Shiva Bhagwan Endowment, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 422/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2755 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S RANA
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Question of law
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 69; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELL ATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDI CIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 422/DEL/2015 ( A.Y 2006-07) SHIVA BHAGWAN ENDOWMENT S-228, GREATER KAILASH-II NEW DELHI AAAJS0060L (APPELLANT) VS ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-9 NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. P. C. YADAV, ADV RESPONDENT BY SH. S. S. RANA, CIT DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 27/11/2014 PASSED BY CIT(A)-XXVII, NEW DELHI FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006-07. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 25,20,884/- AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLO SED SOURCES WHICH WAS ADDED BY THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-9, NEW DELHI IN A S MUCH AS THE ENTIRE ADDITION IS UNWARRANTED, BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJ ECTURES, WITHOUT ANY BASIS, ILLEGAL AND THUS, REQUIRES TO BE DELETED IN TO TO. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 25,20,884/- HAS BEEN MADE WITHOUT ANY POSITIVE 86 COGENT EVIDENCE AND RATHER ON IRRELEVANT FACTS. DATE OF HEARING 18.01.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27.03.2018 3. THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE LD. AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE EVIDENCES PR ODUCED BY THE APPELLANT WHICH CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT NO CASH PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. 4. THAT THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER IS ARBITRARY, IL LEGAL, BAD IN LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF RUDIMENTARY PRINCIPLES OF CONTEMPORARY JURISPRUDENCE. 3. CONSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH CONDUCTED IN AERENS GRO UP OF CASES ON 17.08.2011, A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS ALSO CONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSE SSEE ON 10.02.2012. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CENTRALIZED VIDE ORDER ISS UED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-VIII, NEW DELHI, U/S 127 OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 25.09.2013 AND THE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS ASSIGNED TO THE PRESENT ASSESSING OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 9, NEW D ELHI. THEREAFTER, A NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE IT ACT, 1961 WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 30.09.2013. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, IT WAS STATED THAT THE RETURN FILED U/S 139(1) ON 25.07.2006 BE TREATED AS THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A. SUBSEQUENTLY, STATUTORY NOTICES U/S 143(2) AN D 142(1) WERE ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS AND FURNISHED THE REQUISITE INFORMATION, DOCUMENTS, ACC OUNTS ETC. THEREUPON, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED IN TERMS OF AN ORDER U/S 1 53A READ WITH SECTION 143(3) AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.28,48,861/- AS AGAIN ST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS.3,27,977/-, WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A N ADDITION OF RS.25,20,884/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS U/S 132 IN CASES OF AEZ GROUP, AN EXCEL SHEET IN THE FORM OF HARD DISK WAS FOUND AT THE CORPORATE OFFICE OF AEZ GROUP AT 301-303, BAKSHI HOUSE, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI WHICH WAS SEIZED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE A-32. ON PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE DETAILS THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE INVESTED A SUM OF RS.32,70,884/- FOR PURCHASE OF FL AT / SPACE / LAND WITH M/S INDIRAPURAM HABITAT CENTRE, A CONCERN OF AEZ GROUP. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT OUT OF THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF RS.32,70,8 84/- THE ASSESSEE PAID A SUM OF RS.7,50,000/- BY CHEQUE WHICH WAS DULY REFLE CTED THE BALANCE SHEET BUT NO DETAILS OF THE CASH PAYMENT AMOUNTING TO RS. 25,20,884/- WERE AVAILABLE RECORD. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER NO SATIS FACTORY EXPLANATION WAS ALSO FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE EXCEPT DENIAL OF THE CASH PAYMENT. SINCE THE CASH PAYMENT WAS PROVED ON BASIS OF MATERIAL SEIZED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OPINED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE THE ABOVE CASH PAYMENT OUT O F THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND TREATED IT AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE APPELLA NT. HOWEVER, BEFORE ADDING BACK THE SAME, VIDE NOTICE DATED 5.02.2014, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER GAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH A REPLY. ACC ORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLY NARRATING THE HIS TORY OF THE CASE WITHOUT ANY MERIT TO CONSIDERED AND EXTRACTED PARA 5 OF THE SAI D REPLY AND INCORPORATED IN THE SAME IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS UNDER: YOUR HONOUR MERELY ON THE BASIS OF AN IMPRESSION W HICH HAS BEEN DRAWN BY YOU BASED ON ONE EXCEL SHEET FOUND AT THE PREMISES OF THIRD PARTY NO AMOUNT OF ADDITION CAN BE MADE TO OUR TOTA L INCOME AS CASH INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY SPECIALLY BECAUSE NOT ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE TO PROVE OUR INVESTMENT OF ALLEGED CASH AMOUNT IN THE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN THE SAME EXCEL SHEET THE NAME OF ONE SH. I.E. SOOMAR, E-405, GREATER KAILASH-LL, NEW DELHI ALSO APPEARED AT SR. NO. 39 WHO ADMITTED THAT THE CASH INVESTMENT OF RS.6.64 CRORES BEING MADE IN THE SAID PROJECT, AND PAID THE TAXES ON THE SAME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ADDUCE AN IOTA OF EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF THE CASH INVESTMENT OF RS.25,20,884/-. T HEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND THE SURRENDER MADE BY SH. I.E. SOOMAR ON THE BASIS OF SIMILAR EVIDENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OPINED THAT THE CASH INVESTMENT OF RS.25,20,884/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT DISCLOS ED BY ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.25,20,884/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS INC OME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASS ESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 27.11.2014 AND RELAT ES TO AY 2006-07. CERTAIN DATES WHICH GOES TO THE ROOT OF MATTER ARE AS UNDER :- THE ASSESSEE IS A TRUST AND FILED ITS ORIGINAL RETU RN ON 25.07.2006. THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEN ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 28.09.20 07. ON 17.08.2011, A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION HAS UNDERTAKEN IN THE CAS E OF AEZ GROUP DURING THIS SEARCH IT IS ALLEGED THAT THE ASSESSEE INVESTED AN AMOUNT OF RS 32,70,884/-VIA CASH IN M/S INDRAPURARN HABITAT CENTER PVT LTD. THE REAFTER, A SEARCH ACTION DATE EVENT REMARK IF ANY 25.07.2006 ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSESSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AT RETURNED INCOME - SEE PAGE NO-1 OF AO ORDER. 28.09.2007 ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) WAS MADE ON THE RETURNED INCOME- SEE PAGE NO-1 PARA-3 OF THE AO ORDER. MEANS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH NO PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT 17.08.2011 A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CONDUCTED WHERE NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT WAS FOUND ALLEGED DOCUMENT SHOWING INVESTMENT OF RS 32,70,884/- HAS BEEN FOUND IN THIS SEARCH 10.02.2012 A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CONDUCTED WHERE NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT WAS FOUND SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE CIT(A) AT PAGE NO-13 PARA 27(B) OF THE ACT. FINDING OF CIT(A) THAT NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT WAS FOUND IN ASSESSEE SEARCH IS AT PAGE NO-15- 30.09.2013 NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND ASSESSEE FILED ITS ROI AS ORIGINALLY FILED WAS ALSO UNDERTAKEN IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ON 10.0 2.2012. HOWEVER, NO EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE CASE OF REVENUE VIS-A-VIS I NVESTMENT IN CASH IN INDRAPURARN HABITATE CENTER WAS FOUND. AO ISSUED NO TICE TO THE ASSESSEE ASKING THE SOURCE OF ALLEGED INVESTMENT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT ASSESSEE H AD NOT INVESTED ANYTHING IN THE ALLEGED PROPERTY. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R RELIED UPON THE CONFESSION OF SOME I.E. SOOMAR AND MADE THE ADDITION IN THE HA NDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) AND ARGUED THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE AS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND IN THE SEARCH OF ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE CIT (A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION. THE LD . AR SUBMITTED THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATIN G DOCUMENT UNEARTHED DURING SEARCH. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN ONE SIMILAR MATTER NAMELY IN THE CASE OF SUBHASH KHATTAR A SIMILAR ADDITION O F RS 3,21,00,000/- WAS MADE BY THE REVENUE. IN THAT CASE ALSO TWO SEARCHES WERE CONDUCTED ONE AT AEZ GROUP ON 17.08.2011 AND ONE AT MR SUBHASH KHATT AR ON 10.02.2012. THIS ADDITION WAS ALSO MADE IN RESPECT OF INVESTMEN T IN INDRAPURAM HABITAT CENTER GZIABAD AND ON THE BASIS OF CONFESSI ON OF SHRI I.E.SOOMAR. THE SUBHASH KHATTAR FILED APPEAL BEING ITA NO. 902/DEL/2015 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND TRIBUNAL HELD THAT NO ADDIT ION UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT CAN BE MADE IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND IN SEARCH. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO NOTED THAT MERELY BECAUSE SOME THIRD PARTY HAS SURRENDERED SOME AMOUNT IN HIS HANDS THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT SUCH SURRENDER BINDS ALL OTHER INDEPENDENT ASSESSEES. TH E LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ALL THESE ASPECTS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 30.06.2016. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOW BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE HIGH COURT IN ITA NO 60 OF 2017. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHILE DECIDING THE CASE OF SUBHASH K HATTAR, HONBLE HIGH COURT DECIDED THE ISSUE AFTER FRAMING THE QUESTION OF LAW AND AFTER TAKING COGNIZANCE OF ITAT ORDER EVIDENCING THE DATES OF SEARCH AND IN VESTMENT IN PROJECTS OF AEZ. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT RECENTLY A BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF ASHA RANI LAKHOTIYA, WHICH BELONGS TO S AME GROUP, FOLLOWING THE VERDICT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT ALLOWED THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREIN. THUS, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARE LY COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND HENCE NO ADDITION C AN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH, EXCEL SHEET WAS FOUND IN THE FORM OF HARD DISK AS X ANNEXURE A-32 F ILE NAME DP.CORRECTION SHEET.XLS CONTAINING DETAILS OF SALES STATUS OF IT S FLAT AT INDIRAPURAM HABITAT CENTRE. AS PER THIS SEIZED DOCUMENT, THE ASSESSEE H AD MADE PAYMENT OF RS. 25,20,884 IN CASH & RS. 7,50,000 BY CHEQUE. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS FOR RECONCILIATION OF ENTRIES IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT WITH ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS WELL A S RETURN OF INCOME AS REQUIRED BY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132(4A) AND 292C OF INCOME TAX ACT. MERE DENIAL OF CASH PAYMENT DOES NOT ABSOLVE THE ASSESSE E OF THE RESPONSIBILITY CAST UPON IT. IN THE SAME EXCEL SHEET, NAME OF SH. I.E.S OOMAR (NAME APPEARING AT SERIAL NO. 39) WHO ADMITTED THE CASH INVESTED AMOUN TING TO RS. 6.64 CRORES AND PAID TAXES ON THE SAID AMOUNT. AS PER PARA 6.1 OF O RDER OF THE CIT(A), ANNEXURE A-27 WAS ALSO SEIZED FROM CORPORATE OFFICE OF AEZ G ROUP. CHEQUE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE LAKHOTIA FAMILY AS REFLECTED IN THE FIL E NAMED DP.CORRECTION SHEET.XLS AND DOWN PAYMENT BOOKING DETAILS. XLS MATCHED EXACTLY WITH THE CHEQUES PAID IN THE NAME OF EACH FAMILY MEMBER OF L AKHOTIA FAMILY. THUS, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED VARIOUS DECISIONS WITH REGARD TO P RESUMPTION OF ENTRIES FOUND RECORDED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SEIZED DURING SE ARCH AS PER SECTIONS 132(4A) & 292C OF I.T. ACT. THE LD. DR THOUGH RELIE D UPON THESE DECISION COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COU RT IN CASE OF SUBHASH KHATTAR. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED ALL THE RECORDS. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IN PRESENT CASE ON 17.08.201 1, A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION HAS UNDERTAKEN IN THE CASE OF AEZ GROUP DURI NG THIS SEARCH IT IS ALLEGED THAT THE ASSESSEE INVESTED AN AMOUNT OF RS 32,70,88 4/-VIA CASH IN M/S INDRAPURARN HABITAT CENTER PVT LTD. THEREAFTER, A S EARCH ACTION WAS ALSO UNDERTAKEN IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ON 10.02.2012. H OWEVER, NO EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE CASE OF REVENUE VIS-A-VIS INVESTMENT IN CASH IN INDRAPURARN HABITATE CENTER WAS FOUND. AO ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE ASKING THE SOURCE OF ALLEGED INVESTMENT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT INVESTED A NYTHING IN THE ALLEGED PROPERTY. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED UPO N THE CONFESSION OF SOME I.E. SOOMAR AND MADE THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF T HE ASSESSEE. THE SAID CONFESSION AND THE SAID GROUP SEARCH IS ALREADY TAK EN INTO ACCOUNT IN CO- INVESTORS CASE BY THIS TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE CO- INVESTOR WHICH IS MENTIONED IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF T HE PRESENT ASSESSEE (SUBHASH KHATTAR VS. ACIT A.Y. 2006-07 ITA NO. 902/ DEL/2015 ORDER DATED 30/06/2016). THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HELD IN PARA 8 A S UNDER: 8. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS UPHELD THE ADDITION IN QUESTION MAINLY ON THE B ASIS OF (I) THE DETAILS WRITTEN ON THE HARD DISC FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FROM THE PREMISES AERENS GROUP, WHEREIN PAYMENT THROUGH CHEQUE AND CA SH HAVE BEEN MENTIONED AGAINST THE NAME OF ASSESEE AT SR. NO. 32 ; SHRI I. E. SOOMAR APPEARING AT SR. NO. 39 OF THE SAID HARD DISC HAD A DMITTED THE CASH INVESTMENT OF RS.6.64 CRORES BEING MADE IN THE SAID PROJECT AND HAD PAID THE TAXES ON THE SAME; (III) THE SAID HARD DISC CANNOT BE RELIED UPON IN PART AS THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THE PAYMENT THROUGH CHEQUE BU T DENIED THE CASH PAYMENT SHOWN THEREIN ETC. IN OUR VIEW, A HUE ADDI TION OF RS.3,21,00,000/- CANNOT BE MADE IN A CASUAL MANNER WITHOUT HAVING CO RROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT. IT IS A PREVAILING PRACTICE IN THE DEALIN GS OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES THAT CASH AMOUNT, IF ANY, OUT OF THE AGREED CONSIDE RATION IS PAID DURING THE COURSE OF EXECUTION/REGISTRATION OF THE SALE DEED A ND ADMITTEDLY IN THE PRESENT CASE NO SALE DEED OR OTHER MODE OF TRANSFER HAS BEEN EFFECTED. MERELY BECAUSE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IS APPEARING IN THE SA ID HARD DISC AND AMONGST OTHER INVESTORS ARE INVESTOR SHRI I. E. SOO MAR APPEARING IN THE SAID HARD DISC HAS ADMITTED PAYMENT OF CASH AMOUNT, CANN OT BE A BASIS FOR ARRIVING AT A DEFINITE CONCLUSION, IN ABSENCE OF CO RROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO PAID THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,21,00,000/- IN CASH. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DEL HI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PREM PRAKASH NAGPAL (SUPRA) WHEREIN ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAD MADE CERTAIN ADDITIONS U/S 69 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF THE DOC UMENTS FOUND DURING SEARCH AT A PLACE OF THIRD PARTY WHICH INDICATED THAT ASSE SSEEE HAD PURCHASED A PLOT BY PAYING CONSIDERATION IN CASH, IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT PROVE BY EVIDENCE T HAT SAID DOCUEMTNS BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THAT ANY ON MONEY TRAN SACTION HAD TAKEN PLACE. THE DOCUMENTS AT THE BEST ONLY SHOWED TENTATIVE/PRO JECTED PURCHASE CONSIDERATION HELD THE HONBLE HIGH COUT. AGAIN, I N THE CASE OF CIT VS. ALPHA IMPACT PVT. LTD (SUPRA), THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH C OURT HAS BEEN PLEASED TO HOLD THAT ADDITION TO ASSESSEES INCOME IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL SALES CONSIDERATION RECEIVED IN SALE OF LAND MERELY ON TH E BASIS OF EMAIL RECOVERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION AT THE PREMISES OF ANOTHER PERSON AND THERE BEING NO INDEPENDENT MATERIAL AVAILABLE SUPPORTING SUCH ADDITION, WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. BESIDES, WE ALSO FIND SUBSTANCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AR THAT ASSESSMENT U/S153A OF THE ACT IN ABSENCE OF IN CRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE PREMISES O F THE ASSESSEE AND IN ABSENCE O ABATEMENT OF ASSESSMENT ON THE DATE OF SE ARCH, CANNOT BE MADE IN THE PRESENT CASE AS PER THE ABOVE CITED DECISIONS I NCLUDING THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS KABUL CHAWLA (SUPRA). UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VI EW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION U/S 153A AND AUTHORITIES BELOW ERE ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING AND SUSTAIN ING THE ADDITION IN QUESTION MERELY ON THE BASIS OF A HARD DISC FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE PREMISES OF AERENS GROUP WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT. WE THUS HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT SUCCEEDS ON B OTH THE ABOVE ISSUES, I.E. ON VALIDITY OF ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S153A A ND THE ADDITION IN QUESTION. THE GROUNDS INVOLVING THE ABOVE ISSUES A RE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 9. IN RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THE SAME WAS CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH CO URT VIDE ORDER DATED 25/7/2017. THUS, THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT A PPEAL IS ALREADY COVERED IN CO-INVESTORS CASE. 8. IN RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27TH MARCH , 2018 . SD/- SD/- (N. K. SAINI) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED: 27 /03/2018 R. NAHEED * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 18/01/2018 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 18/01/2018 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER .2018 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS .03.2018 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK .03.2018 PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.