Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2511 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
05-01-2016
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
A
Next Hearing Date
26-11-2015
Assessment Year
2005-2006
Appeal Filed On
28-04-2014
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS.RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 456,457 & 458/CHD/2014 A.Y.: 2005-06, 2010-11 & 2011-12 THE DCIT, VS SHRI HARVINDER PAL SINGLA, CENTRAL CIRCLE-III, 21605, ST. NO. 6/1A, LUDHIANA. POWER HOUSE ROAD, BATHINDA. PAN: ACOPP5360N & ITA NO. 462/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 SHRI HARVINDER PAL SINGLA, VS THE DCIT, 21605, ST. NO. 6/1A, CENTRAL CIRCLE-III, POWER HOUSE ROAD, LUDHIANA. BATHINDA. PAN: ACOPP5360N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL DATE OF HEARING : 09.12.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.01.2016 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS ORDER SHALL DISPOSE OFF ALL THE ABOVE CROSS APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS MENTIONED ABOVE HAVING THE IDENTICAL ISSUES. 2 2. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE AP PEALS ARE DECIDED AS UNDER. ITA 462/2014 (ASSESSEE'S APPEAL : A.Y. 2005-06) ITA 456/2014 (DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL : A.Y. 2005-06) 3. BOTH THE CROSS APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-I, LUDHIANA DATED 11.02.2014 FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE CROSS APPEALS ARE DEC IDED TOGETHER AS UNDER. 4. GROUND NO. 1 IN ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS GENERAL AND NEED NO ADJUDICATION. 5. ON GROUND NO. 2 IN ASSESSEE'S APPEAL, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,09,000/- AS AGAINS T ADDITION OF RS. 18,27,000/- MADE BY ASSESSING OFFIC ER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERT Y. THE REVENUE ON THE SAME GROUND ON GROUND NO. 1 CHALLENGED THE RESTRICTION OF ADDITION OF RS. 18,27 ,000/- TO RS. 6,09,000/-. 6. ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME SEIZED PAPERS, ASSESSEE RAISED GROUND NO. 3 CHALLENGING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,32,333/- AS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS. 9,97,000/ - MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY. THE REVENUE ON GROUND NO. 2 ON THE SAME ISSUE CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPE ALS) 3 IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF RS. 9,97,000/- TO RS . 3,32,333/-. 7. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON THESE GROUNDS A RE THAT ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 18,27,000/- AND RS. 9,97,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS AT PAGE NO . 16 OF ANNEXURE A-5. THE SAID PAPER IS REPRODUCED IN TH E APPELLATE ORDER (PB-11). THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS INTERPRETED THE ABOVE RECORD I N THE FOLLOWING MANNER : 29.11.2014 IT IS A DEAL REGARDING PURCHASE OF PROPERTY OF RS. 18 LACS AS FOLLOWS : I) HP + RAJU + SUNDER 18 LACS II) HP 6 LACS III) RAJU 6 LACS IV) SUNDER 6 LACS V) REGISTRY EXPENSES 27,000/- 8. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINALLY CONCLUDED THAT TOT AL TRANSACTION WAS FOR RS. 18,27,000/- AND SINCE NO IDENTITY OF MR. SUNDER AND MR. RAJU HAD BEEN GIVEN, ALL INVESTMENTS WERE ADDED IN THE ASSESSEE'S HANDS AND ON THE SAME PAGE, ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED PLOT PURCHAS E FOR RS. 9 LACS BY H.P. AND SUNDER AND EXPENSES OF RS. 97,000/- AND ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITION OF RS. 9,97,000/-. 4 9. THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS REPRODUCED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER IN WHICH ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE AFORESAID ADDITION ON THE REASONS TH AT NO AREA OR LOCATION HAS BEEN MENTIONED WITH REGARD TO ALLEGED INVESTMENT OF RS. 18,27,000/- IN PROPERTY W HICH HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM THE FIRST PART OF THE PAGE AND EVEN THE WORD PLOT OF PROPERTY HAS BEEN USED. HOWEVER , WITH REGARD TO SECOND ALLEGED TRANSACTION, ONLY THE WORD CHANDIGARH PLOT HAS BEEN USED WITHOUT GIVING ANY LOCATION OR EXTENT OF THE PROPERTY. IT CANNOT BE M ADE OUT WHETHER IT IS A TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OR SALE WHICH HAS BEEN PRESUMED AS TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE WORD YEAR 3-4 HAS BEE N USED ON THE TOP OF LOOSE PAGE BUT ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MERELY PRESUMED IT TO BE INVESTME NT. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS WRON G WITHOUT CORROBORATING WITH ANY TRANSACTION OR PROPE RTY WITHOUT HAVING ANY DOCUMENT, AGREEMENT OR PURCHASE OR SALE DEED IN THE SEIZED RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER MADE ADDITIONS IN RESPECT OF OTHER NAMES ALSO WITHO UT ANY REASONS. IT WAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE SE ARE DUMB DOCUMENTS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE READ IN TOTALITY. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY SURRENDERED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 15 LAC S IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL OUT OF TOTAL SURRENDER OF RS. 4 CR. THEREFORE, IT WOULD COVER UP ALL THE ADDI TIONS, IF ANY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5 10. THE SUBMISSIONS WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER REITERATED THE FACTS STAT ED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN HIS REMAND REPORT. 11. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF TH E CASE AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND OBSERVED THAT THE NO TINGS ARE WITH REFERENCE TO JOINT PURCHASE OF SOME PROPER TY, THE LOCATION OF WHICH HAS NOT BEEN SPECIFIED THEREIN, THOUGH THE SPECIFIC DATE I.E. 29.11.2004 HAS BEEN MENTIONE D AND THREE PERSONS HAVE SHARED RS. 6 LACS EACH. THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SAID TRANSACTI ON WAS FOUND TO BE OF RS. 6 LACS (+) REGISTRATION OF RS. 9 ,000/-. IT WAS, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THERE WERE NO BASIS FO R THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISREGARD THIS FACT BECAUSE TW O PERSONS ARE NOT TRACEABLE EITHER ON ACCOUNT OF ASSE SSEE'S DENIAL TO GIVE THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS BUT THE FACT REMAINED THAT ASSESSEE'S CONTRIBUTION IN THE INVEST MENT IS ONLY TO THE TUNE OF RS. 6,09,000/- AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE FOR ANY ADDITIONAL INVESTME NT. THEREFORE, OUT OF ADDITION OF RS. 18,27,000/-, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS. 6,09,00 0/-. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), SIMILARLY NOTED WITH REGARD T O ADDITION OF RS. 9,97,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE O F PLOT ON 29.11.2004, IT WAS RECORDED THAT SUNDER ADDITION ALLY CONTRIBUTED RS.1.5 LACS MAKING EQUAL SHARE FOR ALL OF THEM, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE COULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR EXPLANATION OF INVESTMENT ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF 1/3 RD AND 6 ACCORDINGLY RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS. 3,32,333 /- AS AGAINST ADDITION OF RS.9,97,000/-. 12. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMI TTED THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL 2005-06, ASSES SEE WAS PARTNER IN THE FIRM. THE FIRM WAS CONVERTED IN TO COMPANY ON 29.01.2008 AND THE ASSESSEE BECAME DIREC TOR OF THE COMPANY. THEREFORE, THE ONLY SOURCE OF INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SALARY INCOME FROM FIRM AS WELL AS COMPANY. PB-1 IS SURRENDER LETTER OF THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERING RS. 4 CRORES IN FOUR ASSESSMENT YEARS AND IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED R S. 15 LACS. PB-11 TO 14 OF THE PAPER BOOK ARE COPIES OF SEIZED PAPERS RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 UNDE R APPEAL. NO CORRESPONDING RECOVERY OF ANY EVIDENCE OF INVESTMENT IN ANY PROPERTY WAS FOUND DURING THE COU RSE OF SEARCH. PB-18 IS STATEMENT RECORDED OF THE ASSESSE E ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E REFERRED TO SEVERAL QUESTIONS FROM HIS STATEMENT PARTICULARLY QUESTION NO. 53 AND QUESTION NO. 58 AN D SUBMITTED THAT NO QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ASKED TO ASSE SSEE REGARDING THE SEIZED PAPER RELATING TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR UNDER APPEAL I.E. 2005-06. THE QUESTIONS REFERRED TO SOME DIARY OR ANNEXURE A-1 AND A-6 OF THE DIARY, WHICH M AY BE RELEVANT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. PB-29 IS STA TEMENT OF ASSESSEE RECORDED ON 21.02.2010 IN WHICH HE HAS SURRENDERED RS. 4 CR IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. PB-2 IS 7 BIFURCATION OF THE SURRENDERED INCOME IN SEVERAL YE ARS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE SEIZED PAPER, THERE IS NO MENTION OF ANY PLOT OR PU RCHASE OF ANY PROPERTY. NO EVIDENCE OF INVESTMENT IN PROP ERTY WAS FOUND. ADDITION IS MADE MERELY ON PRESUMPTIONS . THE SEIZED PAPERS HAVE ONLY ROUGH NOTINGS AND AS SU CH DUMB DOCUMENT. NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE WAS FOUND OF INVESTMENT IN ANY PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN ANY BENEFIT OF THE SURRENDERED AMOUNT OF RS. 15 LACS. THE ROUGH NOTINGS CONTAIN THE PROJECTS ONLY. PB-3 IS REPLY BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER EXPLAINING THEREI N THAT ROUGH NOTINGS WERE PROPOSALS/PROJECTS ONLY BUT IT I S A FACT THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS FAMILY MEMBERS OR ASSOCIATES HAVE INDULGED IN PURCHASE/INVESTMENT IN ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND NO DOCUMENT WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. PB-8 IS FURTHER REPLY BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREAFTER, NO FURTHER QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ASKED TO THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NOTHING IN SE COND PAPER AND NO ENTRY IS LINKED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEVER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODU CE ANY SUCH PERSON NAMELY RAJU OR SUNDER. SINCE IN THE SE IZED DOCUMENTS, YEAR 2003-04 HAS BEEN MENTIONED, THEREFO RE, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER AP PEAL. THERE CANNOT BE SELF RECEIPT AS NOTED IN THE SEIZED PAPER AND INCORPORATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT ON BOTH THE GROUNDS, LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN RESTRI CTING THE PART ADDITIONS. 8 12(I) ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON ORDERS OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT IN PB-31, QUES TIONS WERE ASKED ABOUT ANNEXURE A-1 TO A-6 IN WHICH ASSES SEE EXPLAINED TO HAVE REPLIED LATER ON AFTER ANALYSIS O F BOOKS. THE ASSESSEE, THEREAFTER, MADE SURRENDER OF RS. 4 C RORES IN ALL THE YEARS MEANING THEREBY, SURRENDER IS MADE TO COVER UP ALL THE PAPERS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT DENY THE DOCUMENTS SO SEIZED. AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE, DETA ILS OF SEIZED PAPERS WERE CORRECTLY APPRECIATED BY ASSESSI NG OFFICER. SECTION 292C APPLIED IN THE CASE OF ASSES SEE TO RAISE PRESUMPTION AGAINST ASSESSEE OF GENUINENESS O F THE DOCUMENTS. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON DECISION OF HON' BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHRI R.P . VASHISHT V DCIT 301 ITR 37 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD AS UNDER REASONING: SCOPE OF PROCEEDINGS IN A CRIMINAL CASE IS DIFFERENT THAN SCOPE OF PROCEEDINGS IN AN INCOME-TA X ASSESSMENT. A CRIMINAL CHARGE IS REQUIRED TO BE PRO VED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, WHILE ASSESSMENT OF INCOME-TAX IS ON THE BASIS OF PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES ON THE BASI S OF EVIDENCE ON RECORD. ORDER PASSED IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS W ILL NOT BE BINDING IN CRIMINAL COURT SO AS TO PREJUDICE THE TR IAL AGAINST THE PETITIONER. 12(II) HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR LD. CIT(A) TO DELETE THE SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS BECAUSE HE HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE REMAND REPORT FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED COULD NOT BE TREATED AS DUMB DOCUMENT AS ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE 9 DOCUMENT. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RETRACT FROM HIS STATEMENT OF MAKING SURRENDER. THEREFORE, ASSESSIN G OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITIONS. 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE COPY OF THE SEIZED PAPER IS REPRODUCED IN THE APPEL LATE ORDER RELEVANT ON THIS ISSUE. COPY OF THE SAME IS ALSO FILED AT PAGE 11 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE DETAILS AR E ALREADY NOTED ABOVE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CONSID ERING THE SEIZED PAPERS, INTERPRETED THE SEIZED DOCUMENT IN HIS OWN WAY HOLDING IT TO BE REGARDING PURCHASE OF PROPERTY BY ASSESSEE AND OTHERS. HOWEVER, NO SUCH FACT HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED PAPER BECAUSE THE SEIZED PAPER DID NOT CONTAIN MENTIONING OF ANY PURC HASE OF PROPERTY BY ASSESSEE AND OTHERS. NO EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL INVESTMENT IN ANY PROPERTY WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE SO CALLED PURCHASE OF PROPER TY BY ASSESSEE OR OTHERS DID NOT FOUND EXIST. THE SEIZED PAPER CONTAIN ON THE TOP OF IT YEAR 2003-04. THEREFORE , SEIZED PAPER COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. NO AREA OR LOCATION OF ANY PROPERTY PURCH ASED BY ASSESSEE OR MAKING ANY INVESTMENT THEREIN, HAVE BEEN FOUND ON THE SEIZED PAPER. EVEN ON SECOND ISSU E, THE WORD CHANDIGARH FLAT HAS BEEN MENTIONED BUT WITHOUT GIVING ANY DETAIL OR LOCATION OF THE PROPER TY. THEREFORE, FROM THE SEIZED PAPER, IT COULD NOT BE ASCERTAINED WHETHER ASSESSEE PURCHASED ANY SUCH PROPERTY OR MADE ANY INVESTMENT IN ANY OF THE PROPE RTY. 10 IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT ASSESSING OFFICER MEREL Y ASSUMED FROM THE SEIZED PAPER THAT ASSESSEE AND OTH ERS HAVE PURCHASED SOME OTHER PROPERTY OR MADE INVESTME NT THEREIN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THUS, MADE ADDITIO N MERELY ON PRESUMPTION WITHOUT CO-RELATING THE ALLEG ED TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IN ANY DOCUMENT/AGREEMENT OR ASSETS OR SALE DEED ETC. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALSO OBSERVED IN HIS FINDINGS THAT LOC ATION OF THE PURCHASED PROPERTY HAVE NOT BEEN SPECIFIED I N THE SEIZED PAPER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADMITTED THAT SINCE RAJU AND SUNDER HAVE NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AND THEIR IDENTITY HAVE NOT BEEN PROVED, THEREFORE, ADDITION WAS MADE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY REASONS. SIN CE IDENTITY OF TWO PERSONS HAVE NOT BEEN ASCERTAINED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, WHERE IS THE QUESTION OF MAKING ANY INVESTMENT BY THEM JOINTLY WITH THE ASSESSEE. NO EVIDENCE OR ANY DESCRIPTION OF IMMOVAB LE PROPERTY WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. FURTHER, NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN FILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SEIZED PAPER. HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RAVI KUMAR 294 ITR 78 HELD AS UNDER : THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T, 1961, CAN BE APPLIED IF(I) THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE OWNER OF ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE, AND. (II) THE SAME HAD NOT BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IF ANY, MAINTAINE D BY HIM. DURING THE SEARCH CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF TH E JEWELLERY SHOP OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND IN POSSESSION 11 OF 1470 GRAMS OF GOLD AND RS. 50,750 IN CASH AND SO ME LOOSE SLIPS CONTAINING SOME CALCULATIONS WRITTEN. THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED A SUM OF RS. 5 LAKHS FOR TAX ON ACCOUNT OF THE UNEXPL AINED CASH AND JEWELLERY AND THE RETURN WAS FILED DECLARING AN INC OME OF RS.4,79,800. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INCLUDED THE AMO UNTS WRITTEN ON THE LOOSE SLIPS. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) UPHE LD THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVING T HAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENTS. TH E TRIBUNAL ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON A REFE RENCE : HELD, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE IN POSSESSI ON OF LOOSE SLIPS AND NOT OF ANY VALUABLE ARTICLES OR THINGS. N EITHER THE POSSESSION NOR THE OWNERSHIP OF ANY JEWELLERY MENTIONED IN THE SLIPS WAS PROVED. THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL HAD RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 A OF THE ACT WERE NOT APPLICABLE. THE TRIBUNAL A LSO HELD THAT IF THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE CONTENTS OF THE SLIP , IT WAS FOR THE REVENUE TO PROVE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECOR D THAT THEY REPRESENTED TRANSACTIONS OF SALES OR STOCK-IN-HAND BEFORE MAKING ANY ADDITION ON THIS SCORE. THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY E XPLAINED THAT THESE WERE ROUGH CALCULATIONS AND THE ASSESSEE'S EXPLANAT ION HAD NOT BEEN REBUTTED BY ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE PERVERSE. 14. IT MAY BE STATED HERE THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, ASSESSEE WAS A PARTNER IN THE FIRM AND HAS NO OTHER INDEPENDENT SOURCE OF INCOME. LATER ON, HE H AS BECOME DIRECTOR IN THE COMPANY. THEREFORE, THERE I S NO QUESTION OF MAKING ANY UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN AN Y ALLEGED PROPERTY. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S NOT MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER WHICH SECTI ON THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE ON THESE GROUNDS. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE INITIAL STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE RECORDED ON THE DATE OF THE SEARCH IN WHIC H NO 12 SPECIFIC QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ASKED TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SEIZED PAPER RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEA R UNDER APPEAL. SOME DIARY IS REFERRED TO IN HIS INI TIAL STATEMENT WHICH HAD NO RELEVANCE TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE LD. DR REFERRED TO PB-31 WHICH I S STATEMENT OF 21.02.2010 IN WHICH QUESTIONS HAVE BEE N ASKED WITH REGARD TO ANNEXURE A-1 TO A-6 TO WHICH ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT HE WILL EXPLAIN LATER ON BUT THIS PAPER ALSO DID NOT RELATE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UN DER APPEAL I.E. 2005-06. SINCE NO EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN CALLED FOR ON THE SEIZED PAPERS SPECIFICALLY, THEREFORE EVEN IF PRESUMPTION UNDER S ECTION 292C LAY AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BUT FACT REMAINED THA T THE REVENUE HAS ALSO FAILED TO EXPLAIN ABOUT THE EN TRIES CONTAINED IN THE SEIZED PAPER. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAI NED THAT THESE ARE ROUGH NOTINGS AND DUMB DOCUMENTS AND ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF ANY OF THE PROPERTY, THEREFORE, IT IS FOR THE REVEN UE TO EXPLAIN THAT ASSESSEE ACTUALLY MADE INVESTMENT IN S OME IDENTIFIED PROPERTY. AS NOTED ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MERELY PRESUMED PURCHASE OF SOME PROPERTY WITHOUT HAVING ANY AREA OR LOCATION OR IDENTITY OF THE PROPERTY IN IT, THEREFORE, ON MERE PRESUMPTIONS, SU CH A HUGE ADDITION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE WHOLLY UNWARRANTED. 15. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IN THE LIGHT O F THE DETAILS NOTED IN THE SEIZED PAPER, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE 13 SEIZED PAPER IS MERELY A ROUGH NOTING HAVING MENTIO NING THE YEAR 2003-04, THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INTERPRETING THE SEIZED PAPER TO BE A PURCHASE OF PROPERTY BY ASSESSEE AND OTHERS. THE SEIZED PAPER IS, THEREFORE, CLEARLY DUMB DOCUMENT A ND DID NOT LEAD TO ANYWHERE SO AS TO MAKE ANY ADDITION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. WE, ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE T HE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ENTIRE ADDITIONS. GROUND NO. 2 AND 3 OF THE ASSESSEE'S AP PEAL ARE ALLOWED AND GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 OF DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 15(I) THE REMAINING GROUNDS ARE ALMOST SAME ON THE BASIS OF CONSIDERATION AND APPRECIATION OF THE SEIZ ED PAPERS, THEREFORE, THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAVI KUMAR (SUPRA ) WILL BE RELEVANT AND FINDINGS ON THIS ISSUE WILL AL SO BE RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECIDING THE REMAINING GROUNDS IN THE CROSS-APPEALS. 16. ON GROUND NO. 4 IN ASSESSEE'S APPEAL, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS. 5 LACS AS AGAINST AD DITION OF RS. 72,12,850/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY. THE REVENUE ON THE SAME IS SUE HAS RAISED GROUND NO. 3 IN DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL CHALLENGING THE RESTRICTING OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 72,12,850/- TO RS. 5 LACS. 14 17. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS. 72,12,850/- MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED DOCUME NT AT PAGE 16, BACK-SIDE OF ANNEXURE A-5. THE SAID IMPUGN ED SEIZED DOCUMENTS ARE REPRODUCED IN THE APPELLATE OR DER (PB-12). THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE IMPUGN ED ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS : INDERJIT BRAR ADVANCE 10 LAC PLOTS RS. 19,42,500/- PLOTS RS. 25,20,000/- PLOTS RS. 21,36,000/- SHOP 6,19,500/- -------------------- 72,12,850/- -------------------- 15% ADVANCE 9,89,775/-+ 89,775/- 10% ADVANCE 6,59,850/-+ 59,850/- 25% ADVANCE 6,49,625/-+ 1,49,625/- 17(I) THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT INVESTMEN T IN BHUCHO MANDI SHOWS INVESTMENTS IN VARIOUS LANDS. T HE ASSESSEE FAILED TO GIVE IDENTITY OF SO CALLED HP AN D TEJA SINGH, THEREFORE, INVESTMENT OF RS. 72,12,850/- WAS ADDED AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. 18. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT NOTINGS ON T HIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTERPRETED AS INVESTMENT IN SOME PROPERTY BUT NO NUMBER OR LOCATION HAVE BEEN MENTIONED. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE MERELY ON PRESUMPTIONS. THE WORD PLOT HAS BEEN EXTRAPOLATE D 15 FROM THE SEIZED PAPER. AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE, PAYMENT SCHEDULE IS ONLY FOR 50% OF THE ALLEGED CONSIDERATION WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT IT WAS PROPO SAL ONLY. THE ENTRIES ARE NOT CORROBORATIVE OR CO-RELA TED TO ANY TRANSACTION OF INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY AND NO DOCUMENT IN THIS REGARD HAS BEEN FOUND. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER FILED THE REMAND REPORT EXPLAINING THEREIN THAT THE SEIZED PAPER SHOWS INVESTMENT IN VARIOUS PLOTS AND ADVANCE GIVEN TO SHRI INDERJIT SINGH BRAR - 5 LACS PERTAIN TO HP AND RS. 5 LACS TO SHRI TEJA SINGH. T HE LD. CIT(APPEALS), ON PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS FOUND THA T IT RECORDS DESCRIPTION OF SOME PLOTS BY SPECIFYING RAT ES AND TOTAL THEREON ALONGWITH PAYMENT PLAN OF 50% OF THE AMOUNT ON GIVEN DATES. IT DOES NOT RECORD WHO IS PURCHASER OR SELLER. IT ALSO DOES NOT RECORD THE S PECIFIC LOCATION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY CONCERNED. HOWEVER, IT WAS FOUND THAT ON THE TOP OF THE PAGE, THERE IS A RECORDING IN PUNJABI LANGUAGE STATING THAT RS. 5 LA CS RECEIVED FROM SHRI TEJA SINGH ON 23.12.2004 HAD BEE N GIVEN TO RAJU. THE PAPER ALSO RECORDS RS. 5 LACS A GAINST HP. PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENT SHOWS THAT RS. 5 LACS H AD BEEN PAID BY H.P. I.E. HARVINDER PAL SINGH, ASSESSE E. HOWEVER, REST OF THE RECORDING I.E. PLOTS AT SPECIF IED RATES AND TOTAL ARRIVED THEREOF DID NOT MAKE OUT CL EAR CASE THAT SAID PLOTS HAD BEEN ACTUALLY PURCHASED ON THE GIVEN RATE OR FOR GIVEN AMOUNT. THE DOCUMENTS AND T HE RECORDING THEREOF THROWS UPON DIFFERENT POSSIBILITI ES WHICH DEFINITELY REQUIRES CORROBORATION IN THE FORM OF 16 SOME AGREEMENT TO SELL OR SOME OTHER TITLE DOCUMENT TO CORROBORATE THE FACTS STATED THEREIN. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALSO NOTED THAT IT IS VITAL ISSUE TO D ECIDE WHETHER THE DOCUMENTS FOUND AND SEIZED CONTAIN RECO RD OF TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE/SALES OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES WARRANTING THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SAID PURCHASE/SALES HAD BEEN DONE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 18(I) THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), ON CONSIDERATION OF THE SEIZED PAPER FOUND THAT THE SEIZED PAPER DID NOT CO NTAIN ANY DESCRIPTION AND THE SEIZED PAPER IS NOT SUFFICI ENTLY DESCRIPTIVE AND SPEAKING ONE TO ARRIVE AT THE CONCL USION OF INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE VARIOUS BENCHES OF T HE TRIBUNAL AND OTHER DECISIONS HELD THAT THE DOCUMENT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH MUST BE SPEAKING ONE AND WITHOUT ANY SECOND INTERPRETATION AND MUST REFL ECT ALL THE DETAILS ABOUT THE TRANSACTION OF THE ASSESS EE IN RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), ACCORDINGLY, FOUND INVESTMENT OF RS. 5 LACS AGAINST H.P. COULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND REST OF THE ADDITION WAS F OUND TO BE MERELY ON PRESUMPTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AND ACCORDINGLY, REST OF THE ADDITION WAS DELETED. 18(II) THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO PB-12 WHICH IS SEIZED DOCUMENT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ISS UE IS SAME AS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED ABOVE AND ALSO 17 SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A CANCELLED DOCUMENT THEREFORE , NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE ON THIS ISSUE. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS ALREADY MAD E ABOVE AND RELIED UPON ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. 19. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT MAY B E NOTED AT THE OUT-SET THAT SEIZED DOCUMENT, AS RECOV ERED IS A CANCELLED DOCUMENT AS A CROSS HAS BEEN PUT ON THE SAME. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT EXPLAINED AS TO WHEN THE DOCUMENT IS CROSSED AS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, HOW IT REVEALED ANY UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CANCELLED DOCUMENT , THUS IS OF WROTH NO RELEVANCE AND NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE CLAIM REGA RDING SHRI INDERJIT BRAR IS MENTIONED IN THIS SEIZED PAPE R BUT HE IS NOT EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT ALL IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONCLUSION. THERE IS NO WORD PLOT/ SHOP USED IN THE ABOVE SEIZED PAPER. NO EVIDENCE OF ANY INVESTMENT MADE BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FOUND DURING T HE COURSE OF SEARCH. NO PROPERTY WAS FOUND OR CO-RELA TED IN WHICH ASSESSEE HAS MADE ALLEGED INVESTMENT. NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND TO SUPPORT TH E SEIZED PAPER. SINCE THE PERSON MENTIONED IN THE SE IZED PAPER SHRI INDERJIT BRAR OR TEJA SINGH HAVE NOT BEE N EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, NOTHI NG COULD BE ATTRIBUTABLE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKI NG ANY INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY. NO PROPERTY TRANSA CTION IS MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED PAPER, THEREFORE, ASSESS ING 18 OFFICER MERELY PRESUMED THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN SOME PROPERTY. THE WORD HP HAS BEE N TREATED AS HARVINDER PAL SINGH WITHOUT ANY BASIS AN D WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS, THEREF ORE, JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE SEIZED PAPER DID NOT CONTAIN THE RECORD AS TO WHO IS PURCHASER OR SELLER AND THE SEIZED PAPER ALSO DID NOT CONTAIN ANY SPECIFIC LOCA TION OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE LD . CIT(APPEALS) WAS, THEREFORE, JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING T HAT IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CORROBORATION OF THE SEIZED PAPER IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO MAKE OUT A CASE AGAI NST THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, NO ENQUIRY HAVE BEEN CONDUC TED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ORDER BRING THE TRUTH O N RECORD WITH REGARD TO ANY TRANSACTION CARRIED OUT B Y THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THERE IS NO BASIS, WHAT-SO-EVER TO MAKE ANY ADDITION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO BAS IS TO CONSIDER HP IS ASSESSEE WHO HAS MADE INVESTMENT I N PROPERTY. 20. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION EVEN TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION OF RS. 5 LACS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE SET ASIDE THE O RDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ENTIRE ADDITION . 21. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO. 4 OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND GROUND NO. 3 OF APPEAL OF T HE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 19 22. ON GROUND NO. 5, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 16,72,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS. 16,72,000/- ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENT AT PAGE NO. 15 OF ANNEXURE A-5 (PB-13). T HE SEIZED PAPER IS REPRODUCED IN THE EARLIER ORDER. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER, ON CONSIDERATION OF THE SEIZED P APER OBSERVED, THIS PAPER SHOWS THAT BHUCHO LAND HAS BE EN SOLD TO SHRI INDERJIT SINGH BRAR FOR RS.16,72,000/- AND PROFIT OF RS. 87,000/- HAS BEEN EARNED. THE STATEM ENT OF ACCOUNT OF SHRI INDERJIT BRAR IS AS UNDER : I) CASH = RS. 8 LACS II) CHEQUE = RS. 2 LACS III) CASH = RS. 4.85 LACS BHUCHO = RS. 1.87 LACS 22(I) THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT SINCE ASSESS EE HAS NOT DECLARED ANY INVESTMENT REGARDING THIS SALE OF LAND AT BHUCHO, WHOLE OF THE SALE AMOUNT OF RS. 16,72,000/- IS CONSIDERED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . 22(II) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEAL S) THAT NOTINGS IN THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REGARDED AS SALE OF THE PROPERTY BY ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IS MEREL Y PRESUMPTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NO DETAILS O F ANY PROPERTY WHICH HAS BEEN ALLEGEDLY SOLD BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GIVEN ON THIS PAPER, RATHER THE ALLEGED RECEIP T OF CASH BY ASSESSEE FROM SHRI INDERJIT BRAR HAS BEEN 20 INCORPORATED AS SALE OF PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER MERELY ON PRESUMPTION. THERE IS NO MENTION OF ANY SALE OR PROPERTY IN THE SEIZED PAPER. THERE IS NO CO-RE LATION WITH ANY DOCUMENT OF SALE OR OF UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTIONS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. NO DETAILS OF SALES ETC. HAVE BEEN MENTIONED. ACCORDI NG TO ASSESSING OFFICER, IF IT WAS SALE, AT THE MOST PROF IT OF RS. 87,000/- COULD BE ADDED ONLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FILED REMAND REPORT WHICH IS CONSIDERED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), ON PERUSAL OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT NOTED THAT THE DOCUMENT IS SPECIFIC AS REGARDS RECEIPT OF CASH AND CHEQUE TO THE TUNE OF R S. 16,72,000/- AS RECEIVED FROM SHRI INDERJIT BRAR WHO IS ASSOCIATE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE AMOUNT SO RECEIVE D AS BEEN DULY RETURNED BY 15.12.2004. THE ASSESSEE FAI LED TO EXPLAIN THE SEIZED PAPER. THEREFORE, ADDITION W AS CONFIRMED. 23. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT NO ENQUIRY HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER FROM SHRI INDERJIT BRAR. NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE WAS FOUND. THE ASSESSING OF FICER SAYS THAT INVESTMENT AND PROPERTY SOLD, BUT NO EVID ENCE OF ANY INVESTMENT OR SALE OF PROPERTY WAS FOUND DUR ING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE SEIZED PAPER CONTAINED FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-04 THEREFORE, AT THE MOST, PROF IT COULD BE ADDED OF RS. 87,000/- IN FINANCIAL YEAR 21 2003-04. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON ORD ERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT WHOLE AMOUN T OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT SHALL HAVE TO BE ADDED AS SA LE CONSIDERATION IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 24. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THERE IS NO MENTION OF SALE OF ANY PROPERTY IN THE SEIZED DOCUM ENT. THE PAPER CONTAINED FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-04, THEREFO RE, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-0 6. NO EVIDENCE OF SALE OF PROPERTY WAS FOUND DURING TH E COURSE OF SEARCH. SHRI INDERJIT BRAR HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED TO PROVE THE CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENT SO SEIZED. NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE WAS FOUND TO EXP LAIN THE SEIZED PAPER. NO EVIDENCE OF EARLIER INVESTMEN T IN THE PROPERTY STATED TO HAVE BEEN SOLD HAS BEEN FOUN D. THEREFORE, SEIZED PAPER DID NOT INDICATE ANYTHING I F ASSESSEE MADE ANY SALE OF PROPERTY OR MADE INVESTME NT IN EARLIER YEARS. THEREFORE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 16,72, 000/- AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE SEIZ ED PAPER. WE, ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ENTIRE ADDITION. GROUND NO. 5 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 25. ON GROUND NO. 6 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,68,000/- AS AGAINST ADDITION OF RS. 21,36,000/- MADE BY ASSESSI NG OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN 22 PROPERTY. THE REVENUE ON GROUND NO. 4 CHALLENGED T HE RESTRICTING OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 21,36,000/- ON T HE SAME ISSUE TO RS. 10,68,000/-. 26. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS. 21,36,000/- ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENT AT PAGE NO. 15 OF ANNEXURE A-5 (PB-13). THE SAID SEIZED PAPER IS ALSO CANCELLED DOCUMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSE RVED FROM THE SEIZED PAPER THAT THERE IS A MENTION ON TH E SAME PAGE REGARDING SALE OF PLOTS TO BITTU AND KRIS HAN BHANDARI FOR RS. 10,68,000/- EACH I.E. TOTAL RS. 21,36,000/-. RS. 2 LACS RECEIVED CASH FROM BITTAL O N 03.02.2005. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY AND ADDED THE SA ME. 27. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT NOTING ON THIS PAPER HAVE BEEN INTERPRETED AS SALE OF POPERTY TO BITTU AND KRISHAN BHANDARI BUT NO DET AIL OF ANY PROPERTY WHICH HAVE BEEN SOLD BY ASSESSEE TO THEM HAVE BEEN MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED PAPER. THE NOTINGS HAVE NOT BEEN CORROBORATED OR CO-RELATED TO ANY DOCUMENT OR MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE DOCUMENT CONTAINED RECEIPT OF RS. 2 LACS ONLY WITHOUT COMPLE TE DETAILS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A DUMB DOCUME NT AND ENTIRE DOCUMENT IS TO BE READ TOGETHER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FILED REMAND REPORT WHICH IS CONSIDERED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS). 23 27(I) THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONSIDERING THE DOCUMENT S FOUND THAT THE SAME CONTAINED SUFFICIENT DESCRIPTIO N WITH REFERENCE TO SALE OF TWO PLOTS TO ONE SHRI LEE LA IS WRITTEN IN PUNJABI AND SAME GETS ESTABLISHED ON THE GROUND THAT RECEIPT OF CASH OF RS. 2 LACS ON 03.03. 2005 HAS BEEN CLEARLY RECORDED. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABL E TO EXPLAIN THE SAME AND MERELY CLAIMED IT TO BE DUMB DOCUMENT. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) RELIED UPON DECISIO N OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SONAL CONSTRUCT IONS 260 CTR 377 AND FOUND THAT ADDITION OF RS. 10,68,00 0/- SHALL HAVE TO BE CONFIRMED. HOWEVER, REST OF THE ADDITION IS MADE MERELY ON PRESUMPTION BECAUSE THE SEIZED PAPER DID NOT CONTAIN DESCRIPTION OF THE SAL E IN TERMS OF THE DATES THEREOF FROM RECEIPT OF ANY AMOU NT AND ACCORDINGLY ADDITION WAS RESTRICTED TO RS. 10,68,000/-. 28. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW ENTIRE ADDITION IS UNJUSTIFIED. THE COPY OF T HE SEIZED PAPER IS REPRODUCED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER A ND COPY OF THE SAME IS ALSO FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE 13. IT IS A CANCELLED DOCUMENT AS HAVE BEEN CROSSE D AS WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THEREFORE, CANCELLED DOCUMENT WOULD NOT REVEAL ANY TRANSACTION OF SALE AS IS PRESUMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NO D ETAILS OF THE PROPERTY UNDER SALE HAVE BEEN MENTIONED ON T HIS PAPER AND NO PERSON, MENTIONED IN THE DOCUMENT HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NO 24 CORRESPONDING CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN FOUN D TO LINK THE ASSESSEE WITH SALE OF THE PROPERTY. THE L D. CIT(APPEALS),WHILE DELETING PART OF THE ADDITION CO RRECTLY OBSERVED THAT THE ADDITION IS MADE ON PRESUMPTION BECAUSE SEIZED RECORD DID NOT CONTAIN ANY DESCRIPTI ON OF SALE IN TERMS OF DATE THEREOF OF THE RECEIPT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR AMOUNT. THE SAME REASON ALSO APPLY IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATIO N FOR LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO HAVE PARTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDIT ION. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) RELIED UPON DECISION IN THE CA SE OF SONAL CONSTRUCTION (SUPRA) WITH REGARD TO RAISING PRESUMPTION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND NOT REQUIRING ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE BUT IN THIS CASE, HON'BLE HI GH COURT OBSERVED THAT THE SEIZED PAPER DID IN FACT CO NTAIN FIGURES RELATING TO THE FOUR PROJECTS WHICH WERE ADMITTEDLY UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT FOUND JUSTIFIED. HOWEVER, I N THE PRESENT CASE, THE SEIZED DOCUMENT IS CROSSED AND CANCELLED DOCUMENT AND DID NOT REVEAL ANY SPECIFICA LLY IF ASSESSEE HAS SOLD ANY SPECIFIC PROPERTY TO ANY PURCHASER. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUS SION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR LD. CIT(APPEAL S) TO HAVE PARTLY SUSTAINED THE ADDITION ON THIS ISSUE. WE, ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BE LOW AND DELETE THE ENTIRE ADDITION. GROUND NO. 6 OF AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND GROUND NO. 4 OF DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 25 29. ON GROUND NO. 7 IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN NO T GIVING SET OFF OF THE ADDITIONAL INCOME SURRENDERED OF RS. 15,15,000/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL OUT OF TOTAL SURRENDER OF RS. 4 CRORES IN ALL THE ASSESSME NT YEARS UNDER APPEAL. THIS GROUND IS GENERAL. SINCE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY DECLARED RS. 15 LACS AS ADDITI ONAL INCOME SURRENDERED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL OUT OF RS. 4 CRORES SO SURRENDERED, THEREFORE, IF A NY ADDITION IS TO BE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, TH E BENEFIT OF RS. 15 LACS SHALL HAVE TO BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. 30. ON GROUND NO. 5 REVENUE CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 35,15,400/- ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT PAGE NO. 18, ANNEXURE A-5 (PB-14) SAME IS REPRODUCED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF SAME OBSERVED AS UNDER : RAJU 17.08.04 5 LACS 08.11.04 9,90,000/- 10.10.04 10,000/- 29.11.04 20 LACS 03.12.04 15,400 ------------------ 35,15,400 ----------------- PAID ON 31.10.05 = 252700 26 THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ABOVE ADDITION BECAU SE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE DETAILS OF PROPERTIE S AGAINST WHICH AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED. 31. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED ADDITION BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A DUMB DOCUMENT AND NO UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT OR PROPERTY WAS FOUND. THESE ARE ROUGH NOTINGS OF PROPOSAL/PROJECTS IN SOME IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES WHIC H DID NOT MATERIALIZE. THE ASSESSEE AND HIS ASSOCIAT ES ARE NOT INDULGED IN ANY UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY AMOUNT FROM ANY RAJU. 32(I) THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED REMAND REPORT AFFIRMING THE FACTS STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 33. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONSIDERING THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND TH AT THE SAME MERELY RECORDS CERTAIN AMOUNTS ON GIVEN DATES. THE SEIZED PAPER DID NOT RECORD AS TO WHAT THESE AMOUNTS REPRESENT, WHETHER THESE ARE PURCHASES OR SALES OR WHETHER THESE ARE THE RECEIPTS OR PAYMENTS . THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THEREFORE, FOUND THAT THERE I S NO SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO CONNECT THE ASSESS EE WITH THE SAME AND ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE ADDITION. 34. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE LOOSE PAPER DID NOT CONTAIN ANY DETAIL. IT DID NOT 27 CONTAIN ANY SALE OR PURCHASE MADE BY ASSESSEE. IT DID NOT CONTAIN IF ANY AMOUNT IS RECEIVED OR PAID BY TH E ASSESSEE. THE SEIZED PAPER CONTAIN DATE OF 31.10.2 005 FOR PAYING RS. 2,52,700/- WHICH WOULD NOT FALL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. IT IS, THEREFORE, A DUMB DOCUMENT AND WOULD NOT LEAD TO ANY INFERENCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THIS ADDITION MERELY ON PRESUMPTION, THEREFORE, LD. CIT(APPEALS), ON PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE SEIZED PAPER, CORRECTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 35. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D AND DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA 457/2014 (DEPARTMENTL APPEAL : A.Y. 2010-11) 36. THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-I LUDHIANA DATED 11.02.20 14 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 37. ON GROUND NO. 1, REVENUE CHALLENGED THE DELETIO N OF ADDITION OF RS. 2,33,35,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED AMOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THI S ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENT AT PAGE 40 BACKSIDE OF ANNEXURE A-2, SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS REPRODUCED IN THE APPELLATE O RDER AND COPY OF THE SAME IS ALSO FILED AT PAGE 12 OF TH E PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE, ON BEING CONFRONTED WITH THE 28 SAME, SUBMITTED THAT THESE PAYMENTS ARE REPLICA OF PAGE NO. 38 OF ANNEXURE A-2. REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE TO P AGE 38 OF ANNEXURE A-2 WAS THAT THE FIGURE OF RS. 210.3 5 HAS BEEN GIVEN AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE WHICH INCLUDES 122 OF PAGE 45 OF ANNEXURE A-1 COVERED BY SURRENDER OF RS. 2,10,35,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER CONSID ERING ASSESSEE'S REPLY CONCLUDED THAT PAYMENT OF RS. 2,33,35,000/- HAS BEEN MADE ON 27.03.2010 AND THEREFORE, DISCLOSURE MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011- 12 WAS OF NO AVAIL. 38. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS EXPLAINED BEFO RE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME OF ASSESSEE IS SOLELY FROM SINGLA ENGINEERS & CONTRACT ORS PVT. LTD., BATHINDA WHICH IS CARRYING ON THE BUSINE SS OF WORKS CONTRACTOR. THE NOTINGS IN THE DIARY MARKED AS ANNEXURE A-2 ARE ONLY ROUGH NOTINGS IN A CODED MANN ER RELATING TO CALCULATIONS FOR SUBMITTING TENDERS AND THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SUPPORTED BY THE FAC T THAT THE WORD TENDER AND THE NAME OF THE SITES HA VE BEEN USED AT VARIOUS PLACES IN THE DIARY. IN ORDER TO SETTLE THE CASE AMICABLY AND IN COOPERATIVE MANNER, ASSESSEE SURRENDERED RS. 4 CR DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THEREFORE, EVEN IF SAME ADDITION WAS TO BE MADE, IT WOULD BE COVERED BY SURRENDER OF RS. 4 CR. THE 29 SEIZED PAPER, AT THE BEST, ARE ONLY ESTIMATES WHICH HAS NO FINANCIAL IMPLICATION. IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NO TICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT MOST OF THE FIGURES WRIT TEN IN THE DIARY WERE 10, 20, 30 AND WITHOUT ANY DENOMINAT ION AND THERE CANNOT BE ANY EXTRAPOLATION BY PRESUMING THAT THESE ARE IN LACS. SOME OF THE PAGES OF ANNEX URE A-2 WERE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 WHICH WERE DULY GOT VERIFIED THROUGH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND NO ADDITION HAVE BEEN MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT NOT INGS ON DOCUMENT NO. 40 OF ANNEXURE A-2 ARE INTER-LINKED TO DOCUMENT NOS. 43, 44 AND 45 BACKSIDE OF ANNEXURE A- 1 AND 38, 39 AND 40 OF ANNEXURE A-2 AND ARE ACTUALLY DUPLICATION/TRIPLICATION OF NOTINGS/ROUGH CALCULATI ONS WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT PAGE 43, 44 AND 45 BACKSIDE OF ANNEXURE A-1 ARE DEALING WITH SOME OTHE R TENDERS AND SAME FIGURES HAVE BEEN REPEATED ON PAGE 38, 39 AND 40 OF ANNEXURE A-2 AND PEAK OF THE FIGUR E IS ON PAGE 38 I.E. 210.35 WHICH WAS TAKEN AS RS. 2,10,35,000/-. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF THIS FIGURE IS TAKEN FOR ADDITION, IT WILL BE COVERED BY SURREN DER MADE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OF RS. 4 CR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MIS-CONSTRUED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE THE ADDITION WITHOUT EVIDENCE MER ELY NOTING THE DATE OF 27.03.2010. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS TAKEN THE TOTAL OF NOTINGS ON THIS PAGE AS 2,33,00,000/- DESPITE THE FACT THAT FIGURE OF 177.3 5 IS 30 TOTAL OF 51.40 + 66.40 + 39.70 + 19.85. THUS, ASSE SSING OFFICER WAS WRONG IN TAKING THE FIGURE OF RS. 233 L ACS BEING 233 HAS BEEN TAKEN BY MAKING CALCULATION ON T HE BASIS OF PRESUMPTIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILE D TO INTERPRET THE DOCUMENTS, IN TOTALITY WHICH ARE ESTI MATED NOTINGS. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS COMMENTS IN WHICH HE HAS REITERATED THE SAME FACTS. 39. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATI ON OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL ON RECORD AND CONSIDERING THE NOTINGS IN THE SEIZED PAPER IN CONSULTATION WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DELETED TH E ENTIRE ADDITION. HIS FINDINGS IN PARA 11 OF THE AP PELLATE ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 11. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE B ASIS OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ARGU MENTS OF THE AR ON THE ISSUE AND ALSO CLOSELY EXAMINED TH E SEIZED RECORD ON WHICH THE IMPUGNED ADDITION HAD BEEN BASED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ALSO DIRECTED TO ATT END THE PROCEEDINGS AND TO SPECIFICALLY SUBMIT AS TO HO W THE FIGURE OF RS.2,33,00,OOO/- HAS BEEN WORKED OUT FROM THE IMPUGNED SEIZED DOCUMENT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OF FICER COULD NOT INFORM AS TO HOW THE FIGURE OF 2,33,00,00 0 HAS BEEN WORKED OUT AS RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , I HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE PAPER IN THE PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE AR OF THE APPELLANT AND I CANNOT UNDERSTAND HOW THE TOTAL OF RS.2,33,00,OOO/- COULD BE MADE FROM THE IMPUGNED WORKINGS ON THE GIVEN SEI ZED DOCUMENT. THE NOTINGS AT PAGE NO.40 BACKSIDE OF ANNEXURE A-2 RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER T O MAKE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION ARE INTERLINKED TO DOCUMENT NO.43,44 AND 45 OF BACKSIDE OF ANNEXURE A- L AND 38,39,40 OF ANNEXURE A-2. IT IS SEEN THAT PAG E NO.43,44,45 BACKSIDE OF ANNEXURE AL DEALS WITH SAME 31 TENDERS AND THE AMOUNTS RECORDED ARE ALSO EXACTLY T HE SAME WHICH AGAIN GET REPEATED AT PAGE NO.38,39,40 O F ANNEXURE A2. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE FIGURE OF 210 .35 ON PAGE 38 IS THE MAXIMUM FIGURE WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF THE NOTINGS ON THE SAID DOCUMENT. IT IS ALS O TO BE NOTED THAT WORD ESTIMATE IS WRITTEN ON TOP OF NOTING S AT PAGE NO.40 BACKSIDE OF ANNEXURE A2 AND THE BOTTOM OF THE SAME PAGE RECORDS THE DATE 03.04.2010 ON WHICH DESCRIPTI ON OF PAYMENT OF RS,40,00,000 HAS BEEN RECORDED. IT IS IN FACT THIS DESCRIPTION WHICH IS VERY ELOQUENT THAT THE FI GURE 210 COULD BE INTERPRETED AS RS.2,10,00,000/-. IT IS ALS O TO BE APPRECIATED THAT SAME PAYMENT OF RS.40,00,000/- IS RECORDED ON PAGE NO.45 BACKSIDE OF ANNEXURE A-L ON T HE SAME DATE. THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE SAID PAYMENT HA S BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CERTAIN TENDERS RECEIVED AN D EXECUTED BY THE APPELLANT MAKES IT LOGICAL THAT SUCH A PAYMENT WOULD NOT BE THERE IN BOTH FINANCIAL YEARS. IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE ACTUAL PAYMENT EMANATING OUT OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT AT PAGE NO.40 BACKSIDE OF ANNEXURE A 2 HAS HAPPENED IN F,Y.2010-11 AND THEREFORE THE SAME COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. IT IS FURTHER RELEVANT TO KEEP IN MIND THAT FIGURE OF 23 WRITTEN AT SERIAL NO.38 OF ANNEXURE A2 HAS BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AND THE SAME FIGURE WITH TH E DESCRIPTION OF CRF STANDS RECORDED IN THE DOCUMENT A T PAGE 40 BACKSIDE OF ANNEXURE A2 WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS CONSIDERED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. IT IS THEREFO RE ABSOLUTELY SELF CONTRADICTORY TO CONSIDER THE SAME TENDERS IN TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS CLEAR EV IDENCE RECORDED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENT THAT THE PAYMENTS EMANATING OUT OF THE SAME HAS BEEN MADE IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11. IT IS-ON THIS BASIS THAT I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE TUNE OF RS. 2,33,35,000/- IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AS THE SAME HAS BEEN RECORDED AND TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011- 12, THE FACT THAT HOW THE FIGURE OF RS.2,33,35,000/- H AS BEEN ARRIVED AT IS BESIDES THE POINT. 40. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBM ITTED THAT ASSESSEE MADE DISCLOSURE, THEREFORE, ALL PAPER S BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. NO EVIDENCE WAS FILED TO E XPLAIN 32 THE SEIZED PAPER, THEREFORE, ADDITION WAS WRONGLY DELETED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE LD. DR ALSO FILED GIST OF HIS ARGUMENTS. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT COPY OF THE SE IZED PAPER IS FILED AT PAGE 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE R EPLY OF THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT NOTINGS ARE WITH RE GARD TO THE TENDER OF THE COMPANY IN WHICH ASSESSEE WAS MERELY A DIRECTOR AND WAS GETTING SALARY ONLY. THEREFORE, THIS DOCUMENT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED IN TH E HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 41. CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF TH E VIEW THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS REQUIRED WITH THE FIND INGS OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE SEIZED PAPER IS REPRODUC ED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER. COPY OF THE SAME IS ALSO FILE D IN THE PAPER BOOK. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), AT THE TIME OF DECIDING APPEAL HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REMAIN PRESENT TO EXPLAIN AS TO HOW THE FIGURE OF R S. 233 LACS HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT FROM THE IMPUGNED SEIZED DOCUMENT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CO ULD NOT INFORM AS TO HOW THE FIGURE OF RS. 233 LACS HAS BEEN WORKED OUT AS RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) EXAMINED THE SEIZED PAPER IN THE PRESE NCE OF ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS ASSESSEE'S COUNSEL BUT DID NOT FIND AS TO HOW THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS M ADE THIS ADDITION OF RS. 233 LACS ON THE BASIS OF THE S EIZED DOCUMENT. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE SEIZED PAP ER 33 WHICH DID NOT SPEAK OF THE TOTAL OF ADDITION OF RS. 2,33,35,000/-. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, D URING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS, WITH REFERENCE TO THE DOCUMENTS ON RECORD HAS BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT THAT AGAINST THE DATE 27.03.2010, CERTAIN NAMES HAVE BE EN MENTIONED WHICH BELONG TO THE PROPOSAL OF TENDERS M ADE BY THE COMPANY IN WHICH ASSESSEE WAS ONE OF THE DIRECTORS. THESE FIGURES DID NOT REVEAL IF ASSESSE E MADE ANY PAYMENT ON 27.03.2010 OF RS. 2,33,35,000/- OF WHICH ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHER, IN THE SAME SEIZED PAPER, FIGURE OF 177.3 5 HAVE BEEN MENTIONED ON BOTH SIDES WHICH IS TOTAL OF FOUR FIGURES AS EXPLAINED IN THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSE SSEE. IT WOULD ALSO NOT MAKE OUT IF THESE WERE IN THOUSAN DS, LACS OR CRORES OR THESE WERE IN RUPEES. IN THE SAM E SEIZED PAPER, IT IS MENTIONED FOR ESTIMATED. NON E OF THE FIGURES STATED IN THE SEIZED PAPER SPEAKING OUT ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMPUGN ED ADDITION. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS, THEREFORE, PROBABLE THAT THESE PERTAIN TO THE ESTIM ATED FIGURES OF PROPOSAL OF TENDERS OF THE COMPANY. THEREFORE, IT WAS FOR THE REVENUE TO PROVE ON THE B ASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD THAT THEY REPRESENTED UNACCOUNTE D EXPENDITURE/PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER , ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME TH ROUGH ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE DECISION I N THE CASE OF RAVI KUMAR (SUPRA) SQUARELY APPLY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 34 41(I) THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V GIRISH CHAUDHRY 163 TAXMAN 608 HELD THAT IN THE IN STANT CASE, THERE WERE NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT AS TO WHAT ON BASIS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT THE FIGURE OF 48 WAS TO BE READ A S RS. 48 LACS. THE DOCUMENT RECOVERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS A DUMB DOCUMENT. TH US, THE TRIBUNAL RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL. IN THIS CASE, ASSES SING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE LOOSE PAPER. THEREFORE, NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. SINCE AT THE APPELLATE STAGE, ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO EXPLAIN AS TO HOW HE HA S MADE THIS HUGE ADDITION SHALL CLEARLY SUPPORT FINDINGS O F LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT ADDITION WAS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALSO, ON APPRECIATION OF OTHER DOCUMEN TS ON RECORD RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE ALLEGED PAYMENTS APPEA R TO BE ON ACCOUNT OF CERTAIN TENDERS RECEIVED AND EXECUTED BY THE COMPANY. THEREFORE, THE SAME WOULD PERTAIN TO THOS E FINANCIAL YEARS ONLY. THUS, IT WAS RIGHTLY HELD TH AT THE SEIZED DOCUMENT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN ASSESSME NT YEAR 2010-11 DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE IS A CLEAR EVID ENCE ON RECORD THAT ADDITION WAS MADE MERELY ON PRESUMPTION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) THEREFORE, ON PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND MATERIAL ON RECORD CORRECTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND 35 ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 42. ON GROUND NO. 2, REVENUE CHALLENGED DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.1,87,35,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R MADE THIS ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED DOCUM ENT AT PAGE 12 OF ANNEXURE A-2 SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENC E OF THE ASSESSEE. THE IMPUGNED SEIZED DOCUMENT IS IN F ACT PAGE NO. 73 AND NOT PAGE 12 WHICH HAS BEEN INCORREC TLY RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE SEIZED DOCUM ENT IS REPRODUCED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER. ON CONFRONTI NG WITH THE SAME, ASSESSEE REPLIED BEFORE ASSESSING OF FICER THAT 20, 10, 7 ETC. HAVE BEEN NOTED ON THIS PAGE WH ICH ARE WITHOUT ANY DENOMINATION AND THESE CANNOT BE PRESUMED TO BE IN LACS WITHOUT DATE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THIS DOCUMENT FIND MENTION 30 TH MAY,2009 AND NOTED THAT SINCE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SAM E, THEREFORE, ADDITION WAS MADE. 43. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE NOTINGS ON THIS PAGE ARE OF 20, 10, 7 WHICH ARE WITHOUT DENOMINATION AND IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT ADDITION WAS MADE MERELY ON PRESUMPTION. THERE IS NO DATE ON TH E RELEVANT PAGE EXCEPT AT THE BOTTOM OF THE ENTRIES. IT WAS ESTIMATED FIGURE ONLY. THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECO RD TO PROVE AS TO HOW ADDITION OF RS. 1,87,35,000/- HAVE BEEN 36 MADE. THE PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 132(4A) IS REBUTABLE. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON SEVERAL DECISI ONS ON THE PROPOSITION THAT THE DOCUMENT FOUND DURING T HE COURSE OF SEARCH MUST BE SPEAKING ONE WITHOUT ANY SECOND INTERPRETATION. UN-CORROBORATED LOOSE PAPER COULD NOT BE TAKEN THE BASIS FOR MAKING ADDITION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT REITERATED T HE SAME FACTS. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND CONSIDERING THE SEIZED PAPER S, DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION. HIS FINDINGS IN PARA 17 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 17. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE BASIS OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ARGU MENTS OF THE AR ON THE ISSUE AND ALSO CLOSELY EXAMINED TH E SEIZED RECORD ON WHICH THE IMPUGNED ADDITION HAD BEEN BASE D. IT IS QUITE APPARENT FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED SEIZED DOCUMENT THAT IT RECORDS EITHER THE ESTIMATED OR ACTUAL TRANSACTIONS PERTAINING TO A PROJECT/TENDER NA MELY BATHINDA-TALWANDI AND SAME STANDS RECORDED ON THE TO P OF THE PAPER, I HAVE EXAMINED THE LIST OF VARIOUS PROJECT S EXECUTED BY M/S SINGLA ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS PVT. L TD. BATHINDA AND IT IS SEEN THAT THIS PARTICULAR PROJEC T HAD BEEN ALLOTTED TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY ON 05.09.200 8 AND WAS COMPLETED TO THE EXTENT OF 52.95% IN FINANCIAL Y EAR 2008-09 AND OTHER DETAILS PERTAINING TO THIS PROJECT ARE AS UNDER :- SINGLA ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD. PARTICULAR S NAME OF DEPTT. VALUE OF CONTRACT DATE OF ALLOTME NT DATE OF COMPLETI ON YEAR 08- 09 YEAR 09-10 YEAR 10-11 %AGE 08-09 %AGE 09-10 %AG E 10- 11 WDG/STG, EXECUTI 2011990 6.9,20 31.03.2 0 1065017 775336 60424 52.95 40.08 2.98 OF VE 00 08 10 03 96 72 % % % BATHINDA- ENGINE TALWANDI ER SABO- CONST. SARDULGAR DIVN H ROAD NO. 2 (FOUR PWD LANNING B&R 37 KM 9.20 BATHIND TO 15.00) A. NLOM MTR WIDE ROAD FROM 15.00 TO 30.57 INCLUDING MISC. WORK AND MAINTENA NCE OF ROAD FOR 5 YEARS (GURTA / GADDI SCHEME) IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE COMPANY HAD MADE AN FDR IN FAVOUR OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CONSTRUCTION DIVISION, PW D TO THE TUNE OF RS. 40,24,000/- ON 07.08.2008 AND PERFORMANC E SECURITY GUARANTEE OF RS.1,59,00,050/- HAS ALSO BEE N GIVEN ON 06.09.2008 FOR WHICH THE MARGIN MONEY ROUGHLY WO ULD BE RS.25,00,000/-. WHEN THESE VITAL FACTS WHICH ARE PART OF THE FINANCIAL RECORD ARE SEEN WITH THE SEIZED DOCUMEN T IN THE BACKGROUND, IT BECOMES QUITE APPARENT THAT THE WRIT INGS ON THE IMPUGNED DOCUMENT HAD BEEN WRITTEN IN THE FINANC IAL YEAR 2008-09 ITSELF. IT IS LOGICAL BECAUSE THE FDR OF RS.40,00,000/-AND MARGIN MONEY OF RS.25,00,000/- WH ICH HAS BEEN RECORDED ON THE IMPUGNED SEIZED DOCUMENT H AD BEEN PUT INTO PLACE IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 A S HIGHLIGHTED ABOVE. IF THERE HAS BEEN ANY OTHER PAYM ENT AS RECORDED IN THE IMPUGNED SEIZED DOCUMENT THEN TH E SAME IS ALSO LIKELY TO HAVE HAPPENED IN FINANCIAL Y EAR 2008-09. THE ENTIRETY OF CIRCUMSTANCES HIGHLIGHTED ABOVE MAKE IT AMPLY CLEAR THAT WHATEVER COGNIZANCE HAS TO BE TAKEN OF THESE DOCUMENTS, IT IS TO BE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND NOT IN YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AD DITION MADE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS THEREFORE D IRECTED TO BE DELETED. 44. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF IN THE YEAR 2008 -09, CONTRACT WAS COMPLETED OF 52.95% BUT REST OF THE CONTRACT WAS COMPLETED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THEREFORE, ADDITION WAS CORRECTLY MADE IN 38 ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. ON THE OTHER HAND, L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT TH E SEIZED PAPER CONTAINED THE DETAILS OF BATHINDA AND TALWANDI. BG IS BANK GUARANTY OF FDR. THE SEIZED PAPER DID NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE, ADD ITION WAS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED. 45. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND DO NOT FIND MERIT IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), ON PERUSAL OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS FO UND THAT THE SAME WOULD BE ESTIMATED OR ACTUAL TRANSACT IONS PERTAINING TO A PROJECT/TENDER NAMELY BATHINDA, TALWANDI AND THE SAME FACT IS MENTIONED ON TOP OF T HE PAPER. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) EXAMINED THE LIST OF V ARIOUS PROJECTS EXECUTED BY THE COMPANY OF THE ASSESSEE M/ S SINGLA ENGINEERS & DIRECTORS P.LTD., BATHINDA AND I T WAS FOUND THAT THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT HAS BEEN ALL OTTED TO THE COMPANY ON 05.09.2008 AND WAS COMPLETED TO T HE EXTENT OF 52.95% IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09. THE COMPANY HAS MADE FDR IN FAVOUR OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEE R, CONSTRUCTION DIVISION, PWD TO THE TUNE OF RS. 40,24,000/- ON 07.08.2008 AND FOR THE PURPOSE, GUARANTY OF RS. 1,59,00,050/- HAS ALSO BEEN GIVEN O N 06.09.2008 FOR WHICH MARGIN MONEY REFUND WOULD BE R S. 25 LACS. THESE VITAL FACTS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT AND THEREFORE, LD . CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THESE MAY PERTAIN TO THE YE AR 39 2008-09 ITSELF. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), ACCORDINGLY, DELETED THE ADDITION. THE FINDING OF FACT RECORDED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAVE NOT BEEN REBUTTED THROUGH ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL ON RECORD. FURTHER, NO DENOMINATION HAVE BEEN GIVEN ON THE SEIZED PAPER THEREFORE, THE JUDGEMENT OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GIRISH CHAUDHRY (SUPRA) CLEARLY APPLY IN TH E CASE OF ASSESSEE. WHEN THE TENDERS HAVE BEEN FLOAT ED BY THE COMPANY OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT SEIZED PAPER WOULD PERTAIN TO THE INDI VIDUAL ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT CLARIFIED FROM THE SEIZED PAPER HOW THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,87,35,000/- HAVE BEEN MADE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE WA S ALSO FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH TO PROVE IF ANY EXPENDITURE IS MADE BY ASSESSEE IN INDIVIDUAL CAPAC ITY OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, SEIZED DOCUMENT COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE INDIVIDUALLY. SINCE, NO BASIS OF THE ADDI TION HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED, THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER F AILED TO EXPLAIN THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL AS TO HOW THIS ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, DECISION OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF RAVI KUMAR (SUPRA) CLEARLY APP LIES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. MERELY BECAUSE THE DATE OF 30.05.2009 IS MENTIONED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE WOULD NOT PROVE THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE UNACCOUNTED PAYMENT/EXPENDITURE. 40 46. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE CASE, IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSI NG OFFICER MADE THIS ADDITION MERELY ON PRESUMPTIONS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE SAME CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), ON PROPER APPRECIA TION OF THE FACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, CORRECTLY DELE TED THE ADDITION. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN T HIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 47. IN THE RESULT, DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMISSED . ITA 458/2014 (DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL : A.Y. 2011-12) 48. THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-I LUDHIANA DATED 11.02.20 14 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 49. ON GROUND NO. 1, REVENUE CHALLENGED THE ORDER O F LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1.06 CR ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SOURCE OF PAYMENT TO RS. 10,60,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 1.06 LACS ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENT SEIZE D FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE AT PAGE NO. 44 O F ANNEXURE A-1, COPY OF WHICH IS REPRODUCED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER AS WELL AS FILED AT PAGE 11 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PRESUMED THAT THIS 41 DOCUMENT CONTAINED VARIOUS PAYMENTS, DETAILS OF WHI CH WERE REGARDING SOME PROJECT AND AMOUNTS IN THE DENOMINATION OF 805, 570, 800 AND 700, PERCENTAGE O F BRIBE PAID AND AMOUNT PAID 106/-. THE ASSESSEE ON BEING CONFRONTED WITH THE SAME SUBMITTED THAT SAME WAS PART OF SURRENDER OF RS. 4 CR MADE BY ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, MADE ADDITION OF RS. 1. 06 CR. 49(I) THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE L D. CIT(APPEALS) AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OF FICER HAS INTERPRETED THE WORD 805 AS AMOUNT OF THE BILL IN LACS AND 0.5% AS BRIBE PAID AND 40 LACS AS AMOUNT O F BRIBE WITHOUT ANY SUCH NOTING ON THIS DOCUMENT. EV EN THERE IS NO WHISPER FROM WHERE ASSESSING OFFICER CO ULD INFER THAT BRIBE WAS PAID ON SOME PERCENTAGE BASIS. THESE FIGURES ARE WITHOUT ANY DENOMINATION AND CANN OT BE EXTRAPOLATED BY PRESUMING THAT THESE ARE IN LACS AND MOST OF WHICH COVERED BY SURRENDER OF RS. 4 CR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO CO-RELATE THIS DOCU MENT TO ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEAR CH TO PROVE THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE ANY PAYMENT OF BRIB E. 50. THE IMPUGNED SEIZED DOCUMENT WAS EXAMINED IN THE PRESENCE OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND IT WAS FOUND THAT CALCULATION THEREON DID NOT ADD UP ARITHMETICALLY A S 0.5% OF 805 WAS WRITTEN AS 400 BUT ARITHMETICALLY I T SHOULD BE 04 ONLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS, THERE FORE, DIRECTED TO BRING ON RECORD AS TO HOW AND ON WHAT B ASIS, 42 THIS FIGURE WAS TREATED AS 40 AND THAT TOO 40,00,00 0/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ALSO REQUESTED THAT PROJE CT EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SHOULD BE EXAMINED TO ESTABLISH THE VALIDITY OF 805 BEING 805 LACS. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER FILED REMAND REPORT AND JUSTIFIED THE ADDITION MADE SO TREATING THE SAME AS PAYMENT OF BR IBE. 51. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIO NS OF THE ASSESSEE AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS. 10.06 LACS AND FURTHER DIRECTED TO GIVE THE BENEFIT OF SET OFF AGAINST THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. HIS FINDINGS IN APPELLATE ORDER IN PARA 8 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 8. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE BAS IS OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ARGUMENTS' OF THE AR ON THE ISSUE AND ALSO CLOSELY EXAMINED THE SEIZED RECORD ON WHICH THE IMPUGNED ADDITION HAD BEEN BASED. THE -PERUSAL OF REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ISSUE CLEARL Y SHOWS THAT NO COMMENT WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN GIVEN ON THE ISSUE HIGHLIGHTED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MERELY STUCK TO THE OBSERVATIO NS AS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT REALLY JUSTI FYING THE SAME. IN FACT, THE CORRECT READING OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT MEANS THAT ON A PROJECT OF RS.805 LACS WHIC H IS PART OF FINANCIAL RECORD OF THE COMPANY 0.5% HAS BEEN PAID WHICH DOES NOT STAND ACCOUNTED FOR. THE FIGURE OF 80 5 AND 0.5% ARE BOTH CLEARLY RECORDED ON THE SEIZED DOCUME NT AND NO INTERPOLATION IS CALLED FOR. THEREFORE THE R ESULTANT FIGURE DOES NOT COMES TO RS.40,00,000/- BUT ONLY RS.4,00,000/-. THE WORKING LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE TOTAL UNACCOUNTED PAYMENT ON THIS SEIZED DOCUMEN T IS RS.10,6 LACS AND NOT 1.06 CRORE AS DONE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. THE ADDITION IS THEREFORE RESTRICTED TO RS.10 .6 LACS. HERE AGAIN, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER THAT THE FIGURE OF 10.6 LACS SHOULD BE TREATED AS PART OF THE DISCLOSURE MADE UNDER SECTION 132(4) DURING T HE 43 COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DECLINE TO GIVE THE CREDIT MERELY ON THE GROUND THA T DISCLOSURE WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF OTHER DOCUMENTS . IT IS MATTER OF RECORD THAT NO SUCH OTHER DOCUMENTS HA VE BEEN HIGHLIGHTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH MEANT THAT NO CREDIT FOR DISCLOSURE WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN G IVEN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ONLY PROCEEDED TO WORK OU T WHATEVER UNDISCLOSED INCOME COULD BE MADE OUT FROM VARIOUS INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS AND OTHER UNACCOUNTED ASSETS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARC H OPERATION WHICH HAS TO BE REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF DISCLOSURE MADE UNDER SECTION 132(4) TO COME TO THE NET FIGURE OF TAXABLE ASSESSED INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO GIVE CREDIT OF 10.6 LACS ON THIS GROUND. 51(I) THE LD. DR RELIED UPON ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS GIVEN SET OFF OF THE DISCLOSURE OF RS. 8 LACS IN ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2010-11 AND SAME WAS NOT CHALLENGED IN THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR THEREFORE, IT IS A CONTRADICTORY ST AND OF THE REVENUE. 52. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND DO NO FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), ON READING THE SEIZED DOCUMEN T FOUND THAT PROJECT OF RS. 805 LACS WHICH IS PART OF THE FINANCIAL RECORD OF THE COMPANY, 0.5% HAS BEEN PAID WHICH DOES NOT STAND ACCOUNTED FOR. THE FIGURE OF 805 AND 05% WERE CLEARLY RECORDED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMEN T THEREFORE, THE RESULTANT FIGURE WOULD NOT COME TO R S. 40 LACS BUT ONLY RS. 4 LACS. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), 44 ACCORDINGLY, WORKED OUT UNACCOUNTED PAYMENT OF RS. 10.6 LACS AND NOT 1.06 CR AS IS DONE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. SINCE, ASSESSEE MADE SURRENDER IN ASSESSM ENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION WAS SET OFF AGAINST THE SAME. THE FINDING OF FACT RECORDED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAVE NOT BEEN ASSAILED TO BY ANY EVIDE NCE OR MATERIAL ON RECORD. NO BASIS HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS TO HOW THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS. 1.06 CR DESPITE THE FACT N O SUCH FIGURE HAVE BEEN MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED PAPER . THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NOTED THE TOTAL AMOUNT PAID OF 106 WHICH DID NOT FIND MENTION OF ANY LACS OR CRORES IN THE SEIZED PAPER. THEREFORE, DECISION IN THE CASE OF GIRISH CHAUDHRY (SUPRA) SQU ARELY APPLY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS ALSO NO MENTION IF ANY BRIBE HAS BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SEIZED PAPER. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), ON EXAMINI NG THE PROJECTS EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE, RIGHTLY CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT 0.5% HAS BEEN PAID WHICH HAS NO T BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR. SINCE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010- 11, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALLOWED SET OFF OF THE DISCLOS URE OF RS. 8 LACS ON THE ISSUE OF PAYEMENT TO BINDU AND NO SECOND APPEAL HAVE BEEN PREFERRED IN ASSESSMENT YEA R 2010-11 THEREFORE, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN GIVING SET OFF OF THE PART ADDI TION ON THIS ISSUE OUT OF THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE ASSESS EE OF RS. 4 CRORES. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT ASS ESSING 45 OFFICER HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE BASIS OF MAKING THE ABOVE ADDITION, CLEARLY SUPPORTS THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT ADDITION OF RS. 10.6 LACS COULD B E MADE WHICH IS CORRECTLY GIVEN SET OFF AGAINST THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND OF AP PEAL OF REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 53. ON GROUND NO. 2, REVENUE CHALLENGED THE ORDER O F LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE W ITH DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE CREDIT O F ADDITION OF RS. 1.02 CR AGAINST THE SURRENDERED INC OME. 54. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ABOVE ADDITION O N THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT AT PAGE 44 AND 45 OF ANNEXURE A-1 SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSES SEE, SAME IS REPRODUCED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER AND COPY OF THE SAME IS ALSO FILED AT PAGE 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INTERPRETED THE IMPUGNED SEIZ ED DOCUMENT IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER AS CONTAINED IN PA RA 2.3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER : 2.3 AS PER DOCUMENT ANNEXURE AL PAGE NO.44&45 SEIZE D FROM THE RESIDENCE OF ASSESSEE THERE ARE VARIOUS PAYMENTS MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER: NAME OF PROJECT AMOUNT OF BILLS CLEAR (IN LACS) AMOUNT PAID (IN LACS GIANA 800 8 NH 64 DABAWALI 690 7 BHUCHHO BT! 800 8 NH-95 573 6 TOTAL 29 LESS ALREADY GIVEN (-)10 46 BALANCE 19 MALOT FAZILKA +23 TOTAL 42 54(I) FURTHER, THE BACK-SIDE OF THIS PAGE NO. 44 FI NDS MENTION THAT FOLLOWING AMOUNTS ARE DUE TO MR. SHEKH ON OGBL 27 LACS CRF 23 LACS 54(II) THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THIS IS COVERE D BY PART OF SURRENDER OF RS. 2.10 CR. REPLY OF THE ASS ESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED AND ADDITION WAS MADE. 55. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT NOTINGS ON THIS PAGE HAVE BEEN WRONGLY INTERPR ETED BECAUSE THERE IS NO FIGURE OF 1.02 CR MENTIONED ON THIS PAGE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SIMPLY TOTALED 1 9+23 = 42 WRITTEN ON PAGE NO. 45 AND TOTALED THE SAME BY TAKING FIGURE OF 27 AND 23 ON PAGE 44 BACKSIDE WHIC H EVEN IF TAKEN AS CORRECT, COMES TO 92 ONLY. THUS, THERE IS A TOTALING ERROR AND ADDITION IS MADE MERELY ON PRESUMPTION. THERE IS NO DENOMINATION ON PAGE 45 W ITH THE WORDS 19 + 23. THEREFORE, ADDITION IS MADE ON PRESUMPTION TAKING IT TO BE LACS. IT WAS FURTHER CLARIFIED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT NOTINGS ON DOCUMENT NO. 43 BACKSIDE ANNEXURE A-1 I.E. OGVL 27 LACS AND CRF 23 LACS, MALOUT, FAZILKA ARE INTER-LIN KED TO DOCUMENT NO. 43 AND 45 BACKSIDE OF ANNEXURE A-1 47 AND 38, 39 AND 40 OF ANNEXURE A-2 WHICH ARE ACTUALL Y DUPLICATION/TRIPLICATION OF THE NOTINGS/ROUGH CALCULATIONS WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT ABOVESAID DOCUMENTS ARE BEING SEPARATELY ENCLOSED T O PROVE THE CONTENTION. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT T HE BACKSIDE IS DEALING WITH SOME TENDERS AND THESE FIG URES HAVE BEEN REPEATED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT 210.35 I S TAKEN AS 2,10,35,000/- WITHOUT ANY BASIS, AT THE MO ST, WOULD BE COVERED BY SURRENDER ALREADY MADE BY ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPO RT JUSTIFIED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. 56. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATI ON OF THE ASSESSEE, DIRECTED TO GIVE CREDIT OF RS. 3.6 1 CR ON THIS GROUND HIS FINDINGS IN PARA 13 OF THE A PPELLATE ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE BA SIS OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ARGUMEN TS OF THE AR ON THE ISSUE AND ALSO CLOSELY EXAMINED THE S EIZED RECORD ON WHICH THE IMPUGNED ADDITION HAD BEEN BASE D, FIRST OF ALL, IT IS APPARENT FROM THE CALCULATIONS DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT TH E TOTALING HAS BEEN DONE ARITHMETICALLY WRONG AS THE TOTAL OF 42 PLUS 50 COMES TO RS.92 LACS AND NOT RS,1.2 CRORE S (1 CRORE 2 LACS). THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND OUT HOW THE TOTAL OF 42 O R 50 IS TAKEN AS 102. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT 23 TAKEN AS 23 L ACS PERTAIN TO MALOT FAZILKA TENDER AND HAS BEEN ADDED T WICE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE PERUSAL OF THE DOCUME NT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT 23 HAS BEEN,WRITTEN ON LEFT SIDE AS WELL AS ON THE RIGHT SIDE AND THAT TOO SPECIFICALLY WITH REFERENCE TO MALOT FAZILKA TENDER AND THERE IS NO B ASIS TO ACCOUNT THE SAME ENTRY TWICE. I DO NOT SEE ANYTHING IN THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S ASSESSMENT ORDER OR REMAND REPO RT TO JUSTIFY THE FIGURE OF 23 TWICE ESPECIALLY WHEN THE SAME IS 48 PERTAINING TO BE WRITTEN ON THE DOCUMENT. THEREFORE , THE TOTAL AMOUNT PAYABLE AS RECORDED ON THE SEIZED DOCU MENT TO ONE MR. SHEKHON ON THE GIVEN DATE COULD BE 79 LA CS AND NOT 102 LACS. IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY PROVED THAT F IGURES ARE GENERALLY IN LACS AND WRITTEN IN ABBREVIATED MANNER . FOR INSTANCE, RS.8,05,00,000/- HAS BEEN WRITTEN AS 805. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS REPLY HAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE ADDITIONS SO MADE HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE DISCLO SURE OF RS.3.61 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE FIGURE OF RS.3.61 CRORES SHOULD BE TREATED AS PART OF THE DISCLOSURE MADE UNDER SECTION 132(4) DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION BUT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER DECLINE TO GIVE THE CREDIT MERELY ON THE GR OUND THAT DISCLOSURE WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF OTHER DOCUMENTS. IT IS MATTER OF RECORD THAT NO SUCH OTHER DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN HIGHLIGHTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH MEANT T HAT NO CREDIT FOR DISCLOSURE WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN GIVEN. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ONLY PROCEEDED TO WORK OUT WHATEVER UNDISCLOSED INCOME COULD BE MADE OUT FROM VARIOUS INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS AND OTHER UNACCOUNTED ASSETS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION WHICH HAS TO BE REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF DISCLOSURE MADE UNDER SECTION 132(4) TO COME TO THE NET FIGURE OF TAXABLE ASSESSED INCOME. THE ASSESSING OF FICER IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO GIVE CREDIT OF RS.3.61 CRO RE ON THIS GROUND. 57. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT EXPLAINED BY L D. CIT(APPEALS) HOW THE ADDITION IS COVERED BY THE SURRENDERED AMOUNT. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALLOWED SET OFF OF THE AD DITION OF RS. 8 LACS AGAINST THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY ASSESS EE IN WHICH, NO DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL HAVE BEEN FILED, THEREFORE, DEPARTMENT HAS TAKEN A CONTRARY VIEW IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. 49 58. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THERE IS A TOTALING ERROR EVEN IN THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN EXPLAINED. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALSO FOUND THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN ENTR IES WHICH ARE RECORDED TWICE WHICH IS ALSO NOT EXPLAINE D. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ULTIMATELY, WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE, DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SET OFF THIS ADDITION AGAINST DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, LD. CIT(APPE ALS) HAS SIMILARLY ALLOWED SET OFF OF THE ADDITION OF RS . 10 LACS BEING PAYMENT MADE TO BINDU AGAINST THE DISCLOSURE OF RS. 8 LACS ON WHICH NO DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THEREF ORE, ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS, REVENUE CANNOT TAKE A DIF FERENT VIEW. FURTHER, WHEN ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY MADE SURRENDER OF RS. 4 CRORES, THEN ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR SET OFF OF ANY ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUT OF THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), ON PROPER APPRECIA TION OF THE FACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, CORRECTLY ISSU ED THIS DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE MATTER. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 59. ON GROUND NO. 3, REVENUE CHALLENGED THE DELETIO N OF ADDITION OF RS. 56,16,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAIN ED 50 SOURCE OF PAYMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THIS ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENT AT PAGE 12 AND 13 OF ANNEXURE A-2 WHICH IS REPRODUCED IN THE APPEL LATE ORDER, COPY OF WHICH IS ALSO FILED AT PAGE 13 OF TH E PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INTERPRETED THE SE IZED DOCUMENT IN THE MANNER AS 6.67, 12.49, 10 ETC. AS AMOUNTS IN LACS AGAINST THE REMARKS BG, ADJUSTMEN T OF PATIALA ACCOUNT, PAYMENTS MADE FROM BATHINDA THROUG H AJITPAL SINGH, PAYMENT MADE FROM CHANDIGARH THROUGH MANDEEP, PAYMENT GIVEN BY BINDU FROM BATHINDA ETC. AND MADE TOTAL OF RS. 56.16 LACS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THAT THESE PAYMENTS ARE REPLICA OF PAGE NO. 99 OF ANNEXU RE A-5. HOWEVER, IT IS SEEN THAT THOSE PAYMENTS WERE MADE DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11 RELATING TO THE ASSES SMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE SAID ADDITION BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND IT WAS EXPLAIN ED THAT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE DOCUMENT MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IS WITHOUT BASIS AND WITHOUT ANY DENOMINATI ON WHETHER THESE ARE ANY PAYMENTS, RECEIPTS OR INVESTM ENTS. THE WORD TENDER PURPOSE HAS BEEN WRITTEN ON THE T OP OF THIS PAGE WHICH SHOWS IT WAS ROUGH ESTIMATE ONLY. THE NOTINGS OF 12.11.2010 I.E. BG REFUND HAS BEEN IGNOR ED BECAUSE BG IN THE TENDER MEANS BANK GUARANTY. THE FIGURES OF 1000, 200, 500 HAVE BEEN TAKEN AS 10 LAC S, 2 LACS AND 5 LACS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. THE FIGURE OF 3 .67 + 3 HAS BEEN TAKEN AS RS. 6.7 LACS AND ACCORDINGLY MADE THE ADDITION WHICH IS MERELY ON PRESUMPTION. IT WAS AL SO EXPLAINED THAT TOTALING OF THE ALLEGED PAYMENT HAVE BEEN 51 MADE TAKING THE FIGURES FROM RIGHT AND LEFT ON THE PAGE DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE ARE CUTTINGS AND OVER-W RITINGS ON THE FIGURES. THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE MERELY ON PRESUMPTION AND ALTERNATIVELY, THE ENTIRE ADDITION IS COVERED BY SURRENDER OF RS. 4 CR. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IN THE REMAND REPORT JUSTIFIED THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER. 60. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), CONSIDERING THE SEIZED PA PER AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION . HIS FINDINGS IN PARA 18 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER ARE REPR ODUCED AS UNDER : 18. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE BA SIS OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ARGUMENTS OF THE AR ON THE ISSUE AND ALSO CLOSELY EXAMINED THE SEIZED RECORD ON WHICH THE IMPUGNED ADDITION HAD BEEN BASED. IT IS SEEN THAT THE FIGURE OF 6.67 RECORDS THE DESCRIPTION AS B/G REFUNDED. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS TAKEN IT AS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT BY T HE ASSESSEE WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD THE REASONS FOR DOING SO. NO FURTHER REASON HAS BEEN ELABORATED IN T HE REMAND REPORT. THE DESCRIPTION B/G WOULD NORMALLY MEAN BANK GUARANTEE REFUNDED AND CANNOT BE TAKEN TO BE AN UNACCOUNTED INCOME BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATI ON. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE DESCRIPTION IS QUITE SKETCHY SO AS TO BE TAKEN AS A SELF SPEAKING DOCUMENT WARRANTING INDEPENDENT, ADDITION WITHOUT CORROBORATING WITH REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR OTHER SEIZED RECORD. TH E WORD B/G HAS ALSO BEEN RECORDED ELSEWHERE IN THE SEIZ ED RECORD WHICH MEANS BANK GUARANTEE FOR WHICH ASSESSEE HAS ALSO GIVEN EXPLANATION. THEREFORE, I DON'T FIND AN Y LOGICAL REASON TO PRESUME SAID DESCRIPTION AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME AT ALL. FURTHER AN AMOUNT OF 12. 49 HAS BEEN ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT EVEN RECORDING THE DESCRIPTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS SEEN THAT DESPITE VERY CLOSE EXAMINATION OF THE DOCUMENT NO SUCH AMOUNT OF 12.49 IS SEEN.)THE ADDIT ION 52 MADE IS THEREFORE ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND THEREFORE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. FURTHER, ANOTHER ADDITION OF FIGURE 10 PRESUMED TO B E RS.10 LACS HAS BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ADJUSTMENT O F PATIALA ACCOUNT. I DON'T THINK THIS DESCRIPTION BY ITSELF CONVEYS ANYTHING TO BE TAKEN AS AN INDEPENDENT BASI S OF SUSTAINABLE ADDITION. THE DOCUMENT IN THIS RESPE CT IS CLEARLY DUMB AND NOT SPEAKING ENOUGH. IT IS MERE MENTION OF A DATE AND A FIGURE OF 10 WHICH IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO MAKE ADDITION OF RS.L0 LACS. THE REST OF THE DESCRIPTION ON THE DOCUMENT IS ALSO NOT SUFFICIENTL Y SPEAKING TO WARRANT ANY ADDITION AND I AM OF THE VI EW THAT NO CORROBORATION WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY REQUIRED TO MAKE THIS DOCUMENT WORTHY OF AN ADDITION HAS BEEN DONE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECOR D ANYTHING EVEN IN THE REMAND REPORT TO SUGGEST THIS DOCUMENT HAVING DIRECT BEARING ON THE WORKING OF INCOME BY THE APPELLANT. THE ADDITIONS MADE UNDER T HIS HEAD, ARE THEREFORE HIGHLY ON PRESUMPTION BASIS AND THEREFORE ARE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 61. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), AFTER APPRECIATION OF THE SEIZED PAPE R, CORRECTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. THE FIGURE OF 6.67 HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM BG REFUND WITHOUT BRINGING ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD THAT IT WAS UNACCOUNTED PAYMENT. THE DESCRI PTION OF BG WOULD NORMALLY MEAN BANK GUARANTY REFUNDED AND CANNOT BE TAKEN TO BE UNACCOUNTED INCOME OR EXPENDI TURE OF ASSESSEE. THE DESCRIPTION IN THIS PAPER IS NOT SELF SPEAKING AND WOULD NOT LEAD TO ANY PURPOSE. THERE ARE CUTTINGS AND OVER WRITINGS IN SEIZED PAPER. FURTH ER, IN THE SEIZED PAPER, IT IS MENTIONED AS TENDER PURPOS E WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT IT RELATES TO THE COMPANY OF THE ASSESSEE, IN WHICH ASSESSEE WAS A DIRECTOR. THEREF ORE, NO 53 ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE INDIVIDUALLY. THERE IS ALSO NO BASIS FOR MAKING TH E ADDITIONS WITHOUT ANY DENOMINATION IN THE SEIZED PA PER. 10 HAS BEEN ASSUMED AS 10 LACS, THEREFORE, DECISION OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GIRISH CHAUDHRY (SU PRA) SQUARELY APPLIES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DO CUMENT IS NOT SELF SPEAKING AND IS WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATI VE EVIDENCE ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THEREFOR E, CORRECTLY HELD IT TO BE A DUMB AND NON-SPEAKING DOCUMENT. THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF RAVI KUMAR ( SUPRA) ALSO APPLY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 61(I) IN THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF REVE NUE. THE SAME IS, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 62. ON GROUND NO. 4, REVENUE CHALLENGED RESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF RS. 34.19 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINE D SOURCE OF PAYMENT TO RS. 29 LACS. THE ASSESSING OF FICER MADE THIS ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENT AT PAGE 12 BACK SIDE OF ANNEXURE A-2. THE SAME IS REPRODUCED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER AND COPY OF THE S AME IS ALSO FILED AT PAGE 14 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSES SING OFFICER INTERPRETED THE SEIZED DOCUMENT TAKING THE FIGURES OF 2, 3.19 AND 12 ETC. IN LACS WITH THE REMARKS PA YMENT MADE FROM CHANDIGARH, BG ISSUED AND PAYMENT MADE FR OM MANDEEP ETC. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THESE PAYMENTS ARE REPLICA OF PAGE 12 OF ANNEXURE A-2, HOWEVER, IT WAS SEEN THAT THOSE PAYMENTS WERE MADE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR U NDER 54 APPEAL. IT WAS SEEN THAT PAYMENT MENTIONED IN THE TABLE IN SR.NO. 5-8 TOTALING TO RS. 27 LACS HAVE BEEN CON SIDERED AT PAGE NO. 12 AS SUCH, THESE ARE REDUCED FROM THE TOTAL PAYMENT OF RS. 61.19 LACS AND REMAINING AMOUNT OF R S. 34.19 LACS WAS CONSIDERED UNDISCLOSED PAYMENT. 63. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT INTERPRETATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS WR ONG. THE NOTINGS OF RS. 3.19 DATED 14.02.2010 I.E. BG AN D RS. 16,336/- AS CHARGES, 10 EACH OF 27.10 AND 5.12 AND 5 ON 28.11.2010 I.E. BG MEANS BANK GUARANTY WHICH IS WRO NGLY TAKEN AS UNACCOUNTED PAYMENT. THE WORD TENDER ON THE TOP HAS BEEN MENTIONED AND THE WORD BANK GUARANTY PROVES THAT THESE WERE ROUGH NOTINGS FOR TENDER PUR POSES ONLY AND THERE IS WRONG CALCULATION OF THE TOTAL AS WELL AND ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE MERELY ON PRESUMPTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REITERATED THE FACTS STATED IN TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER. 64. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), CONSIDERING THE SEIZED PA PER AND MATERIAL ON RECORD RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO R S. 29 LACS. FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN PARA 23 OF T HE APPELLATE ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 2 3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE BAS IS OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ARGUMENTS OF THE AR ON THE ISSUE AND ALSO CLOSELY EXAMINED THE SEIZED RECORD ON WHICH THE IMPUGNED ADDITION HAD BEEN BASED. THE PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE DETAIL ENTRIES SHOWS THAT THERE IS A SPECIFIC DATE AND AMOUNT AND ALSO A DESCRIPTION WHICH CONVEYS THE SIMPLE MEANING THAT PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY 55 EITHER MANDEEP OR AJITPAL SINGH ON THE GIVEN DATE. THE ASSESSEE IS THEREFORE EXPECTED TO RELATE IT TO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND SHOW AS TO HOW THESE PAYMENTS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR THEREIN. THE ENTRIES ARE ALSO IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH SEARCH HAD TAKEN PLACE AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE OLD ENTRIES FOR W HICH FAILING MEMORY COULD BE TAKEN AS AN EXCUSE. THE DOCUMENT THEREFORE CANNOT BE TERMED AS DUMB AS SUFFICIENT DESCRIPTION HAS BEEN RECORDED THEREON SO AS TO DETERMINE THEIR ACCOUNTABILITY OR OTHERWISE. HOWEVER, APART FROM THESE ENTRIES, THE REST OF THE ENTRIES ON THIS PAPER DO NOT CONVEY ANY EXACT MEANI NG SAY ACCOUNT CDS TO AJITPAI SINGH DOES NOT CONVEY WHETHER IT IS A PAYMENT OR IT IS RECEIPT OR WHAT? SIMILAR IS THE SITUATION WITH RESPECT TO ADJUSTMENT OF PATIALA ACCOUNT. THE DESCRIPTION WRITTEN AS BG ISSU E ALSO CANNOT BE PRESUMED TO BE AN UNACCOUNTED PAYMENT AS THIS DESCRIPTION HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE UNDERSIGNED WITH REFERENCE TO ANOTHER ADDITION EARLIER. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION UNDER THIS HEAD TO THE TUNE OF RS. 29,00,000/- IS CONFIRMED. HOWEVER, THE CREDIT FOR DISCLOSURE MADE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS TO BE GIVEN FO R THE ABOVE ADDITION. 65. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN APPEAL. REVENUE CHALLENGED THE PART ADDITION DELETED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND ALSO IN AP PEAL REGARDING THE BENEFIT OF SET OFF GIVEN AGAINST THE SURRENDERED INCOME. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 29 LACS ON THE BASIS OF THE ENTRIES RECORDED IN SEIZED PAPER AND FOR THE BALANCE ENTRIE S, LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE ENTRIES ON THIS PAGE DO NOT CONVEY ANY EXACT MEANING SAY ACCOUNT CDS TO AJITPAL SINGH, SAME WOULD NOT CONVEY ANY MEANING. NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAVE BEEN 56 POINTED OUT ON FACTUAL MATRIX. FURTHER, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 GAVE BENEFI T OF SET OFF IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON WHICH NO SECON D APPEAL HAVE BEEN FILED, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO INFI RMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN GIVING EFFECT T O SURRENDERED AMOUNT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AGAI NST THIS ADDITION. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENU E IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 66. ON GROUND NO. 5, REVENUE CHALLENGED THE ORDER O F LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF RS. 54 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SOURCE OF PAYMENT TO RS. 44 LACS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THIS ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENT AT PAGE 44 BACK SIDE OF ANNEXURE A-1 SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSES SEE, COPY OF WHICH IS NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS WEL L AS FILED AT PAGE 11 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE NOTING ON THIS PAGE SHOWS PAYMEN T OF RS. 54 LACS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM BINDU ON 29.12.2010 WHICH PROVES THAT NO INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS INVOLVED AND IT HAS NO FINANCIAL IMPLICATION IN THE TAXABILITY. THE ASSESSEE FURTHE R SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT SINCE NO FIN ANCIAL DEAL IS INVOLVED, THEREFORE, ADDITION IS UNJUSTIFIE D AND AT THE MOST, IT IS COVERED BY SURRENDER OF RS. 4 CR. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER JUSTIFIED THE ADDITION ON THE BAS IS OF FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) GAVE BENEFIT OF RS. 10 LACS TO THE ASS ESSEE 57 ON THIS ISSUE AS THE AMOUNT OF RS. 10 LACS WAS TREA TED AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ON THIS ISSUE AND ACCORDINGLY, RESTRIC TED THE ADDITION TO RS. 44 LACS. HIS FINDINGS IN PARA 28 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 28. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE BASIS OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, TH E ARGUMENTS OF THE AR ON THE ISSUE AND ALSO CLOSELY EXAMINED THE SEIZED RECORD ON WHICH THE IMPUGNED ADDITION HAD BEEN BASED. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE PERUS AL OF THE IMPUGNED SEIZED DOCUMENT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.54,00,000/- FROM ONE BINDU AND THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT SAME CANNOT BE TAXABLE INCOME AS IT IS ONLY AN AMOUNT RECEIVED AND NOT PAID. THE ONUS ON THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD I S MUCH MORE THAN THIS AS HAVING .WRITTEN THIS DOCUMEN T IN THE SAME FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH SEARCH TOOK PLA CE. THE REASONS FOR RECEIVING PAYMENT TO THE TUNE OF RS.54,00,000/- FROM BINDU HAVE NOT BEEN SPECIFIED. IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE THAT IT IS ON ACCOUNT OF SALES EFFECTED TO BINDU OR RECEIPT OF AN AMOUNT ALREADY LENT TO BINDU. HERE IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO RELATE ANOTHER RECORDING IN T HE SEIZED DOCUMENT AT PAGE NO. 100 OF ANNEXURE A5 WHERE IN AMOUNT OF RS.10,00,000/- HAS BEEN PAID TO BINDU. WH EN BOTH THESE ENTRIES ARE TAKEN TOGETHER IT SHOWS THAT THERE IS A REGULAR EXCHANGE OF FUNDS BETWEEN APPELLANT AND B INDU AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY LOGICAL EXPLANATION BY THE ASSESSEE, AN AMOUNT OF RS.54,00,000/- COULD BE TREATED A S AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUN T EARLIER PAID TO BINDU, SINCE RS. 10,00,000/- HAS BEEN TREATED AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, AN AMOUNT OF RS.44,00,000/- IS TREATED AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 58 67. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE SEIZED DOCUMENT SHOWS ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AN AMOU NT OF RS. 54 LACS FROM ONE BINDU. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONSIDERED ANOTHER DOCUMENT AT PAGE 100 OF ANNEXURE A-5 WHICH SHOWS AMOUNT OF RS. 10 LACS HAS BEEN PAID TO BINDU. WHEN BOTH THESE ENTRIES WERE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THER E IS A REGULAR EXCHANGE OF FUNDS BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND BIN DU AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY LOGICAL EXPLANATION BY ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) GAVE BENEFIT OF RS. 10 LACS TO THE ASSESSEE. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, THE L D. CIT(APPEALS) SUSTAINED ADDITION OF RS. 10 LACS BEIN G PAYMENT MADE TO BINDU WHICH WAS GIVEN SET OFF AGAIN ST THE DISCLOSURE OF RS. 8 LACS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPE R EXPLANATION ON BOTH THE SEIZED PAPERS, RIGHTLY CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT AGAINST PAYMENT RECEIVED OF RS. 54 LACS, BENEFIT OF RS. 10 LACS PAYMENT TO BINDU COULD BE GIVEN. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN RESTRICTING ADDITION T O RS. 44 LACS. THE SAME COULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED AGAINST DISCLOSURE MADE BY ASSESSEE OF RS. 4 CR. THIS GROU ND OF APPEAL OF REVENUE HAS NO MERIT. THE SAME IS ACCORDI NGLY DISMISSED. WE ARE NOT COMMENTING UPON ADDITION SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS) OF RS. 44 LACS BECAUE 59 THERE IS NO APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAM E ISSUE. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF REVENUE IS ACCORDI NGLY DISMISSED. 68. IN THE RESULT, DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMISSED . 69. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, DECISIONS ON VARIOUS APPE ALS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND DEPARTMEN TAL APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (RANO JAIN ) (BHAVNE SH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 5 TH JANUARY, 2016. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT/CHD
Other Referred Cases
-
Laws Referred To
-
1:1 Consultation on Business Development
₹1
Guide to Charitable Trusts: Formation, Benefits, and Compliance
₹0
1:1 Consultation on Tax Litigation
₹0
Sales Forecasting Sheet
₹100
CRM Implementation Plan
₹0
Budget 2026: 5 Major Personal Tax Changes Every Taxpayer Must Know
Team Counselvise - February 05, 2026
Why Meesho got ₹1,500 Crore Tax Demand ?
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026
Why Lacoste Won a 20-Year Trademark Battle Against Crocodile ?
Team Counselvise - March 10, 2026