 02/04/2007 FOR 50,000/ - AND AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF THE SAME, COMPUTED THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT 6,95,50,000/ - AND ADDED 50% OF THE AMOUNT BEING 3,47, 7 5,000/ - IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND 3,47,75,000/ - IN THE HANDS OF THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE . THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE FILED BEFORE US A U D I T ED COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 WHICH IS THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND POINTED OUT FROM SCHEDULE - E OF THE INVESTMENTS ATTACHED TO THE BALANCE SHEET THAT AS ON 31/03/2009, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN 5 0,000/ - BEING SHARES OF M/S. ELEGANCE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., WHICH SHOWS THAT THE SAID SHARES OF M/S. ELEGANCE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO HAVE BEEN SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR AT 7 CRORES IS NOT CORRECT. WE FIND THA T 6 ITA NO. 18 9 /PNJ/2015 C.O.NO. 2 3 /PNJ/2015 THE AMOUNT OF 14,62,12,500/ - RECEIVED FROM M/ S. ELEGANCE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. TOWARDS CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS ITS INCOME IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND THE SAME WAS ASSESSED TO TAX IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 AS EVIDENCED FROM THE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30/03/2013 AND COPIES OF BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE NOS. 309 - 325 . 10 . IN THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS THE INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 WAS ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN AN ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER SEC. 143(3) OF THE ACT, HE WAS NOT JUSTIF I ED IN TREATING THE AMOUNT OF 7 CRORES AS CONSIDERATION TOWARDS SALE OF 500 SHARES OF M/ S. ELEGANCE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. AND TAXING THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS OUT OF THE SAME AT 6,95,50,000/ - DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF 6,95,50,000/ - MADE UNDER THE HEAD SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. CONSEQUENTLY , WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND DISMISS THE GROUND S OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 5 . F A C T S B E I N G I D E N T I C A L FOLLOWING T H E P R E C E D E N T , W E D I S M I S S T H E S E G R O U N D S O F A P P E A L O F T H E R E V E N U E . 6 . GROUND NO.4 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REV E NUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DELETING THE ADDITION OF 53.71 LAC. MADE UNDER SEC. 68 OF THE ACT. 7 . A T T H E V E R Y O U T S E T , B O T H T H E P A R T I E S B E F O R E U S A G R E E D T H A T T H E F A C T S A N D T H E I S S U E I N V O L V E D I N T H I S G R O U N D O F A P P E A L I S S I M I L A R T O T H E F A C T S A N D I S S U E I N V O L V E D I N G R O U N D N O . 4 O F T H E A P P E A L O F T H E ASSESSEES HUSBAND I N I . T . A . N O . 1 8 7 / P N J / 2 0 1 5 V I D E O R D E R D A T E D 1 3 / 0 8 / 2 0 1 5 I N ASSESSMENT Y E A R 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 . T HEREFORE, T H E D E C I S I O N T A K E N I N T H A T C A S E O F T H E H U S B A N D O F T H E ASSESSEE M A Y B E F O L L O W E D I N T H E P R E S E N T C A S E O F T H E ASSESSEE . 7 ITA NO. 18 9 /PNJ/2015 C.O.NO. 2 3 /PNJ/2015 8 . W E F I N D T H A T T H E T R I B U N A L I N T H E C A S E O F T H E ASSESSEE S H U S B A N D S H R I P R A K A S H V . K I T T U R , IN I.T.A.NO. 187/PNJ/2015 VIDE ORDER DATED 13/08/2015 I N ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 I N ASSESSMENT Y E A R 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 , H E L D A S U N D E R : - 1 2 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT NO CONFIRMATION WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE ADVANCES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM KOCHU KOSHI AND WIDES PROPERTIES & HOLDINGS AMOUNTING TO 1 CRORE AND 7,42,000/ - RESPECTIVELY . HENCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE ADVANCES RECEIVED AND THEREFORE, MADE THE ADDITION OF 1,07,42,000/ - TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ACCORDINGLY INCLUDED HALF OF THE AMOUNT OF 1,07,42,000/ - IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND REM A INING HALF OF THE AMOUNT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES WIFE. 1 3 . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT I.E. 1,07,42,000/ - W AS RECEIVED THROUGH THE BANKING CHANNELS THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES , ESTABLISHING GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. IT WAS OPEN TO THE SEARCH TEAM AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONDUCT ENQUIRY THROUGH BANK ACCOUNTS AND FIND THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITO R S. THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR GUESS WORK AND SURMISES IN SEARCH AND SEIZURE ASSESSMENTS. THE ADDITIONS NEED TO BE BASED ON RELEVANT AND COGENT MATERIAL UNEARTHED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH . ACCORDING TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT EXPLANATION AND THE D EPARTMENT HAD NOT FOUND ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WITH REGARD TO THESE ADVANCES AND THEREFORE, ADDITION UNDER SEC.68 WAS NOT WARRANTED . ACCORDINGLY, HE DELETED THE ADDITION OF 6,07,53,380/ - . 1 4 . DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 1 5 . AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT FROM THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGES 26 & 27 THAT THESE ARE THE CONFIRMATIONS FILED BY KOCHU KOSHI AND M/S. WIDES PROPERTIES & HOLDINGS FOR PAYMENT OF 1 CRORE VIDE CHEQUE NO. 291612 DATED 04/08/2008 AND 7,42,000/ - RESPECTIVELY . FURTHER, THE LOAN CONFIRMATIONS ALSO SHOW THE PAN NOS. AS AMMPK4071B OF KOCHU KOSH Y AND AENPG8825Q OF WIDES PROPERTIES & HOLDINGS RESPECTIVELY . HE SUBMITTED THAT UNDER SEC. 68 OF THE ACT ADDITION CAN BE MADE WHERE ANY SUM IS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF THE 8 ITA NO. 18 9 /PNJ/2015 C.O.NO. 2 3 /PNJ/2015 ASSESSEE FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE OF SOURCE THEREOF OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT SATISFACTORY , IN THE OP INION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE PAYERS AS WELL AS THE PURPOSE OF THE RECEIPTS WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE PAYMENTS WERE RECEIVED BY CHEQUES AND THE PAYERS WERE ISSUED CONFIRMATION LETTERS CONFIRMING THE PAYMEN TS MADE BY THEM. THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE FOR LEGITIMATE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE , HENCE, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 16 . WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE NOS. 26 & 27 HAS FILED THE CONFIRMATIONS AND PAN N UMBERS OF THE LOAN CREDITORS NAMELY KOCHU KOSH Y (PAN NO. AMMPK4071B ) AND M/S. WIDES PROPERTIES & HOLDINGS (PAN NO. AENPG8825Q ) OF HAVING ADVANCE OF 1 CRORE AND 7,42,000/ - RESPECTIVELY, WHICH IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE D EPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE S . THESE CERTIFICATES WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AS SUBMITTED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS ALSO NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE . IN THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , WE FIND THAT THE ABOVE AMOUNTS ARE RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH FACT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE . T HE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS IS ESTABLISHED BY THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS ON WHICH CHEQUES WERE ISS U ED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THEM. FURTHER, BOTH THE CREDITORS ARE INCOME - TAX ASSESSEES HAVING PAN NUMBERS. NO MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER MAKING ENQU I R IES FROM THOSE BANKS TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GENUINE OR THE CREDITORS DID NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO ADVANCE THE MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE. IN ABSENC E OF THE SAME, WE FIND NO GOOD REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WHICH IS CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 9 . FACTS BEING I DENTICAL RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 1 0 . GROUND NO .5 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REV ENUE IS DIREC TED AG A IN S T THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE ON RECEIPTS FROM M/S. HANDSEL (GOA) PVT. LTD. 9 ITA NO. 18 9 /PNJ/2015 C.O.NO. 2 3 /PNJ/2015 1 1 . AT THE VERY OUTSET, BOTH THE PARTIES BEFORE US AGREED THAT THE FACTS AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN TH I S GROUND OF APPEAL I S SIMILAR TO THE FACTS AND ISSUE INVOLV ED IN GROUND NO . 5 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEES HUSB AND IN I.T.A.NO. 187/PNJ/2015 VIDE ORDER DATED 13/08/2015 F O R ASSESSMENT Y E A R 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 . THEREFORE, THE DECISION TAKEN IN THAT CASE OF THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE FOLLOWED IN THE PRESENT CAS E OF THE ASSESSEE. 1 2 . WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND SHRI PRAKASH V. KITTUR IN I.T.A.NO. 187/PNJ/2015 VIDE ORDER DATED 13/08/2015 I N ASSESSMENT Y E A R 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 , HELD AS UNDER: - 1 8 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT DURING THE C O URSE OF SEARCH CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS SEEN THAT M/S. HANDSEL (GOA) PVT. LTD. HAD RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF 26.05 CRORES IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2006 - 07 AS ADVANCE FROM M/S. LEADING HOTELS PVT. LTD. FOR FACILITATING ACQUISITION OF LAND AT GOA ON BEHALF OF THEM. M/S. LEADING HOTELS PVT. LTD. SUBMITTED A LETTER DATED 02/02/2011 STATING THAT THEY MADE PAYMENT OF 20.37% CRORES OUT OF 26.05% FOR THE PURPOSE OF FACILITATING ACQUISITION OF LAND AT GOA FROM TIME TO TIME VIDE INSTRUCTIONS ON BE HALF OF M/S. LEADING HOTELS PVT. LTD. M/S. HANDSEL (GOA) PVT. LTD. CONFIRMED THAT THE SAID PAYMENT OF 20.37 CRORES WAS NOT REFUNDABLE EITHER TO M/S. HANDSEL (GOA) PVT. LTD. OR TO M/S. LEADING HOTELS PVT. LTD. THE ASSESSEE WAS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS REQUESTED TO FURNISH DETAILS OF THE TRANSACTION S AND WHY THE RECEIPTS OF 45 LAC FROM M/S. HANDSEL (GOA) PVT. LTD. SHOULD NOT BE TAXED IN HIS HANDS. THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 23/03/2013 SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF 45 LAC FROM M/S. HANDSEL (GOA) PVT. LTD. FOR RENDERING OF VARIOUS SERVICES AND HA S DECLARED PROFIT OF 29,59,331/ - AND PAID TAXES ACCORDINGLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY DETAILS OF ANY PAYMENTS MADE BY HIM DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENSES AND HAS NOT PRODUCED THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED OR EVEN THE NECESSITY OF HAVING TO INCUR THE EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES CLAIMED AT 5,40,699/ - AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, 50% OF THE SAID AMOUNT I.E. 7,70,335/ - WAS ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE 10 ITA NO. 18 9 /PNJ/2015 C.O.NO. 2 3 /PNJ/2015 ASSESSEE AND THE BALANCE OF 7,70,335/ - WAS ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE. 1 9 . ON APPEAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT RECEIPT OF 45 LAC FROM M/S. HANDSEL (GOA) PVT. LTD. IS NOT IN DISPUTE AND THE SAME HAS BEEN REFLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT . THE ASSESSING OFFICER WANTED TO KNOW THE EXACT PROFIT FROM THIS TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSEE IS A CONTRACTOR AND BUILDER AND HAS RECEIPTS FROM MANY SOURCES. THEREFORE, TO WORK OUT THE PROFITABILITY FROM THIS RECEIPT OF 45 LAC, HE APPORTIONED AN AMOUNT OF 15,40,669/ - OUT OF HIS TOTAL OFFICE AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES , SINCE THESE ARE INDIRECT EXPENSES, THEY COULD NOT BE RELATED ON ONE TO ONE BASIS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICERS CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNI SH DETAILS OF THESE EXPENSES AND COULD NOT PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE SAME , CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. HE OBSERVED THAT IT IS CLEAR FROM THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF 45 LAC IS SHOWN AS INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY DIRECT EXPENSES TOWARDS THE SAME. APPORTIONMENT OF INDIRECT, GENERAL, OFFICE AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES IS AN EXERCISE TO FIND OUT THE NET PROFIT RATIO , BUT IN A B SEN C E OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE SAME CANNO T BE DISALLOWED . THEREFORE, HE DELETED THE ADDITION OF 15,40,669/ - . 20 . DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E RELIED ON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREAS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 21 . WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICERS CONTENTION IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF 45 LAC FROM M/S. HANDSEL (GOA) PVT. LTD. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT . THE ASSESSING OFFICER WANT ED TO KNOW THE EXACT PROFIT FROM THIS TRANSACTION . A SSESSEE CLAIMED THAT HE DID NOT INCUR ANY DIRECT EXPENSES AND THE ASSESSEE APPORTIONED AN AMOUNT OF 15,40,669/ - FROM THE TOTAL OFFICE AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES AND SHOWED THAT 15,40,669/ - TOWARDS RECEIPT FROM M/S. HANDSEL (GOA) PVT. LTD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PROVIDED THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES AND HAS NOT SHOWN HOW THEY WERE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE JOB DONE FOR RECEIPT OF 45 LAC. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE BY OBSERVING THAT IT WAS AN APPORTIONMENT OF INDIRECT EXPENSES IN ORDER TO FIND OUT THE NET PROFIT RATIO. WE FIND TH A T THE 11 ITA NO. 18 9 /PNJ/2015 C.O.NO. 2 3 /PNJ/2015 EXPENSES APPORTIONED TOWARDS WORK OF M/S. HANDSEL (GOA) PVT. LTD. WERE OUT OF THE EXPENSES DEBITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT . THE ASSESSEE AT PAGE NO. 131 OF THE PAPER BOOK H AS FILED WORKING OF ALLOCATION OF INDIRECT EXPENSES TO INDIVIDUAL PROJECT ACCOUNT WHICH READS AS UNDER: - ALLOCATION OF INDIRECT EXPENSE TO INDIVIDUAL PROJECT ACCOUNT F.Y 2008 - 09A.Y 2009 - 10 CONVENTI ON HOTEL PVT LTD HANDSEL PVT LTD. ASHA SHETH WIDES PROPE RTIES CHIMBEL PROPERT Y OTHER INCOME TOTAL INCOME CREDITED TO P&L A 2672718 4500000 13627560 8758000 5190000 1839139 36587417 LESS : DIRECT EXPENSE B 2347974 0 10481726 7267538 4835231 0 24932469 GROSS PROFIT C 324744 4500000 3145834 1490462 354769 1839139 11654948 LESS : INDIRECT EXPENSE ALLOCATED D 111183 1540669 1184859 696373 133622 723059 4389765 INDIRECT EXP TO PROJ PROFIT D/ C 34% 34% 38% 47% 38% 39% 38% PROJECT PROFIT BEFORE INT & DEP E 213561 2959331 1960975 794089 221147 1116080 7265183 PERCENT OF PROFIT TO GROSS RECEIPT E/ A 8% 66% 14% 9% 4% 61% 20% INTEREST AND FIN CHARGES 379416 DEPRECIATION 1171125 PROFIT FOR THE YEAR 5714642 FURTHER, HE HAS FILED COPY OF PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AT PAGE NO. 132 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND HAS SHOWN THEREFORM THAT THE TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE , FINANC IAL AND SUNDRY EXPENSES DEBITED IS 43,89,765/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE , WHICH WAS NOT RELATING TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE OR WAS NOT GENUINE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MISTAKENLY ASSUMED THAT EXPENDITURE OF 15,40,669/ - WAS A SEPARATE EXPENDIT URE CLAIMED DEDUCTION BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND TH A T ALL THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DEBITED IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE SAME FINDS REFLECTED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. IN THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WHICH IS CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 12 ITA NO. 18 9 /PNJ/2015 C.O.NO. 2 3 /PNJ/2015 1 3 . FACTS BEING IDENTICAL RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENU E. C.O. NO. 2 3 /P NJ/2015: 1 4 . IN THE CROSS OBJECTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED 06 GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTION. GROUND NOS.1 & 6 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE, THEREFORE, REQUIRES NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION BY US. 1 5 . GROUND NOS. 2 TO 5 OF THE CROSS OBJECTION ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SUSTAINING ADDITION OF 1 9,5 0 ,000 / - TOWARDS CASH PAID TO M/S. HAZRAT CONSTRUCTIONS. 1 6 . AT THE VERY OUTSET, BOTH THE PARTIES BEFORE US AGREED THAT THE FACTS AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE GROUNDS OF C R O S S O B J E C T I O N ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS AND ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NOS. 2 TO 5 OF THE C R O S S O B J E C T I O N OF THE ASSESSEE S H U S B A N D IN C.O.NO. 21/PNJ/15 VIDE ORDER DATED 13/08/2015. THEREFORE, THE DECISION TAKEN IN THAT CASE OF THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE FOLLOWED IN THE PRESENT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 1 7 . WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND SHRI PRAKA SH V. KITTUR IN C.O.NO. 21/PNJ/15 VIDE ORDER DATED 13/08/2015 I N ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 , HELD AS UNDER: - 24 . AT THE VERY OUTSET, BOTH THE PARTIES BEFORE US SUBMIT THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTION IS EXACTLY SIMILAR AS WAS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 AND THE FACTS ARE ALSO SIMILAR. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSELF IN I.T.A.NO. 186/PNJ/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 DATED 12/08/2015, HELD AS UNDER: - 43. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION 13 ITA NO. 18 9 /PNJ/2015 C.O.NO. 2 3 /PNJ/2015 WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 16/04/2010. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, A LOOSE SHEET MARKED AS ANNEXURE A/PVK - 2/4 WAS FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE OFFIC E PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID LOOSE SHEET IS A COMPUTER PRINTED PAPER. ON THE SAID LOOSE SHEET AT THE TOP NAME HAZRAT CONSTRUCTIONS IS WRITTEN AND BELOW IT IS WRITTEN CASH PAYMENT AND THEREAFTER CERTAIN DATES WITH AMOUNTS MENTIONED AGAINST THAT DATE ARE WRITTEN. AS PER THOSE DATES, THE AMOUNT RELATING TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 COMES TO 56,50,000/ - . 44. IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONFRONTED THIS LOOSE DOCUMENT TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS PAPER DOES NOT BELONG TO HIM AND IT DOES NOT REFLECT THE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAID M/S. HAZRAT CONSTRUCTIONS. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT M/S. HAZRAT CONSTRUCTIONS WAS A CONTRACTOR, WHO ALSO WORKED FOR THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, THE PAYMENTS FOR THE WORK DONE BY M/S. HAZRAT CONSTRUCTIONS WERE MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND, THEREFORE, RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ITSELF, THE ASSESSEE STATED UNDER OATH THAT NO PAYMENT IN CASH HAS BEEN MADE BY HIM TO M/S. HAZRAT CONSTRUCTIONS. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE SAID LOOSE SHEET DOES NOT BEAR THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. NEITHER IT BEARS SIGNATURE OF THE ASSESSEE NOR WAS IT IN THE HANDWRITING OF THE ASSESSEE. IN FACT, THE SAID LOOSE SHEET ALSO DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY SIGNATURE OF M/S. HAZRAT CONSTRUCTIONS OR ANY PERSON AND IT CANNOT BE ASS UMED ON THE BASIS OF THIS LOOSE SHEET THAT IT RECORDS ANY ACTUAL OR REAL TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN ANY PERSONS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ASSUMED THAT THE LOOSE SHEET REFLECTS ACTUAL TRANSACTIONS AND THAT T HE TRANSACTIONS WERE ENTERED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. HAZRAT CONSTRUCTIONS AND THE SAID TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF 56,50,000/ - TO THE INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE OF THE ASSESSEE. 45. ON APPEAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE LOOSE SHEET WAS FOUND IN THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE . 46 . BEFORE US, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE FILED THE COPY OF LOOSE SHEET WHICH IS PLACED AT 14 ITA NO. 18 9 /PNJ/2015 C.O.NO. 2 3 /PNJ/2015 PAGE NO.177 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE POINTED OUT THEREFROM THAT NOWHERE THERE IS NAME OF THE ASSESSEE OR SIGNATURE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO SU BMITTED THAT IT DOES NOT CONTAIN HANDWRITING OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID LOOSE SHEET ALSO DOES NOT BEAR THE SIGNATURE OF M/S. HAZRAT CONSTRUCTIONS. THUS, THE SAID LOOSE SHEET CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN EVIDENCE OF ANY REAL TRANSACTION, MUCH LESS OF A TRANSACT ION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. HAZRAT CONSTRUCTIONS. HE ARGUED THAT THE LOOSE SHEET HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE IN THE EYES OF LAW. HE ALSO CONTENDED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, NO MATERIAL TO CORROBORATE THE INFERENCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THIS LOOSE SHEET REFLECTS ACTUAL TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAID M/S.HAZRAT CONSTRUCTIONS WAS FOUND. IN ABSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, NO ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF SUCH LOOSE SHEET WHICH HAS NO EVID ENTIARY VALUE COULD BE MADE IS THE ESTABLISHED POSITION OF LAW. 47 . ON THE OTHER HAND, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 48 . AFTER GOING THROUGH THE LOOSE SHEET, WE FIND THAT MERELY FROM THE SAID SHEET IT CANNOT B E CONCLUDED THAT IT RECORDS ACTUAL FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. HAZRAT CONSTRUCTIONS OR ANY OTHER PERSON. FROM THE SAID LOOSE SHEET, IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY PAID THE AMOUNT STATED ON THE DATES MENTIONED TH EREIN OR EVEN M/S. HAZRAT CONSTRUCTIONS ACTUALLY RECEIVED THOSE AMOUNTS FROM ANY PERSON. THUS, THE SAID DOCUMENT WHICH WAS NOT A PART OF REGULARLY MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS CANNOT BE TREATED AS EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL TRANSACTION OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IN ABSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE BEING BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE ADDITION MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE SHEET WHICH DOES NOT BEAR SIGNATURE OF ANY PE RSON AND WHICH DOES NOT CREATE ANY LEGAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ANY OTHER PERSON CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 49 . IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE UNABLE TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION MADE BY THE REVENUE AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS DELETED. THUS, TH ESE GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTION ARE ALLOWED. 1 8 . FACTS BEING IDENTICAL RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, WE ALLOW THE GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE . 15 ITA NO. 18 9 /PNJ/2015 C.O.NO. 2 3 /PNJ/2015 1 9 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THURSDAY , THE 1 7 TH DAY OF AUGUST , 201 5 AT GOA . S D / - S D / - (GEORGE MATHAN) (N.S.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 1 7 TH AUGUST , 201 5 . VR/ - COPY TO: 1 . THE ASSESSEE. 2 . THE REVENUE. 3 . THE CIT 4 . THE CIT(A) 5 . THE D.R . 6 . GUARD FILE. BY ORDER 16 ITA NO. 18 9 /PNJ/2015 C.O.NO. 2 3 /PNJ/2015 DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD & DRAFT ARE ENCLOSED IN THE FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 1 9 / 0 8 / 2015 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 1 9 .08 .2015 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 1 9 /08 /2015 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 1 9 /0 8 /2015 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 1 9 /08 /2015 SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 7 /0 8 /2015 SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 1 9 /08 /2015 SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER