DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s Suncity Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2737/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5109 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY GOEL
• Assessee Lawyers: A K AGARWAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Document seized; Question of law; Documents seized
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 13; 153C; 131; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.2737/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI. V. M/S. SUNCITY PROJECTS PVT. LTD., N-49, FIRST FLOOR, CONNAUGHT PLACE, DELHI. TAN/PAN: AABCS8906K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI SANJAY GOEL, CIT-DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI VED JAIN, ADV. & SHRI AK AGARWAL, ADV. DATE OF HEARING: 10 02 2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17 02 2020 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: THE AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.02.2016, PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXIX, NEW DELH I FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S.143(3) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING TH E ADDITION OF RS. 16,42,68,522/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF UN DISCLOSED COMMISSION TO SMT. VINITA CHAURASIA WITHOUT APPRECI ATING THE I.T.A. NO.2737/DEL/2016 2 FACTS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT T HE ONUS OF EXPLAINING THE SEIZED DOCUMENT WAS NOT ON THE ASSES SEE AS THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE S EIZED DOCUMENT AND THUS ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS BROUG HT ON RECORD BY THE AO AS THE ABOVE ADDITION WAS BASED ON THE TE ST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES AND NORMAL COURSE OF HUMAN CONDUCT WH ICH IS ACCEPTABLE FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT AS HELD BY HONBLE COURTS. 4. THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS PERVERSE, ERRONEOU S AND IS NOT TENABLE ON FACTS AND IN LAW . 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS AND HAVE CONSTRUCTED COMMERCIAL PROJECT FOR SALE. THE LD. AS SESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT A LETTER WAS RECEIVED ALONG W ITH RELATED SEIZED DOCUMENT FROM THE OFFICE OF LD. ACIT, CENTRA L CIRCLE-21, NEW DELHI ALONG WITH SATISFACTION NOTE DATED 01.12. 2011 FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S.153C. FURTHER, ON EXAMINATIO N OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF SHRI LA LIT MODI, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SATISFIED THAT THE SEIZED ANNEXURE A-1 IS RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE-COMP ANY AND AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) ON 28.03.2013. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT AS PER THE SEIZED D OCUMENT, THE COMMERCIAL SPACE SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE TO MRS. V INITA CHAURASIA AND ON THE BASIS OF SUCH NOTING THE LD. A SSESSING I.T.A. NO.2737/DEL/2016 3 OFFICER INFERRED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.16,42,62,522 /- WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PAYMENT OTHERWISE THAN CHEQUES FROM MRS. VINITA CHAURASIA FOR SALE OF COMMERCIAL S PACE IN THE VASTANT SQUARE MALL, OVER AND ABOVE THE PAYMENT S RECEIVED BY CHEQUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS SUPPRESSED THE RECEIPT FOR SALE O F SPACE AT RS.16,42,62,522/-. 3. THE LD. CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE GAM UT OF FACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, SPECIFICALLY THE TRIB UNAL ORDER IN THE CASE OF MRS. VINITA CHAURASIA OBSERVED THAT, FI RST OF ALL, THE SEIZED DOCUMENT WAS COMPUTER GENERATED LOOSE SH EET WHICH WAS NEITHER FOUND FROM THE COMPUTER OF MR. LA LIT MODI NOR ANY AUTHORIZED PERSON OF THE COMPANY. MR. MODI HAS CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THAT SEIZED DOCUMENT CONTAI NS SOME ROUGH CALCULATION AND HENCE ANY TRANSACTION WITH TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED. THOUGH IT IS TRU E THAT ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENT THE NAME OF MRS. VINITA CHAURAS IA HAS BEEN MENTIONED BUT ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED ANYWHERE. IT IS A FACT THAT ASSESSEE AND SMT. VINIT A CHAURASIA HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS RECE IVED AMOUNT OF RS.16,42,68,832/- THROUGH CHEQUE. THE ADD ITION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS THAT OTHER ENTRY MENTION ED AS PDC VALUE IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT IS PAYMENT RECEIVE D BY THE ASSESSEE OTHER THAN CHEQUE AMOUNTING TO RS.16,42,68 ,522/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS DENIED HAVING RECEIVED SUCH AMOUNT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE IT CLEAR AS TO W HAT IS THE I.T.A. NO.2737/DEL/2016 4 MODE OF RECEIPT. FURTHER, THERE IS NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE WAS FOUND TO PROVE THAT THIS AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIV ED BY THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE SEIZED DOCUMENT DOES NOT MENTION A NYTHING TO SHOW THAT THIS IS A CASH RECEIPT FROM MRS. VINIT A CHAURASIA BY THE ASSESSEE. SO SIMPLY A MENTION OF AMOUNT DOES NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. NOT ONLY THAT MRS. VINITA CHAURASIA DURING THE ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS HAS DENIED OF MAKING ANY PAYMENTS TO TH E ASSESSEE OTHER THAN WHAT AGREED UPON AS PER THE REG ISTERED AGREEMENT AND OTHER DUES FOR THIS TRANSACTION. AN A DDITION WAS MADE FOR THE SAID AMOUNT IN THE HANDS OF THE MR S. VINITA CHAURASIA AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT, WHICH HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN HER CASE. THE RELEVANT O BSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD READS AS UNDER: 11.3 DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, MRS. VINIT A CHAURASIA CATEGORICALLY DENIED OF MAKING ANY PAYMENTS TO THE APPELLANT OTHER THAN WHAT AGREED UPON AS PER THE REGISTERED A GREEMENT AND OTHER DUES FOR THIS TRANSACTION. AN ADDITION WA S MADE FOR THE SAID AMOUNT IN THE HANDS OF MRS. VINITA CHAURAS IA ALSO AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT FOR HAVING GIVEN SUCH AMOUNT TO THE APPELLANT OTHERWISE THAN BY CHEQUE I.E. CASH, WHICH WAS DELETED BY HON'BLE ITAT IN HER CASE AS REPRODUCED BY THE AP PELLANT IN ITS SUBMISSIONS EARLIER. IT WAS FOUND TO BE JOTTING ON THE LOOSE SHEET, WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND HENCE THE ADDITION MADE IN TH E ABSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL WAS DELETED. IT WAS H ELD THAT THE ADDITION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN ABSENCE OF OTHER SUP PORTING EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL. HENCE WITHOUT FURTHER INVESTI GATION OR ENQUIRY FROM OTHER RELATED ENTITIES, ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS I.T.A. NO.2737/DEL/2016 5 NOT SUSTAINABLE. SINCE THE ADDITION AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF MRS .VINITA CHAURASIA, THE BUYER OF PR OPERTY HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT ON THE MERITS OF T HIS CASE, THEREFORE THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLAN T FOR THE SAID AMOUNT, TREATING AS UNEXPLAINED RECEIPTS IS ALSO NO T SUSTAINABLE. 11.4 FURTHER, SINCE THE DOCUMENT WAS FOUND AND SEIZ ED FROM THE PREMISES OF MR. LALIT MODI, THEREFORE, IT IS TO BE EXPLAINED BY HIM ONLY AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292C. HE EXPLAINED THIS TO BE A ROUGH PAPER HAVING SOME JOTTINGS AND OF NO RELEVANCE. IT WAS STATED TO BE THE LOOSE SHEET WITH SOME JOTTINGS AND CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED THAT THIS DOCUMENT BELONGS TO THE AP PELLANT. THEREFORE THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE PRESUMED TO HAVE RECEIVED SUCH AMOUNT IN CASH, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CORROBOR ATIVE MATERIAL/EVIDENCE OF THE CASH TRANSACTION. 11.5 IT IS OBSERVED FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ADDITION WAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY ANY INDEPENDENT M ATERIAL. THE PURCHASER HAS ALSO DENIED OF HAVING GIVEN ANY S UCH AMOUNT IN CASH. FURTHER, THE AO HAS MENTIONED IN THE ORDER THAT MR. LALIT MODI IS KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT AND MRS. VINITA CHAU RASIA AND WAS ALSO WITNESS TO THE AGREEMENT. HOWEVER, THIS IS ALREADY ACCEPTED BY MR. LALIT MODI IN HIS STATEMENT. THIS D OES NOT PROVES THE ISSUE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED CASH OVER AND ABOVE THE TRANSACTED PRICE AS NOTHING IS EMANATING FROM T HE DOCUMENT TO SHOW ANY RECEIPT OF CASH BY THE APPELLANT. AS PE R THE SAID DOCUMENT THE COST HAS BREAKUP IN CH VALUE AND PDC V ALUE. THE CH VALUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECLARED IN THE BOOKS. HO WEVER, PDC VALUE WHICH IS ACRONYM FOR POST DATED CHEQUE CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS CASH RECEIPT, ESPECIALLY WHEN NOTHING OF THIS SORT IS SUBSTANTIATED BY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. AO WAS UNA BLE TO I.T.A. NO.2737/DEL/2016 6 ESTABLISH THAT THIS DOCUMENT BELONGS TO THE APPELLA NT. ONLY NAME OF THE PROJECT OF APPELLANT MENTIONED IN IT CANNOT BE HELD AGAINST APPELLANT. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE ADDITION HAS BE EN MADE IGNORING THE STATEMENT OF MR. LALIT MODI AND MRS. V INEETA CHAURASIA AND NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO TO DISPROVE THE SAME. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION WAS MADE WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND EVIDENCE BUT ON SURMISES, SUSPICION A ND CONJECTURES. 11.6 ACCORDINGLY, LOOKING TO THE ABOVE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY TH E APPELLANT AND ALSO FOLLOWING THE VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED UPO N BY THE APPELLANT, IT IS HELD THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.16,42 ,68,522/- MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT, ON THE BASIS OF JOTT INGS ON A LOOSE SHEET FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF MR. LALIT MODI IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS FOR WHICH NO CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL OR EVIDEN CE HAS EITHER BEEN FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR SUBSEQUEN TLY BROUGHT ON RECORD AND HENCE DESERVES TO BE DELETED. I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE ORDER OF HON'BLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF MRS. VINITA CHAURASIA AS QUOTED BY THE APPELLANT, THE PURCHASER , WHERE THE ADDITION HAS BEEN DELETED CONSIDERING THAT SUCH PAY MENT MADE BY HER IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DELETED AND THE APPELLANT GETS A RELIEF OF RS. 16,42,68,522/-. 4. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. VED JAIN SUBMITTED THAT NOT ONLY IN THE CASE OF SMT. VINEETA CHAURASIA THE TRIBUNAL HAS DELETED THIS ADDITION BASED ON SOM E SEIZED DOCUMENTS BUT ALSO IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVEN UE BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, THEIR LORDSHIPS VIDE JUDGME NTS AND ORDERS DATED 18.05.2017 IN DETAILED MANNER HAS DISM ISSED I.T.A. NO.2737/DEL/2016 7 THE REVENUES APPEAL. FURTHER, THE SLP FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT ALSO STANDS DISMIS SED. 5. LD. DR THOUGH ADMITTED THAT PRECISELY THE SAME I SSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ON TH E SAME SEIZED DOCUMENT. HOWEVER, HE STRONGLY RELIED UPON T HE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT FINDING GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS AS WELL AS MATERIAL REFERRED TO BEF ORE US. HERE, IN THIS CASE, THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS.1642, 68,522/- IS BASED ON SOME COMPUTER GENERATED LOOSE SHEETS WHICH WAS SEIZED AND FOUND FROM THE COMPUTER OF MR. LALIT MOD I WHO HAS CATEGORICALLY DENIED OF ANY SUCH TRANSACTION. I T IS ALSO AN ADMITTED FACT THAT NAME OF THE ASSESSEE NOWHERE APP EARED IN THE SAID DOCUMENT ALBEIT THE NAME OF SMT. VINEETA C HAURASIA THAT SHE HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IN VASANT SQUARE MALL HAS BEEN MENTIONED. APART FROM THAT, THE AFORESAID FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THIS ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE E FOR THE REASON THAT, FIRSTLY , THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT; SECONDLY , THERE IS NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE OR ANY STATEMENT THAT THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE OTHER THAN CHEQUE AMOUNT A S ENTERED IN THE SALE AGREEMENT; AND LASTLY , ON THE BARE PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENT IT CANNOT BE INFERRED OR CONCLUDED THAT SEIZED DOCUMENT BELONGS TO OR HAS ANY NEXUS WITH THE ASSES SEE. HERE, IN THIS CASE, AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNS EL SIMILAR I.T.A. NO.2737/DEL/2016 8 MATTER HAD COME FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF MRS. VINEETA CHAURASIA WHERE EXACTLY SAME ADDITI ON HAS BEEN MADE BASED ON SAME SEIZED DOCUMENTS THAT THE A MOUNT OF RS.16,42,68,522/- IS AN UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. THE TRIBUNAL IN A VERY DETAILED ORDER HAS DELETED THE S AID ADDITION ON MERITS. NOW HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE APPE AL FILED BY THE REVENUE HAS DEALT WITH EXACTLY THE SAME SEIZ ED DOCUMENT IN THE CASE OF PCIT VS. MRS. VINEETA CHAURASIA IN ITA NO.1104 AND 1105/DEL/2015 . THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 3. THE BACKGROUND FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HE R RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY IN QUESTION ON 2NDAUGUS T, 2010 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.2,20,19,780 UNDER TH E HEADS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, SHORT TERMS CAPIT ALS GAINS AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE AYIN QUESTION WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3 ) OF THE ACT WITH THE AO PASSING AN ASSESSMENT ORDER DAT ED 29THDECEMBER, 2011 AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.21,22,88 ,069 AGAINST THE RETURN INCOME OF RS.2,20,19,780. 5. ON 19 TH JUNE, 2009, A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS UNDERTAKEN IN ITA NOS. 1004 OF 2015 & 1005 OF 2015PAGE 3OF 14TERMS OF SECTION 132 OF THE AC T ON THE PREMISES OF MR. LALIT MODI, A REAL ESTAT E BROKER. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH AT HIS PREMISES AT L-48, LAJPAT NAGAR-II, NEW DELHIA DOCUMENT DESCRIBED AS ANNEXURE A-1 WAS FOUND. THE SAID DOCUMENT WHICH IS I.T.A. NO.2737/DEL/2016 9 COMPUTER-GENERATED, READS AS UNDER: BIG BAZAR IN THE NAME OF BRAND (NAME) RENT 18.05. 2009 VASANT SQ MALL MRS. VINITA CHAURASIA R-SOLD% PANTALOON 7250 S AREA 39651.06 10.05 28,74,702 MONTHLY RENT @ 9285.71 TOTAL COST 3285,37,354 RECD CH VALUE 1642,68,832 164268832 0 PDC VALUE 1642,68,522 170225465 -59,56,943 32,85,37,354 334494297 -59,56,943 -59,56,943 TO RE FUND PENDING RENT FROM TO NO OF MONTH 01.10.2006 30.04.2009 31 891,15,757 RENT CALCULATED AMOUNT PAID 400,00,000 PAID (18,27 29.8.08=2+1+1 491,15,757 491,15,757 TO PAY SINKING FUND 3965106 CH IN FAVR OF VSM SINKING FUND ACCOUNT-SUNC ITY PROJECTS PVT. LTD. MAINTENANC E SECURITY 2973830 CH IN FAVR OF VSM MMS ACCOUNT-SUNCITY PROJECTS PVT LTD. FREE HOLD CHARGES 12490084 CH IN FAVR OF SUNCITY PROJECTS PV. LTD. CH REQUIRED 194,29,019 COMMISSION ON SALE 2% 65,70,747 65,70,747 TO PAY 616,43,447 TOTAL 5. THE AFOREMENTIONED DOCUMENT DATED 18 TH MAY, 2009 CONTAINED THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWING THE AREA IN THE VASANT SQUARE MALL AS 39561.06SQ.FT. WITH THE 'CH VALUE RS.16,42,68,832'WHICH INCIDENTALLY WAS THE DISCL OSED SALE CONSIDERATION FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD PURC HASED THE AFOREMENTIONED AREA IN VASANT SQUARE MALL I.E. 39,6 51.06 SQ.FT. HOWEVER, THE DOCUMENT ALSO REFLECTED AS TOTAL COST A SUM OF RS.32,85,37,354 AND THE ADDITIONAL SUM AS PDC VALUE BEING RS.16,42,68,522. 6. A QUESTIONNAIRE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESP ONSE TO WHICH SHE GAVE A REPLY ON 7 TH DECEMBER, 2011. SHE ENCLOSED A I.T.A. NO.2737/DEL/2016 10 CONFIRMATION FROM MR. LALIT MODI CLARIFYING THAT ANNEXURE A-1 PAGE 5 DID NOT PERTAIN TO ANY TRANSACTION IN RESPEC T OF PURCHASE OF ANY SPACE IN EITHER BIG BAZAR, VASANT SQUARE MAL L AND THAT IT WAS JUST A DRAFT PROPOSAL PRESUMABLY BY A BROKER. SHE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE PROPERTY WHICH SHE HAD PURCHASED HAD BEEN FOR A CONSIDERATION WHICH WA S HIGHER THAN THE PREVALENT CIRCLE RATE. 7. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE SAID REPLY. THE AO WHO INCIDENTALLY WAS THE COMMON AO FOR BOTH MR. LALIT MODI AND THE ASSESSEE RECORDED THE FOLLOWING SAT ISFACTION NOTE FOR ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE TO THE ASSESSE E UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT: 30.6.2011SATISFACTION NOTE FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S . 153C OF THE IT ACT. NAME OF THE ASSESSEE SMT. VINITA CHAURASIA PAN: AAFPC4589D SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE I.T. ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 19 TH JUNE 2009 AT THE RESIDENTIAL AS WELL AS BUSINESS PREMISES OF SHRI LALIT MODI AT LA JPAT NAGAR- II, NEW DELHI. DURING THE COURSE OF PENDENCY OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF SHRI LA LIT MODI FOR AY 2004-05 TO 2010-11 (U/S.153A/143(3) THE MATERIAL SEIZED FROM THE ITA NOS. 1004 OF 2015 & 1005 OF 2015PAGE 5OF 14PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN EXAMI NED. AFTER EXAMINING SUCH SEIZED MATERIAL I AM SATISFIED THAT THE FOLLOWING SEIZED DOCUMENTS BELONG TO PERSONS OTHER THAN SHRI LALIT MODI. THE DETAIL OF SUCH PAPER IS AS UNDER: I.T.A. NO.2737/DEL/2016 11 ANNEXURE NO. PAGE NO. OF ANNEXURE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS PERSON TO WHOM THE DOCUMENT BELONGS ANN A-1 5 THESE PAPERS CONTAIN DETAIL OF TRANSACTION ENTERED IN BY SMT. VINITA CHAURASIA FOR ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY AT VASANT SQUARE MALL SMT. VINITA CHAURASIA 2. ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENT FOUND AND SEIZED ENQUIRIES WERE CONDUCTED DURING THE COURSE OF POST SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AND IT HAS COME TO NOTICE THAT T HE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 32,85,37,3541 OUT OF WHICH ONLY RS. 16,42,68,832 HA S BEEN PAID BY CHEQUE AND RECORDED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY THE BUYER AS WELL AS SELLER. APART FROM THE ABOVE CERTAIN OTHER PAYMENTS REPRESENTING SINKING FUND, MAINTENAN CE SECURITY, FREEHOLD CHARGES AND COMMISSION ETC. HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. AS SUCH AMOUNT OF RS. 19,02,68,289 IS REQUIRED TO BE ASSESSED IN THE HAND S OF ASSESSEE AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT ON THE BASIS OF ENTRIES MENTIONED ON SEIZED DOCUMENTS. 3. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS STATED ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN SEIZED F ROM A PERSON COVERED UNDER SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE I.T. AC T, 1961. HENCE, PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C ARE BEING INITIATED FO R AY 2004- 05 TO 2009-10. 8. IN THE RESULTANT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E AO PASSED AN ORDER ON 29 TH DECEMBER, 2011 UNDER SECTION 153C/143(3) OF THE ACT MAKING THE FOLLOWI NG ADDITIONS: I.T.A. NO.2737/DEL/2016 12 4.5 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I HOLD THAT NOT ONLY THE DOCUMENT BEING PAGE NO. 5 OF A-1 SEIZED FROM THE PR EMISED OF SHRI LALIT MODI BELONG TO HER BUT ITS CONTENTS TOO PERTAIN TO HER IN ENTIRETY. ACCORDINGLY, I HOLD THAT PAYMENT OVER AND ABOVE WHAT IS ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF 16.42 CRORES TOTALLING TO RS.16,42,68,522/-IS MADE OTHERWISE THAN BY WAY OF CHEQUE I.E. FROM HER UNACCOUNTED S OURCES AND IS ACCORDINGLY BROUGHT TO TAX. AS PER THE S AID DOCUMENT BELOW MENTIONED PAYMENTS WERE ALSO REQUIRED TO BE M ADE: (I) SINKING FUND RS. 39,65,106/- (II)MAINTENANCE SECURITY RS. 29,73,830/- (III) FREEHOLD CHARGES RS. 1,24,90,084/- (IV) COMMISSION RS. 65,70,747/- THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF THE ABOVE PAYMENT ALSO. IN VIEW OF THIS , I HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ABOVE PAYMENTS ALSO FROM HER UNACCOUNTED SOURCES. THIS WOULD IN TURN MEAN TOTAL ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE OF RS. 19,02,68,289/-. S INCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR THE ABOVE AMOUNTS BE ING ADDED, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) FOR CONC EALMENT ARE ALSO HEREBY INITIATED. (ADDITION RS. 19,02,68,289/-) WITH THE ABOVE REMARKS, TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS COMPUTED AS UNDER:- INCOME AS DECLARED RS. 2,20,19,780/- I.T.A. NO.2737/DEL/2016 13 ADD: ADDITION AS DISCUSSED ABOVE RS. 19,02,68,289/ -IN THE ORDER AT PARA 5. TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME ROUNDED OFF RS. 21,22,88,069 9. THE ASSESSEES APPEAL WAS DISPOSED OF BY THE CIT (A) BY AN ORDER DATED 25 TH MARCH, 2013. THE APPEAL WAS ALLOWED IN PART. THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) R EAD AS UNDER: 15. THUS CONSIDERING THE RECEIPT AND THE PA YMENT SIDE OF THE UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTIONS ON THE SEIZED PAPE R, IDENTIFIED AS PAGE 5 OF ANNEXURE A-1 THE TOTAL ADDI TION TO BE MADE IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT ARE AS FOLLOWS: IN AY 10-11, ADDITION OF RS. 21,93,41,222 (RS.22,5 9,11,969 - RS 65,70,747). THIS COMPRISES OF RS.16,42,68,522, W HICH IS THE CASH COMPONENT OF THE TOTAL SALE CONS IDERATION OF RS 32,85,37,354; AND RS.59,56,943 APPEARING AS 'TO REFUND' AND RS 4,91,15,757 APPEARING AS 'TO PAY', WHICH HAD REMAINED TO BE ADDED BY THE AO AND IN RESPE CT OF WHICH THE NOTICE FOR ENHANCEMENT WAS ISSUED. 10. THE NET RESULT WAS THAT THERE WAS AN EN HANCEMENT OF THE ASSESSABLE INCOME BY OF THE ASSESSEE BY RS.5,5 0,72,700. 11. BOTH THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEALS BEFORE THE ITAT WHICH CAME TO BE DISPOSED OF BY THE IMPUGNED O RDER. INTERESTINGLY IT MAY BE ALSO MENTIONED THAT REVENUE S APPEAL IN THE CASE OF MR. LALIT MODI WAS ALSO HEARD ALONG WITH THESE TWO APPEALS. THE REVENUES APPEALS WERE DISMISSED A ND THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL WAS ALLOWED. 12. THE ITAT HELD THAT THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDING S AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153C WAS BAD IN LAW. IT AL SO I.T.A. NO.2737/DEL/2016 14 PROCEEDED TO DISCUSS THE MERITS OF THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO AND THE CIT (A) AND FOUND THEM TO BE UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 13. IT MAY BE MENTIONED AT THE OUTSET THAT A S FAR AS THE DISMISSAL OF THE REVENUES APPEAL BY THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF MR. LALIT MODI IS CONCERNED, THE REVENUE FILED ITA NO. 992/2015 IN THISCOURT WHICH WAS DISMISSED BY AN ORD ER DATED 16THAUGUST, 2016. THE VERY SAME DOCUMENT WHICH HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE WAS DISCUSSED BY THE DIVISION BENCH (DB ) IN THE AFOREMENTIONED ORDER. THE ORDER OF THE ITAT WAS UPHELD BY THIS COURT. 14. THIS COURT HAS HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF MR. DILEEP SHIVPURI, LEARNED SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR THE DEPARTMENT AND MR. AJAY VOHRA, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE. 15. IT REQUIRES TO BE FIRST NOTED THAT THE DOCUMENT RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE (ANNEXURE A-1 PAGE 5) TO SUSTAIN T HE ADDITIONS MADE TO THE ASSESSABLE INCOME OF THE RESPONDENT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO 'BELONG' TO THE ASSESSEE. IN ARRIVING AT THIS CONCLUSION, THE ITAT FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN PEPSICO INDIA HOLDING LTD. V. ACIT (2015) 370 ITR 295(DEL). MR. SHIVPURI ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THERE HAVE BEEN SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS OF THE DBS OF THIS COURT WHICH HAVE EXPLAINED THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISION AND IN PARTIC ULAR THE PHRASE BELONGS TO OCCURRING IN SECTION 153C OF T HE ACT. HE PLACED PARTICULAR RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS IN PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-8 V. SUPER MALLS (P.) LTD. [2017] 291 CTR 142 (DEL), PRINCIPAL COMMISSI ONER OF I.T.A. NO.2737/DEL/2016 15 INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II V. SATKAR FINCAP (DECISIO N DATED 16 TH NOVEMBER, 2016IN ITA NO. 82 OF 2016)AND PRINCIP AL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 V. NAU NIDH OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. (DECISION DATED 3RDFEBRUARY, 2017IN ITA N O. 58/2017). 16. AT THE OUTSET, IT REQUIRES TO BE NOTICED THAT T HE SEARCH IN THE PRESENT CASE TOOK PLACE ON 19THJUNE 2009 I.E., PRIO R TO THE AMENDMENT IN SECTION (1) OF THE ACTWITH EFFECT FROM 1ST JUNE 2015. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE REVENUE TO S EEK TO POINT OUT THAT THE DOCUMENT IN QUESTION, PERTAINS TO OR RELATES TO THE ASSESSEE. THE EXAMPLE GIVEN BY THIS COURT IN PEPSIC O INDIA HOLDING LTD. (SUPRA) IS THAT OF A PHOTOCOPY OF A SALE DEED WHICH CONTAINS THE NAMES OF THE VENDOR AND THE VENDEE BEING FOUND WITH THE BROKER. THE MERE FACT T HAT SUCH PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED WAS FOUND WITH THE BROKER WOULD NOT LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SUCH A DOCUME NT 'BELONGS TO EITHER THE VENDOR OR THE VENDEE. WHILE IN TH E PRESENT CASE THE AO IN HIS SATISFACTION NOTE DOES RECORD THA T THE DOCUMENT IN QUESTION DOES NOT BELONG TO MR. LALIT MODI I.E. THE SEARCHED PERSON, HE DOES NOT INDICATE ON WHAT BASIS HE PROCEEDS AS IF THE DOCUMENT BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE. 17. IN THIS CONTEXT, IT REQUIRES TO BE NOTICED THA T A VERY DETAILED INTERROGATION OF MR. LALIT MODI IN RELATION T O THIS DOCUMENT TOOK PLACE, THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF WHICH HAVE BEEN EXTRACTED BY THE ITAT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. QUESTION NO. 25 POSED TO MR. MODI AND HIS ANSWER THERE TO READS AS UNDER: Q.25. I AM SHOWING YOU PAGE NO. 5 TO 8 O F ANNEXURE A-1, PLEASE EXPLAIN THE CONTENTS. I.T.A. NO.2737/DEL/2016 16 ANS: PAGES NO. 5 TO 8 ARE ROUGH PLANNING O N PAGE 5 PROPOSAL FROM VASANT SQUARE MALL FOR SALE WAS RECEI VED AND THE DEAL DID NOT MATERIALISE THROUGH ME. 18. THE ABOVE STATEMENT WAS MADE IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN TH E CASE OF SUNCITY PROJECT LTD. ALLEGEDLY INVOLVING MR. LALIT MODI, A SPECIFIC QUESTION WAS PUT TO HIM AND HIS ANSWER THE RETO WAS RECORDED ON OATH ON 15 TH MARCH, 2013 UNDER SECTION 131 OF ACT READS AS UNDER: Q.3. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AT YO UR RESIDENCE ATL-48, LAJPAT NAGAR-II, NEW DELHI, LO OSE PAPERS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED VIDE ANNEXURE A-1. I AM SHOW ING YOU PAGE NO.5 OF THE SAID ANNEXURE A-1. KINDLY EXPLAIN THE TRANSACTIONS MENTIONED IN IT. ANS. THE CHAURASIA FAMILY IS KNOWN TO ME. AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF MRS. VI NITA CHAURASIA BY M/S. SUNCITY PROJECTS LTD. IN RESPECT OF C OMMERCIAL SPACE PURCHASED IN VASANT SQUARE MALL, I WAS PRESENT AS A WITNESS AND SIGNED ON THE DOCUMENTS CONVEYIN G TITLES AS A WITNESS BEFORE SUB REGISTRAR. IT HAPPENED SOMEWHERE IN MAY 2009. SINCE I AM IN REAL ESTATE BUSIN ESS, INCIDENTALLY AFTER COMING BACK FROM EXECUTION OF THE SAID SALE DEED, I WAS APPROACHED BY A BROKER AT MY RESIDE NCE MAKING ENQUIRY ABOUT AVAILABILITY OF COMMERCIAL SPACE IN VASANT SQUARE MALL AT VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI. SINC E I ACCOMPANIED MRS. VINITA CHAURASIA WHO HAS PURCHA SED COMMERCIAL SPACE AT VASANT SQUARE MALI, I TELEPHONED HER AND GOT THE DETAILS OF COST ETC. OF HER COMMERC IAL SPACE IN VASANT SQUARE MALL AND TOLD THESE FACTS TO TH E SAID I.T.A. NO.2737/DEL/2016 17 BROKERS. AFTER FEW DAYS, THE BROKER CAME TO MY RESIDENCE AND DELIVERED A PROPOSAL, WHICH IS NOTHING BU T THE SAME DOCUMENT SHOWN TO ME AS PAGE NO. 5 OF ANNEXURE A-1. THE SAID PROPOSAL REMAINED WITH ME AND BEFORE THE SAME COULD BE FORWARDED TO MRS. VINITA CHAURASIA, A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AT MY RESIDENCE ON 19.06.2009, DURING WHICH THE ABOVE MENTIONED PAPER CONTAINING THE PROPOSAL WAS FOUND AND SEI ZED. SINCE IT COULD NOT BE DELIVERED TO SMT. VINITA CHAURASIA, THE PROPOSAL WAS NOT ACTED UPON, HENCE, NO TR ANSACTION TOOK PLACE ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID PAGE S EIZED AT PAGE NO. 5 OF ANNEXURE A-1. HAD THE SAID PROPOSA L MATERIALIZED, I WOULD HAVE EARNED BROKERAGE I NCOME. SINCE NO SUCH TRANSACTION TOOK PLACE, NO COMMISSION WAS E ARNED BY ME. 19. WHAT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE REPLY OF MR. LALIT MODI IS THAT EVEN ACCORDING TO HIM THE DOCUMENT I N QUESTION DID NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. HE APPEARS T O SUGGEST THAT THE DOCUMENT WAS A PROPOSAL DELIVERED A T HIS RESIDENCE BY SOME OTHER BROKER AND WHICH PRO POSAL REMAINED WITH HIM BEFORE IT COULD BE FORWARDE D TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE MEANWHILE, THE SEARCH AND SEI ZURE OPERATION TOOK PLACE. 20. THERE IS NO MATERIAL WHATSOEVER PLACED ON RECOR D BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE CIT (A) OR THE ITAT TO JUSTIFY T HE INVOCATION OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS THAT THE ABOVE DOCUMENT BELONGED TO HER. 21. TURNING TO THE DECISIONS CITED BY MR. SHIVPURI IT IS SEEN THAT IN PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8 V. SUPER MALLS (P.) I.T.A. NO.2737/DEL/2016 18 LTD. (SUPRA), A PEN DRIVE WAS RECOVERED FROM THE RE SIDENCE OF MR. VED PRAKASH BHARTI WHO WAS A DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO RECORDED DURING THE STATEMENT OF SH. VED PRAKASH BHARTI AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, HE HAS ALSO STATED THAT THESE DOCUMENTS (CONTAINED IN THE PEN DRIVE) PERTAI N TO HIM AND SUPER MALLS PVT. LTD., KARNAL IN WHICH HE IS DIRECT OR.' IT IS ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE FACTS THAT THIS COURT REJE CTED THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT THE SAID DOCUMENTS COULD NOT BE SAID TO BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. 22. AS REGARDS THE DECISION IN PRINCIPAL COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 V. NAU NIDH OVERSEAS P VT. LTD. (SUPRA), THE SEARCHED PERSON MR. JATINDER PAL SI NGH, WAS ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE. AS NOTED BY THE COURT IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH, HE CLEARLY STATED THAT SOME CASH SEIZED IN THOSE TRANSACTIONS BELONGED TO THE ASSESS EE. 23. IN PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -II V. SATKAR FINCAP (SUPRA), AGAIN, THIS COURT NOTED IN PARA 4 O F ITS ORDER THAT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING IT WAS SUGGESTED TO THE RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE THROUGH ITS COUNSEL THAT HAVIN G REGARD TO THE CATEGORICAL STATEMENT IN A NOTE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH &SEIZURE DOCUMENTS/PAPERS PAGE1TO 31 OF ANNEXURE A-28 SEIZED BY PARTY R-2, ANNEXURES A-56, A-57AND A-58 SEIZED BY PARTY 04 ARE FOUND TO BELONG TO OF M/S SATKAR FINCAP LD., (), RAMDUTT ENCLAVE, UTTAM N AGAR, NEW DELHI. I HAVE EXAMINED THE ABOVE MENTIONED DOCUMENT S/PAPERS AND PROVISION OF SECTION 153C IS INVOKABLE IN THIS CASE', THE ITAT'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION CANNOT BE SUSTA INED. 24. IN THE PRESENT CASE, HOWEVER, IT IS NOBODY CAS E OTHER THAN THE REVENUE THAT THE DOCUMENT FOUND IN THE PR EMISES OF I.T.A. NO.2737/DEL/2016 19 MR. LALIT MODI BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE. MR. SHI VPURI REFERRED TO SECTION 292C OF THE ACT FOR THE PURPOSES OF DRAW ING TWO PRESUMPTIONS (I) THE ONE CONTAINED IN SECTION 292C( 1)(I) TO THE EFFECT THAT THE DOCUMENT FOUND IN POSSESSION OF A PERSON SHOULD BE PRESUMED TO BELONG TO SUCH PERSON. AS FA R AS THIS IS CONCERNED, CLEARLY, SINCE THE DOCUMENT WAS FOUND IN POSSESSION OF MR. MODI, THE PRESUMPTION, IF AT ALL, IS ATTRACTED ONLY QUA MR. LALIT MODI AND NOT THE ASSESSEE HEREIN . 25. THERE IS, THEREFORE, NOTHING TO CONTRADICT THE CATEGORICAL FINDING OF THE ITAT THAT THE DOCUMENT WHICH FORMED THE MAIN BASIS FOR INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS U NDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT DOES NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. ON E OF THE PRINCIPAL CONDITIONS FOR ATTRACTING SECTION 15 3C OF THE ACT IS, THEREFORE, NOT FULFILLED IN THE PRESENT CASE. 26. TURNING TO THE DOCUMENT ITSELF, MR. SHIVP URI URGED THAT THE FURTHER PRESUMPTION IN SECTION 292C(1)(II) WOULD STAND ATTRACTED VIZ.,THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENT S HOULD BE PRESUMED TO BE TRUE. HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE SAID PRESUMPTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN REBUTTED BY THE A SSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, WHATEVER WAS SAID IN THE DOCUM ENT SHOULD BE TAKEN TO BE SUFFICIENT PROOF OF CONCEALMENT O F THE INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. 27. THE COURT IS UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE ABOVE SUBMISS ION OF MR. SHIVPURI. THE COURT IN THIS REGARD NOTICES THA T THE DETAILED INTERROGATION OF MR. MODI REVEALED THE SOURCE OF THE DOCUMENT AND THE FACT THAT MR. MODI WAS NOT THE AUTHOR OF TH E DOCUMENT. MR. MODI HAD SUGGESTED THAT IT WAS SOME OTHER BROKE R WHO HAD GIVEN HIM THE SAID DOCUMENT AS A PROPOSAL . THERE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN NO ATTEMPT MADE BY THE AO TO ENQUIRE INTO THE I.T.A. NO.2737/DEL/2016 20 MATTER FURTHER TO FIND OUT IF AT ALL THERE WA S ANY SUCH OTHER BROKER WHO HAD PREPARED THE DOCUMENT. F URTHER, THERE IS NO ATTEMPT ALSO MADE TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE PREVALENT MARKET VALUE OF THE SPACE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE COULD AT ALL FETCH THE VALUE INDICAT ED IN THE DOCUMENT WHICH IS RS.32,85,37,354. THIS WAS TOO FUNDAMENTAL AN ISSUE TO BE LEFT UN-INVESTIGATED. T HE AO APPEARS TO HAVE PROCEEDED PURELY ON CONJECTURES AS REGARDS WHAT THE DOCUMENT HAS STATED WITHOUT NOTICING THE INTERNAL CONTRADICTIONS AND INCONSISTENCIES. FOR INSTANCE, THE DOCUMENT TALKS OF RENT PAYABLE FOR A PERIOD FRO M 2006 ONWARDS WHERE IN FACT EVEN ACCORDING TO THE REVENUE THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY ON 13THMAY, 200 9. THE SHIFTING OF THE BURDEN ON THE ASSESSEE WITHOU T MAKING THESE BASIC ENQUIRIES TO UNEARTH THE TRUTH O F THE DOCUMENT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AND WAS RIGHTLY COMMENTED UPON BY THE ITAT. THE ENTIRE BASIS FOR MAKING THE ADDITIONS TO THE ASSESSABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS A SINGLE DOCUMENT I.E., ANNEXURE A-1. THE ATTEMPT AT MAKING ADDIT IONS ON THE BASIS OF ANNEXURE A-1, WITHOUT ANY FURTHER INV ESTIGATION ON THE ABOVE LINES, IS BOUND TO BE RENDERED UNSU STAINABLE IN LAW. 28. THEREFORE, EVEN AS REGARDS THE MERITS OF THE AD DITIONS MADE BY THE AO, THE COURT FUNDS NO ERROR HAVING BE EN COMMITTED BY THE ITAT IN DELETING THEM. 29. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES FRO M THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE ITAT. THE APPEALS ARE DISM ISSED. 7. APART FROM THAT, IT HAS ALSO BEEN BROUGHT ON REC ORD THAT I.T.A. NO.2737/DEL/2016 21 SLP FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE SAID ORDER HAS BEEN DISMISSED. ONCE ON EXACTLY SAME SEIZED DOCUMENT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE THAT THIS DOCUMEN T DOES NOT BELONG TO MRS. VINEET CHAURASIA NOR ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN, THEREFORE, IN THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE WHOSE NAME IS NOT EVEN WAS MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE. ACCORDINGLY, TH E SAID ADDITION IS DELETED AND THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH FEBRUARY, 2020. SD/- SD/- [DR. B.R.R. KUMAR] [AMIT SHUKLA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 17 TH FEBRUARY, 2020 PKK: