Sh. Prem Prakash Nagpal, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1986/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 52528 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 14-07-2011
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRATIMA KAUSHIK
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH F DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JM AND SHRI K. D. RAN JAN, AM I. T. APPEAL NOS. 1985 & 1986 (DEL) OF 2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2002-03 & 2003-04. SHRI PREM PRAKASH NAGPAL, ASSTT. C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, P 39, N D S E II, VS. C I R C L E : 32 (1), N E W D E L H I. N E W D E L H I. PAN/GIR NO. AACPN5542L. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SALIL AGGARWAL, ADV.; DEPARTMENT BY : MS. PRATIMA KAUSHIK, SR. D. R. O R D E R. P E R B E N C H : THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT Y EARS 2002-03 AND 2003-04 ARISE OUT OF SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS)-XXVI, NEW DELHI. THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION IN BOTH THE YE ARS RELATES TO RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENTS. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS GROUNDS RELATING TO RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE DISMISSED, AS NOT PRESSED. 3. THE REMAINING ISSUE WHICH IS CONTAINED IN GROUND NO. 3 TO 3.8 RELATES TO CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.7,42,000/- IN AY 2002-03 AND RS.49,2 8,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UN-EXPLAINED 2 I. T. APPEAL NOS. 1985 & 1986 (DEL) OF 2010. INVESTMENT IN PLOT NO. B-5 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002- 03 AND B-7 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AT VILLAGE JHARSENTLY, DISTT. FARIDABAD, BASED ON MATE RIAL SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF SHRI NAVNEET JHAMB. THE FACTS OF THE CASE STATED IN BRIEF ARE T HAT A SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON 4/08/2005 ON MANAV RACHNA GROUP AT FAR IDABAD. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI NAVNEET JHAMB AT H OUSE NO. 1260, SECTOR : 14, FARIDABAD, CERTAIN DOCUMENTS RELATING TO SALE OF INDUSTRIAL PLOTS AT V ILLAGE JHARSENTLY, DISTT. FARIDABAD WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED IN TWO PLOTS , NAMELY, B-5 AND B-7 ON 27/04/2001 AND 23 RD MAY, 2002 RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON T HE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF SHRI NAVNEET JHAMB THAT THE DOCUMENTS I NDICATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID CASH PREMIUM OF RS.7,42,000/- DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2001 -02 AND RS.49,28,000/- IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03 FOR PURCHASE OF PLOTS B-5 AND B-7 AT VILLAG E JHARSENTLY, DISTT. FARIDABAD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RE-OPENED THE A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENTS BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS.7,42,200/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND RS.49,28,000/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 4. ON APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DENIED TRANSACTIO N IN PURCHASE OF PLOTS AT B-5 AND B-7 AT VILLAGE JHARSENTLY, DISTT. FARIDABAD, WHICH WERE PU RCHASED BY HIM FROM M/S. INDO AMERICAN ELECTRICALS LTD. THROUGH SHRI MAN MOHAN SINGH. HOW EVER, IT WAS ARGUED THAT HE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHRI MAN MOHAN SINGH AND SHRI NAVNEET JHAMB FROM WHOSE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS W ERE SEIZED. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT IT WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR HIM TO KNOW WITH THE COMPLETE ACCURAC Y ABOUT THE EXACT BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A SECOND PERSON AND A THIRD PERSON. THE LD . CIT (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS IN BOTH THE YEARS. FOR SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THE DECISI ON OF LD. CIT(A) FOR A.Y. 2002-03 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 6.3 ON THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN IN FORM NO. 35, WHICH WERE DULY ELABORATED IN SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE ME FROM TIME TO TIME, I HOLD AS UNDER :- 6.3.1 THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DENIED THE FACT THAT T HE IMPUGNED TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF PLOT AT B-5, VILLAGE JHARSENTLI, DISTT. FARIDABAD, WHICH WAS PURCHASED 3 I. T. APPEAL NOS. 1985 & 1986 (DEL) OF 2010. BY HIM FROM M/S. INDO AMERICAN ELECTICALS LTD. THRO UGH SHRI MANMOHAN SINGH. HOWEVER, IT WAS ARGUED THAT HE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHRI MANMOHAN SINGH AND SHRI NAVNEET JHAMB, FROM WHOSE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES, THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS (LABELED AS PAGE 6 1 OF ANNEX. A-1) WERE SEIZED. HOWEVER, IN MY VIEW IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE AP PELLANT SHOULD KNOW WITH COMPLETE ACCURACY ABOUT THE EXACT BUSINESS RELATION SHIP BETWEEN A SECOND PERSON AND A THIRD PERSON. HIS KNOWLEDGE IN THIS MATTER I S OF NO GREAT RELEVANCE IN DECIDING THIS APPEAL. WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT FROM EVIDENTIARY POINT OF VIEW IS THE CONTENT OF THIS INFORMATION. IN ANY CASE THE APPEL LANTS CONTENTION IN THIS REGARD IS ALSO NOT CORRECT AS IT HAS BEEN DOCUMENTARILY EVIDE NCED THAT THE SAID SHRI NAVNEET JHAMB WAS A WIRNESS IN RESPECT OF SALE OF PLOT NO. B-7 OF THE SAME PROPERTY OF THE SELLER TO THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, AS ON THE DATE OF MAKING THE CONTENTION ABOUT LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SH RI SINGH AND SHRI JHAMB, THE APPELLANT WAS CLEARLY AWARE OF THE FACT THAT SHRI J HAMB WAS AN IMPORTANT ALLY FOR SHRI SINGH TO EFFECTUATE SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AT VILLAGE JHARSENTLI, FARIDABAD. TO THIS EXTENT I FIND THAT THE CONTENTI ON OF THE APPELLANT IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. 6.3.2 MOREOVER THE CONTENT OF THE AFORESAID DOCUME NT LABELED PAGE 61 OF ANNEX. A-1 CLEARLY SHOWS DETAILS OF SALE OF VARIOUS PLOTS BY MR. MANMOHAN SINGH AT VILLAGE JHARSENTLI, FARIDABAD. THE DOCUMENT WHI CH IS TITLED ACCOUNT AS ON 31/10/2001 GIVES SPECIFICATION OF PLOTS WITH NAMES OF THEIR BUYERS AND SPECIFIC AREA OF THE PLOTS, WHICH CLEARLY MATCHES WITH THE A CTUAL FACTS, A FACT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DENIED BY THE APPELLANT AT ANY STAGE. SINCE T HIS DOCUMENT ALSO METICULOUSLY PROVIDES TOTAL SALE PRICE OF EACH PLOT THAT WAS SOL D AND ITS BIFURCATION INTO CASH AND CHEQUE COMPONENTS, THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE PRO BABILITIES IS STRONGLY IN FAVOUR OF THE PRESUMPTION THAT THESE FIGURES ARE AL SO CORRECT AND RELIABLE. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION THAT SUCH A DOCUMENT WAS A DUMB DOCUMENT IS NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT AS THE VARIOUS LINKAGES EMANATING FROM THIS DOCUMENT ARE VERIFIABLE AND NOT DENIED BY THE APPELLANT AT ANY S TAGE. MOREOVER, SHRI JHAMB 4 I. T. APPEAL NOS. 1985 & 1986 (DEL) OF 2010. WAS AN IMPORTANT RELATED PARTY WHO FACILITATED THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY FOR SHRI MANMOHAN SINGH AT VILLAGE JHARSENTLI, FARIDABAD IN VARIOUS WAYS AND HAD EVEN SERVED AS A WITNESS FOR SALE OF ANOTHER PROPERTY TO THE APPELLANT FROM THE SAME SELLER OUT OF THE SAME PROPERTY OF THE SELLER AT VI LLAGE JHARSENTLI IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR, AT PLOT NO. B-7. SINCE THE ABOVE MENTIONED D OCUMENT WAS SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI JHAMB IT IS REASONABLE TO ATTRIBUTE DEFINITE EVIDENTIARY VALUE IN RESPECT OF SALE OF THE PROPERTY AT JHARSEN TLI BY MR. MANMOHAN SINGH. 6.4 THE PLEA OF THE APPELLANT THAT THERE IS NO MEN TION OF ANY CASH IN THE OTHER DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AO, IN PAGE NO. 55 /A-2 SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION, WHICH ONLY GIVES DETAILS OF CHEQUE PAYME NT IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS PROPERTIES SOLD AT VILLAGE JHARSENTLI, LACKS THE FO RCE OF LOGIC / REASON AS THERE IS NO STATUTORY REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN DETAILS OF LAWFUL PAYMENTS / RECEIPTS IN LOOSE PAPER SLIPS RATHER THAN IN THE MANDATORILY REQUIRED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT IS SUFFICIENT TO GATHER THE TRAIL OF UNDISCLOSED RECEI PTS ON THE BASIS OF THE DOCUMENT AT PAGE NO. 61/A-1 OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND IT WILL MAKE NO ADVERSE IMPACT ON ITS EVIDENTIARY VALUE, IF SUCH UNACCOUNTED RECORDS ARE NOT MAINTAINED IN ANY OTHER LOOSE DOCUMENTS SUCH AS THE ONE AT PAGE NO. 55/A-2 OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL, WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN PREPARED FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE. 6.5 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I FIND THAT THE LEARNED AO HAS RIGHTLY RELIED UPON THE SPECIFIC FIGURES OF CASH COMPONENT IN RESPECT OF SA LE PROCEEDS OF THE PROPERTY AT B-5, VILLAGE JHARSENTLI, FARIDABAD, AS MENTIONED IN THE PAGE NO. 61 OF ANNEX. A-1 OF DOCUMENT SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI NAVNEET JHAMB, FARIDABAD. EVEN THOUGH IT WAS SEIZXED FROM A THIRD PARTY, THE THIRD PARTY WAS NOT COMPLETELY UNRELATED IN THE TRANSACTION AND THE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES CLEARLY SHOW THE EXISTENCE OF CLOSE BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP B ETWEEN THE SELLER AND SHRI JHAMB. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THE LEARNED AO WAS JUS TIFIED IN TAKING THE FIGURE RELATING TO CASH COMPONENT OF THE ABOVE TGRANSACTIO N, BASED ON THE ABOVE REFERRED DOCUMENT AT RS.7,82,000/-, WHICH WAS MET BY THE APP ELLANT OUTSIDE THE BOOKS AND 5 I. T. APPEAL NOS. 1985 & 1986 (DEL) OF 2010. FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, TH E ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IS SUSTAINED. 5. BEFORE US AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF ITAT, DELHI BENCH B IN THE CASE O F ITO VS. M/S. DUA AUTO COMPONENT P. LTD. IN ITA. NO. 4802 (DEL) OF 2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 DATED 16/07/2010. THIS DECISION OF ITAT WAS FOLLOWED BY ITAT, DELHI BENCH C IN THE C ASE OF DCIT VS. M/S. INDICATION INSTRUMENTS LTD. IN ITA. NO. 3513 (DEL) OF 2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 DATED 28/09/2010. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS ITAT, DELH I BENCH DISMISSED THE REVENUES APPEAL. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. SR. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS). 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. M/S. INDICATION INSTRUMENTS LTD. (SUPRA) W HEREIN ITAT, DELHI BENCH C DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UND ER :- 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED TH E RECORDS. BOTH THE COUNSELS FAIRLY AGREED THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS CON SIDERED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 4802/DEL/2009 AND ANR. IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. M/S DUA AUTO COMPONENTS P LTD. WHERE ALSO THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASI S OF THE SAME DOCUMENTS FOUND IN THE SAME SEARCH. THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED THE I SSUE AND HELD AS UNDER :- 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED TH E RECORDS. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MENTIONS ABOUT THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION CARRIED OUT BY THE INVESTIGATION WING AT THE BUSINE SS PREMISES OF M/S MANAV RACHNA GROUP OF COMPANIES ON 4.8.2005, WH EREIN IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED THAT CERTAIN INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE S EIZED WHICH INDICATED 6 I. T. APPEAL NOS. 1985 & 1986 (DEL) OF 2010. THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY PURCHASED A PLOT. THE PLO T HAD BEEN SAID TO BE REGISTERED FOR RS. 1320521/- AND THE DOCUMENTS S EIZED INDICATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED RS. 60,36,000/- IN CASH FOR P URCHASE THE SAID LAND. 6.1 WE FIND THAT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT EVEN A SINGLE WORD REGARDING THE NATURE OF DOCUMENT AND HO W HE HAS CONCLUDED THAT THEY BELONG TO THE ASSESSEES AND THAT ON MONE Y TRANSACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN PLACE. HE HAS SIMPLY RELIED UPON THE REASONS RECORDED WITHOUT SHOWING ANY APPLICATION OF MIND ON HIS PART. 6.2 IN THIS REGARD WE NOTE THAT IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE THAT THE SELLER HAS MADE ANY STATEMENT OR HAD ACCEPTED THE RECEIPT OF O N MONEY I.E. CONSIDERATION OVER AND ABOVE THAT DISCLOSED. IT I S ALSO NOT THE CASE THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WERE IN THE HANDWRITING OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE SELLER OR WERE SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF SELLER AND PURC HASER. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS BROUGHT OU T VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE AND STRIKING FEATURE OF THESE ANOMALIES IS THAT IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS, IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE IMPUGNED PLOT WAS NOT SOLD . THUS, THE WORKING AND THE FIGURES MENTIONED THEREIN CAN AT BEST BE SA ID TO BE TENTATIVE OR EXPECTED AMOUNT. THIS BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATIO N CAN BE TREATED AS CONCLUSIVE PROOFS OF ON MONEY TRANSACTIONS. MOREO VER, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE DOCUMENTS BEING RELIED UPON SHOWED AC COUNT AS ON 31.10.2001, WHILE AS PER THE REGISTERED SALE DEED T HE PLOT WAS SOLD ON 23.5.2002. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THESE ADDITIO NS HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING SEARCH AT THE PLACE OF A THIRD PARTY WHICH AT BEST ONLY SHOWED THE TENTATIVE /PROJECTED PURCHASE CONSIDERATION. IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT THE CIRCLE RATE OR THE VALU E AS PER STAMP REGISTRATION AUTHORITIES OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY IS MORE THAN W HAT HAS BEEN DISCLOSED. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE THAT UNACCOUNTED CASH HAS B EEN FOUND TO BE PAID BY 7 I. T. APPEAL NOS. 1985 & 1986 (DEL) OF 2010. THE ASSESSEE OR RECEIVED BY THE SELLER. THERE IS ALSO NO STATEMENT OF THE SELLER ON RECORD THAT HE HAS OBTAINED ON MONEY. UN DER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THIS REGARD IS NOT SUSTAINAB LE. 6.3 IN THIS REGARD, WE PLACE RELIANCE UPON THE HON BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF K. P. VARGHESE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ERNAKULAM AND ANOTHER 131 ITR 597 (SC), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE BURDEN OF PROVING IS THAT OF REVENUE WHEN THERE IS ALLEGATION OF UNDERSTATEMENT ON CONCEALMENT IN THE CONSIDERATION SHOWN. 6.4 WE ALSO PLACE RELIANCE UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF TH E HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. P.V. KALYANASUNDARA M IN (2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC) IN WHICH ALLEGATIONS OF ON MONEY TRANSACTIO N ON THE BASIS OF NON- CONVINCING LOOSE SHEETS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND CONFLICTING STATEMENT OF THE SELLER, WAS DELETED BY THE TRIBUNA L (TO WHICH, ONE OF US THE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER WAS THE PARTY) AND THE SAME WAS AFFIRMED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AND HONBLE APEX COURT. 6.5 WE ALSO FIND THAT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TH E REVENUE HAS URGED THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 60,36,000/- PAID IN CA SH AS THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT WERE NOT PROVED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IN SPITE OF SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR OPINION, THIS GROUND ITSELF IS MISCONCEIVED, IN AS MUCH AS THE QUESTION OF PROVING THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT WILL ARISE ONLY WHEN THE INVESTMENT I S CONCLUSIVELY PROVED. WE HAVE ALREADY FOUND ABOVE THAT THE CLAIM OF ON MO NEY TRANSACTIONS HAS NOT AT ALL PROVED IN THIS CASE. AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ABOVE, THE ONUS IS THAT OF REVENUE TO PRO VE THE SAME AND AS CLEARLY FOUND BY US ABOVE THE REVENUE HAS FAILED TO DO SO THE SAME. 8 I. T. APPEAL NOS. 1985 & 1986 (DEL) OF 2010. 6.6 ACCORDINGLY, IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION AND PRECEDENTS, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STAND S DISMISSED. 6. SINCE THE FACTS AND DOCUMENTS IN THE PRESENT CASE A RE SAME AS REFERRED IN ABOVE TRIBUNAL DECISION, WHICH BOTH THE COUNSELS HA VE FAIRLY AGREED TO, ADHERING TO THE DOCTRINE OF STAIRE DECISES, WE UPHOLD THE OR DER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVO UR OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. SINCE THE FACTS AND THE DOCUMENTS INVOLVED IN TH E APPEALS BEFORE US ARE THE SAME AS REFERRED TO IN THE DECISION OF DCIT VS. M/S. INDICA TION INSTRUMENTS LTD. (SUPRA) TO WHICH THE LD. SR. DR HAD FAIRLY AGREED, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING TH E DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. M/S. INDICATION INSTRUMENTS LTD. (SUPRA) IT IS HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ADDITION CA NNOT BE MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF ENTRIES RECORDED ON THE PAPER FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SE ARCH AT THE PLACE OF A THIRD PARTY. WE, THEREFORE, DECIDE BOTH THE APPEALS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE ALLOWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON : 05 TH AUGUST, 2011. SD/- SD/- [ RAJPAL YADAV ] [ K. D. RANJAN ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 05 TH AUGUST, 2011. * MEHTA * 9 I. T. APPEAL NOS. 1985 & 1986 (DEL) OF 2010. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : - 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT, 4. CIT (APPEALS), 5. DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT.