Sh. Inderjit Singh Brar, Bathinda V. DCIT, Ludhiana

ITA 461/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3214 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-08-2021
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C CHANDRAKANTA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Capital asset; Business income; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Principle of natural justice; Documents seized; Capital Gains
• Section: 142(1); 153A; 234B; 143(2); 69A; 64; 43; 48; 73; 13; 22; 56; 132

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BE NCH A, CHANDIGARH (VIRTUAL COURT) .., !' .. , # $% BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI , R.L. NEGI, JM ITA NO. 454 & 455/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 & 2007-08 THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-III, LUDHIANA SHRI INDERJIT SINGH BRAR 1040, SECRTOR 71, MOHALI PAN NO: AFBPB3598J APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA NO. 461/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI INDERJIT SINGH BRAR # 163, MODEL TOWN PHASE-2, BATHINDA THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-III, LUDHIANA PAN NO: AFBPB3598J APPELLANT RESPONDENT !' ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL, ADVOCATE #!' REVENUE BY : SMT. C. CHANDRAKANTA, CIT,DR $ %! & DATE OF HEARING : 10/08/2021 '()*! & DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21/10/2021 $&/ ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT THE CROSS APPEALS BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THE ASSESSE E FOR THE A.Y. 2011- 12 AND THE APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR THE A.Y. 20 07-08 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDER EACH DATED 24/02/2014 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-1, LUDHIANA. 2. SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED ARE COMMON AND THE APP EALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER SO THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CO NSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. 2 3. AT THE FIRST INSTANCE WE WILL DEAL WITH THE CROS S APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE DEPARTMENT FOR THE A.Y. 2011-12. 4. IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IN ITA NO. 454/CHD/20 14, THE GROUNDS RAISED ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,23,17,600/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLA INED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTIES. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF RS. 14,49,14,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLA INED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTIES TO RS. 6,51,00,000/-. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 5,42,82,079/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INV ESTMENT IN PROPERTIES. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 13,46,94,265/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED IN VESTMENT IN PROPERTIES. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 1,34,37,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INV ESTMENT IN PROPERTIES. 6. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 20,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVES TMENT IN PROPERTIES. 7. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS.32,50,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTIES. 8. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 34,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVES TMENT IN PROPERTIES. 9. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 1,42,28,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INV ESTMENT IN PROPERTIES. 10. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 21,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVES TMENT IN PROPERTIES. 11. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS IN THE REMAND REPORT IN RESPECT OF ALL THE ADDITIONS MENTIONED ABOVE. 12.THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE NOT DUMB DOCUMENTS RATHER THESE WERE SPEAKING DOCUMENTS CONTAINING METICULOUS 3 DETAIL OF VARIOUS TRANSACTIONS HAVING SUFFICIENT DE SCRIPTION OF UNACCOUNTED AMOUNTS IN RESPECT OF ALL THE ADDITIONS MENTIONED A BOVE. 13. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE SOURCE OF THE AMOUNTS MENTIONED ON SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND ALSO FAILED TO PROVE THE NATUR E OF THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED. THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WERE ALSO CONFRONTED TO THE AS SESSEE WHILE RECORDING HIS STATEMENT FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE GAVE VAGUE REPLIES TO THE QUERIES RAISED AS UNDER AND HIS ATTITUDE WAS NOT COOPERATIVE DURING T HE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF ALL THE ADDITIONS MENTION ED ABOVE: THESE ARE ONLY PROJECTIONS. THE MATTER IS VERY OLD AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT REM EMBER ANY SUCH LAND OR THE PERSON. REGARDING THE AMOUNT SHOWN AS PAID ON SOME SEIZED D OCUMENTS, THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT THE AMOUNT MIGHT HAVE BEEN RE QUIRED TO BE PAID. THE FIGURES WERE ONLY ESTIMATES. WHEN ASKED THAT IF HE DOES NOT REMEMBER THE LOCATIO N OF LAND AND THE NAME OF PERSON WHO MADE THE PROPOSAL FOR SALE OF LA ND IN ALL THE CASES MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED RECORDS, THEN HE SHOULD TEL L ONLY THE NAMES OF THREE PERSONS OR LOCATIONS OF LAND FOR WHICH OFFERS FOR SALE OF LAND WAS RECEIVED BY HIM DURING THIS PERIOD. THE ASSESSEE RE PLIED THAT THE MATTER IS VERY OLD AND HE HAS NOT KEPT ANY RECORD. 14. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROU NDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD AND DISPOSED OFF. 15. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BE SET-ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 4 61/CHD/2014 READ AS UNDER: 1. THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND LAW IN CONFIRMIN G THE ACTION OF THE AO OF DETERMINING THE ASSESSED INCOME AT RS.6,80,71,08 0/-. 2. THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND LAW IN CONFIRMIN G THE ADDITION OF RS.6,51,97,000/-. THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (A) IS ON THE BASIS OF ARBITRARY INTERPRETATION OF DUMB DOCUMENTS. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD OR DISPOSED OFF. 4 5. THE COMMON GRIEVANCE IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AS WELL AS IN ASSESSEES APPEAL RELATES TO THE DELETION / ADDITIO N ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTIES. 6. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT IN ITS APPEAL RE LATES TO THE DELETION OF ADDITIONS WHILE THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST T HE SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. 7. SINCE THE LD. CIT(A) DEALT WITH ALL THE ADDITION S SUSTAINED AND THE DELETIONS MADE SIMULTANEOUSLY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THEREFORE WE WILL ALSO DECIDE ALL THE ISSUES SIMULTANEOUSLY. 8. THE FACTS RELATED TO THE ISSUES UNDER CONSIDERAT ION, IN BRIEF ARE THAT A SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT) WAS CONDUCTED AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS ON 18/02/2011. ACCORDINGLY A NOTICE UNDER S ECTION 153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 11/09/2012 DECLARING THE SAME I NCOME OF RS. 28,74,080/- WHICH WAS DECLARED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME . 8.1 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A.O. MADE COPIES OF SEIZED MATERIAL AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE WHO PRODU CED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ALONGWITH SUPPORTING VOUCHERS WHICH WERE TEST CHECK ED BY THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING PERSONAL BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH WERE PRODUCED. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE DOCUMENTS IN THE FORM OF ANNEXURE ISB-8, 11 & 21 WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, HE MADE THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF NOTINGS ON THOSE DOCUMENTS AND ASSESSED THE INCOME AT RS. 80,92,47,524/- , THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 25/03/2013 OF THE A.O. FOR MAK ING THE VARIOUS ADDITION IS REPRODUCED VERBATIM AS UNDER: A SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE I.T. ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT T HE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SH. INDERJEET SINGH BRAR AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS ON 18.0 2.2011. THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON DECLARING INCOME OF RS.28,74,08 0/-. ACCORDINGLY, A NOTICE U/S 5 153-A WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO TH E NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 11.09.2012 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.28,74,080/-. 1. SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICES U/S 143(2) & 142(1) ALONGW ITH QUESTIONNAIRES WERE ISSUED ON 13.11.2012. IN RESPONSE TO THESE NOTICES, SHRI A SHWANI JUNEJA, ITP AND CA HARPAL SINGH, DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES, ATTE ND THE PROCEEDINGS FROM TIME TO TIME AND FILES NECESSARY INFORMATION/REPLIES/ DO CUMENTS ETC, WITH WHOM THE CASE WAS ALSO DISCUSSED. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS, THE COPIES OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE WERE MADE AVAIL ABLE. BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ALONG WITH SUPPORTING VOUCHERS WERE PRODUCED AND TE ST CHECKED. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS HAVING 'SAL ARY, HOUSE PROPERTY, CAPITAL GAIN & OTHER SOURCES'. IT IS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING PERSONAL BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED. 2.1 DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OF THE RESIDENCE PR EMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AT MOHALI, CERTAIN DOCUMENTS IN THE FORM OF ANNEXURE I SB-8, 11 & 21 WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE NOTINGS ON THESE D OCUMENTS ARE DISCUSSED AS UNDER: (A)DOCUMENT NO.25 & 26 OF ISB-8 ON THESE PAGES, THE INVESTMENT OF RS.4,87,00,000/- A ND RS.5,66,00,000/-IN PROPERTIES IN HANS NAGAR, BATHINDA HAS BEEN MENTION ED REGARDING PURCHASE OF PROPERTY FOR RS.5,66,00,000/- IT IS TOTAL LAND OF 7 ACRES, THE PURCHASE PRICE OF WHICH COMES TO RS.1600/- PER SQ. YARDS.-VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 27.02.2013 THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED TO GIVE THE COM PLETE DETAILS REGARDING SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS ON THESE PROPERTIES. THE ASSE SSEE FILE LETTER DATED 11.03.2013 STATING THERE IN THAT NO SUCH PROPERTY W AS PURCHASED AND IT WAS ONLY DUMB DOCUMENT. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN C ONSIDERED AND I FIND NO MERIT IN THAT BECAUSE THE SPECIFIC FIGURES ALONG WI TH THE AREA OF LAND AND SITUATION OF PROPERTY IS ALSO MENTIONED. AS SUCH IT CAN NOT BE TREATED AS A DUMB DOCUMENT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THESE INVESTMENTS IN THE PROPERTIES THESE AMOUNTS ARE ADD ED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD LAND OUT OF THIS TOTAL OF 7 ACRES OF THE LAND SITUATED AT HANS NAGAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS S OLD LAND MEASURING 6622 SQ. YARD FOR RS.1,66,32,800/- AND LAND MEASURING 2200 S Q. YARDS HAS BEEN SOLD FOR RS.45 LACS. IT IS ALSO REVEALED THAT 2 ACRES HAVE BEEN SO LD AT RS. 1,66,00,000/- I.E. AT THE PURCHASE PRICE ITSELF. THE PROFIT EARNED ON THE PRO PERTY IS WORKED OUT AS UNDER: TOTAL AREA SOLD 8822 SQ. YARDS SALE PRICE AS MENTIONED ABOVE RS.2,11,32,800/- COST PRICE @ 1600/- PER SQ. YARD RS.1.41.15,200 /- TOTAL PROFIT RS. 70,17,600/- FROM THE ABOVE SAID DETAIL IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.10,53,00,000/- ON THE PURCHASE OF LAND IN HANS NAGAR, BATHINDA AND MADE PROFIT OF RS.70,17,600/- ON SALE OF LAND O UT OF ABOVE PURCHASE WHICH IS ALSO TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE. AS SUCH ADDITION OF RS.11,23,17,600/-(RS .4 ,87,00,000/- +RS.5,66,00,000/- + RS70,17,600/-). PENALTY 6 PROCEEDINGS U/S 271AAA IS INITIATED SEPARATELY FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. (B)DOCUMENT NO. 27 OF ISB -8 THIS DOCUMENTS MENTIONS THE DETAILS OF SALE OF PROP ERTIES BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE VARIOUS LAND AND THE INVESTMENT IN THOSE PROPERTIES IN VILLAGE JAI SINGH WALA WHICH ARE AS UNDER: SALE JAI SINGH WALA = RS. 4,67,50,000/- PROFIT 1 ACRE = RS. 9,37,000/- PROFIT 2 ACRE = 1,66,00,000/- SALE HANS NAGAR = 6,51,97,000/- INVEST AULAKH = 1,79,53,000-6612 SQ. YARDS I.S. BRAR = 20,64,000-5558 GURDAS = 35,00,000-900 HANS NAGAR = 4,00,00,000/- TOTAL = 6,29,17,000/- GURDAS = 75,00,000/- LOSS = 8,00,000/- INTEREST = 8,50,000- BIANA-HANS NAGAR VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 27.02.2013 THE ASSESS EE WAS SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED TO GIVE THE COMPLETE DETAILS REGARDING SOURCE OF INVES TMENTS ON THESE PROPERTIES. THE ASSESSEE FILE LETTER DATED 11.03.2013 STATING T HERE IN THAT NO SUCH PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED AND IT WAS ONLY DUMB DOCUMENT. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND I FIND NO MERIT IN THAT BECAUSE THE SPECIFIC FIGURES ALONG WITH THE AREA OF LAND AND SITUATION OF PROPERTY IS ALSO MENT IONED. AS SUCH IT CAN NOT BE TREATED AS A DUMB DOCUMENT. FROM THE ABOVE SAID DET AIL IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.7,97,17 ,000/- IN VARIOUS LANDS AND PROFIT OF RS.6,51,97,000/- ON THE SALE OF THE VARIO US LANDS SITUATED AT BATHINDA. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE SOURCE OF I NVESTMENT, THE INVESTMENT OF RS.7,97,17,000/- PLUS PROFIT EARNED ON THE SALES OUT OF ABOVE PROPERTY AMOUNTING TO RS.6,51,97,000/- I.E. TOTAL OF RS .14,49,14,000/- ARE ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271AAA IS INITIATED SEPARATELY FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME . (C)DOCUMENT NO.28 OF ISB-8 THIS DOCUMENT MENTIONS THE DETAILS OF LAND TRANSACT ION DONE BY ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO 23155 SQ. YARDS OF LAND SITUATED AT LAI SINGH BASTI, BATHINDA. FROM THE DETAILS ON THIS DOCUMENT IT CAN BE CONCLUDED TH AT THE ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.3,92,75,215/- IN THE PURCHASE OF L AND MEASURING 23155 SQ. YARDS IN BASTI LAI SING BATHINDA @ RS.1696/-PER SQ. YARDS . THE FOLLOWING LAND HAS BEEN SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE: 7 A) LAND MEASURING 3666 SQ. YARDS AT THE RATE OF RS. 3800/- PER SQ YARDS FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 13930800/- (B) LAND MEASURING 9700 SQ. YARDS AT THE RATE OF RS . 2400/- PER SQ. YARDS FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 23280000/- C) LAND MEASURING 1200 SQ. YARDS HAS BEEN SOLD FOR RS. 25LACS.S THE LAND MEASURING 4308 SQ. YARDS IS STILL AVAILABL E WITH THE ASSESSEE VALUED AT THE RATE OF RS.2500/- PER SQ. YARDS I.E. TOTAL VALUE OF RS. 10770000/-. THEREFORE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD 14 566 SQ. YARDS OF LAD FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.39710800/- AND MADE A PROFIT OF RS. 1,50,06,864/- (RS.39710800 -RS24703936) ON THE SALE OF PART OF THIS LAND. VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 27.02.2013 THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED TO GIVE THE COMPLETE DETAILS REGARDING SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS ON THESE PROPERTIES . THE ASSESSEE FILE LETTER DATED 11.03.2013 STATING THERE IN THAT NO SUCH PROPERTY W AS PURCHASED AND IT WAS ONLY DUMB DOCUMENT. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN C ONSIDERED AND I FIND NO MERIT IN THAT BECAUSE THE SPECIFIC FIGURES ALONG WI TH THE AREA OF LAND AND SITUATION OF PROPERTY IS ALSO MENTIONED. AS SUCH IT CAN NOT BE TREATED AS A DUMB DOCUMENT. FROM THE ABOVE SAID DETAIL IT CAN BE CONC LUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.3,92,75,215/- IN VARIOUS LAND S AND PROFIT OF RS. 1,05,06,864/- ON THE SALE OF THE VARIOUS LANDS SITUATED AT BATHIN DA. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT, THE IN VESTMENT OF RS.3 ,92,75,215/- PLUS PROFIT EARNED ON THE SALES OUT OF ABOVE PROPERTY AM OUNTING TO ) RS.1,50,06,864/- I.E. TOTAL OF RS .5,42,82,079/- ARE ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271AAA IS INITIATED SEPARAT ELY FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. (D) DOCUMENT NO.29 OF ISB-8 THE DOCUMENT MENTIONS THE DETAILS OF LAND TRANSACTI ONS DONE BY ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO TWO LANDS MEASURING 5 ACRE AND 21 KANAL 2 MARLA SITUATED AT VILLAGE JAI SINGH WALA, DISTT., BATHINDA. FROM THE DETAIL ON THIS DOCUMENT IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT THAT ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENT OF RS. 4,67,50,000/- AND RS.7,05,26,000/- AND MADE PROFIT OF RS.1,74,18,265/ - FROM THE SALE OF PROPERTY AT VILLAGE JAI SINGH WALA AND MULATANI ROAD, BATHINDA. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO GIVE ANY EXPLANATION THE AMOUNTS OF RS. 4 ,67,50,000/-., RS.7,05,26000/-( INVESTMENT) AND RS.L,74,18,265/-(PROFIT) TOTAL RS.1 3,46,94,265/- ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, (D) (1) VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 27.02.2013 THE ASSESS EE WAS SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED TO GIVE THE COMPLETE DETAILS REGARDING SO URCE OF INVESTMENTS ON THESE PROPERTIES. THE ASSESSEE FILEJ LETTER DATED 11.03.2 013 STATING THERE IN THAT NO SUCH PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED AND IT WAS ONLY DUMB DOCUMEN T. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND I FIND NO MERIT IN THAT BECAUSE THE SPECIFIC FIGURES ALONG WITH THE AREA OF LAND AND SITUATION O F PROPERTY IS ALSO MENTIONED. AS SUCH IT CAN NOT BE TREATED AS A DUMB DOCUMENT. FROM THE ABOVE SAID DETAIL IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTM ENT OF RS.7,05,26,000/-AND RS.4,67,50,000/- IN VARIOUS LANDS AND PROFIT OF RS. 1,74,18,265/- ON THE SALE OF THE VARIOUS LANDS SITUATED AT BATHINDA. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT, THE INVESTMENT OF RS.4,67,50, 000/- AN RS.7,05,26,000/- PLUS PROFIT EARNED ON THE SALES OUT OF ABOVE PROPERTY AMOUNTING TO RS.1,74,18,265/- I.E. TOTAL OF RS.13,46,94,265/- ARE ADDED BACK TO THE TO TAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 8 PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271AAA IS INITIATED SEPARAT ELY FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. (E)DOCUMENT NO.30 OF ISB-8 THE DOCUMENT MENTIONS THE DETAILS OF PURCHASE OF LA ND FOR RS.1.25 CRORE AT BIR TALAB, BATHINDA AND EARNED PROFIT OF RS.9,37 ,000/- BY SELLING THE SAME. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO GIVE ANY EXPLANATION THE AMOUNTS OF RS. 1.25 CRORE (INVESTMENT) AND RS.937000/-(PROFIT) ARE CONSIDERED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED BACK TO HIS TOTAL INCOME. PENALT Y PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271AAA ARE INITIATED ON THIS ACCOUNT.VIDE THIS OFFI CE LETTER DATED 27.02.2013 THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED TO GIVE THE COM PLETE DETAILS REGARDING SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS ON THESE PROPERTIES. THE ASSE SSEE FILE LETTER DATED 11.03.2013 STATING THERE IN THAT NO SUCH PROPERTY W AS PURCHASED AND IT WAS ONLY DUMB DOCUMENT. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN C ONSIDERED AND I FIND NO MERIT IN THAT BECAUSE THE SPECIFIC FIGURES ALONG WI TH THE AREA OF LAND AND SITUATION OF PROPERTY IS ALSO MENTIONED. AS SUCH IT CAN NOT BE TREATED AS A DUMB DOCUMENT. FROM THE ABOVE SAID DETAIL IT CAN BE CONC LUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.L.25CRORE IN VARIOUS LANDS AN D PROFIT OF RS.9,37,000/- ON THE SALE OF THE VARIOUS LANDS SITUATED AT BIR TALAB, BA THINDA. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT, THE IN VESTMENT OF RS.L.25CRORE PLUS PROFIT EARNED ON THE SALES OUT OF ABOVE PROPERTY AM OUNTING TO RS.9,37,000/- I.E. TOTAL OF RS.1,34,37,000/- ARE ADDED BACK TO THE TOT AL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271AAA IS INITIATED SEPARAT ELY FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. (F)DOCUMENT NO.5 OF ISB-11 BACKSIDE OF THIS DOCUMENT MENTIONS THE DETAILS OF S OME INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTIES TOTAL OF WHICH COMES TO RS.20. HOWEVER N O DENOMINATION HAS BEEN MENTIONED ANY WHERE ABOUT THE EXACT INVESTMENT. SIN CE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT, FOR THE S AKE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND TO BE FAIR THE INVESTMENT IS TAKEN AT RS.20 LACS. VIDE TH IS OFFICE LETTER DATED 27.02.2013 THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED TO GIVE THE COMPLETE DETAILS REGARDING SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS ON THESE PROPERTIES. THE ASSE SSEE FILED LETTER DATED 11.03.2013 STATING THERE IN THAT NO SUCH PROPERTY W AS PURCHASED AND IT WAS ONLY DUMB DOCUMENT. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN C ONSIDERED AND I FIND NO MERIT IN THAT BECAUSE THE SPECIFIC FIGURES ALONG WI TH THE AREA OF LAND AND SITUATION OF PROPERTY IS ALSO MENTIONED. AS SUCH IT CAN NOT BE TREATED AS A DUMB DOCUMENT. BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS, AS SUCH THE SAME IS ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. RS.20LACS. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271AAA IS INITIATED SEPARAT ELY FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. (Q)DOCUMENT NO.7 OF ISB-11 (1) THIS PAGE HAS TWO PARTS, ON ONE PART THERE IS M ENTION REGARDING SOME INVESTMENT OF RS.35CRORES HOWEVER THERE IS TOTALING MISTAKE AND EXACT AMOUNT COMES TO RS.32.5CRORES. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE CONTEN TS OF THIS DOCUMENT, FOR THE SAKE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND TO BE FAIR THE INVESTMENT IS TAKEN AT RS.32.5CRORES. VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER DAT ED 27.02.2013 THE ASSESSEE WAS 9 SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED TO GIVE THE COMPLETE DETAILS REGARDING SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS ON THESE PROPERTIES. THE ASSESSEE FILE LETTER DATED 11.03.2013 STATING THERE IN THAT NO SUCH PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED AND IT WAS ONLY DUMB DOCUMENT. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND I FIND NO MERIT IN THAT BECAUSE THE SPECIFIC FIGURES ALONG WITH THE AREA OF LAND AN D SITUATION OF PROPERTY IS ALSO MENTIONED. AS SUCH IT CAN NOT BE TREATED AS A DUMB DOCUMENT. BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVEST MENTS, AS SUCH THE SAME IS ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. RS.32 .5CRORES. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271AAA IS INITIATED SEPARATELY FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. (G) (2) SECOND PART OF THIS PAGE MENTIONS THE DETAILS OF SOME INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTIES TOTAL OF WHICH COMES TO RS.34. HOWEV ER NO DENOMINATION HAS BEEN MENTIONED ANY WHERE ABOUT THE EXACT INVESTMENT. SIN CE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT, FOR THE S AKE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND TO BE FAIR THE INVESTMENT IS TAKEN AT RS.34 LACS. VIDE TH IS OFFICE LETTER DATED 27.02.2013 THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED TO GIVE THE COMPLETE DETAILS REGARDING SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS ON THESE PROPERTIES. THE ASSE SSEE FILE LETTER DATED 11.03.2013 STATING THERE IN THAT NO SUCH PROPERTY W AS PURCHASED AND IT WAS ONLY DUMB DOCUMENT. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN C ONSIDERED AND I FIND NO MERIT IN THAT BECAUSE THE SPECIFIC FIGURES ALONG WI TH THE AREA OF LAND AND SITUATION OF PROPERTY IS ALSO MENTIONED. AS SUCH IT CAN NOT BE TREATED AS A DUMB DOCUMENT. BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAI N THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS, AS SUCH THE SAME IS ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. RS .34LACS. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271AAA IS INITIATED SEPARAT ELY FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. (H)DOCUMENT NO .6 TO 8 OF ISB-11 THIS DOCUMENT MENTIONS THE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS MADE TO VARIOUS PERSONS OF RS.1,42,28,500/- WHICH IS AS UNDER: D RS. 71,28,500/- DEALER RS. 10,00,000/- PARLAHD RS. 25,000/- STAFFY RS. 25,00,000/- STAFFY RS. 3,50,000/- RS. 1,34,78,500/- C/F RS. 7,50,000/- RS. 1,42,28,500/- VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 27.02.2013 THE ASSESS EE WAS SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED TO GIVE THE COMPLETE DETAILS REGARDING SOURCE OF PAYME NTS. THE ASSESSEE FILE LETTER DATED 11.03.2013 STATING THERE IN THAT IT WAS ONLY DUMB DOCUMENT. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND I FIND NO MERI T IN THAT BECAUSE THE SPECIFIC FIGURES REGARDING VARIOUS PAYMENTS, AS SUCH IT CAN NOT BE TREATED AS A DUMB DOCUMENT. BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAI N THE SOURCE OF PAYMENTS, 10 THE SAME IS ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE I.E. RS .1,42,28,500/- . PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271AAA IS INITIATED SEPARAT ELY FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. (I)DOCUMENT NO .4 OF ISB -11 THIS DOCUMENT MENTIONS THE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS MADE TO VARIOUS PERSONS OF RS.21,00,000/- ON 26.10.2010. VIDE THIS OFFICE LETT ER DATED 27.02.2013 THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED TO GIVE THE COMPLETE DET AILS REGARDING SOURCE OF PAYMENTS. THE ASSESSEE FILE LETTER DATED 11.03.2013 STATING THERE IN THAT IT WAS ONLY DUMB DOCUMENT. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN C ONSIDERED AND I FIND NO MERIT IN THAT BECAUSE THE SPECIFIC FIGURES REGARDIN G VARIOUS PAYMENTS, AS SUCH IT CAN NOT BE TREATED AS A DUMB DOCUMENT. BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF PAYMENTS, THE SAME IS ADDED B ACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. RS.21LACS. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271AAA IS INITIATED SEPARAT ELY FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS COMPUTED AS UNDER;- RETURNED INCOME RS. 28,74,080/- ADD : ADDITION AS PER PARA 2.1(A) RS.11,23,17,600/ - ADDITION AS PER PARA 2.1(B) RS.14,49,14,000/- ADDITION AS PER PARA 2.1(C) RS. 5,42,82,079/- ADDITION AS PER PARA 2.1(D) (1) RS.13,46,94,265/- ADDITION AS PER PARA 2.1(E) RS. 1,34,37,000/- ADDITION AS PER PARA 2.1(F) RS. 20,00,000/- ADDITION AS PER PARA 2.1(G) (1) RS.32,50,00,000/- ADDITION AS PER PARA 2.1(G) (2) RS. 34,00,000/ - ADDITION AS PER PARA 2.1(H) RS. 1,42,28,500/- ADDITION AS PER PARA 2.1(I) RS. 21,00,000/- TOTAL INCOME ASSESSED RS. 80,92,47,524/- 3.1 CHARGE INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B & 234C. 3.2 ASSESSED AS PER I.T.N.S 150. NOTICE OF DEMAND U/S 1 56 OF I.T. ACT, 1961 DETERMINING THE SUM PAYABLE IF ANY ISSUED. ISSUE DE MAND NOTICE AND CHALLAN. 3.3 THIS ORDER IS PASSED AFTER SEEKING APPROVAL U/S 153D FORM THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE, LUDHIANA VIDE F.NO. 1508 DATED 25/ 03/2013. 9. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE DOCUMENTS AT PAGE NO. 27 OF ISB- 8 WAS IN RESPECT OF 11 PROJECTION / PROPOSAL AND WAS JUST A PROPOSAL / EST IMATE AND THAT THE USE OF WORD INVEST CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED THIS FACT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED AS UNDER: I) FROM A CLOSE READING OF THE DOCUMENT, IT CAN NEV ER BE REFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 7,97,17,000 /-, BECAUSE THE NOTINGS MENTIONED THEREIN IS NOTAN INVESTMENT, BUT THE WORD HAS BEEN MENTIONED AS 'INVEST' AND INVEST MEANS TO BE INVESTED AND IT IS NOT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE INVESTMENT. II). THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE LAND AREA OR WHETHE R THIS PAPER RELATES TO ANY DEALINGS IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, WHICH HAD TAKEN PLA CE OR NOT IS NOT CLEAR. III). IF WE GO BY THE BASIS OF ASSESSING OFFICER, TH EN ALSO IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT IT IS MERE PROPOSAL/ESTIMATE OR CERTAIN PROJECTION, BECAUSE TH E WORD MENTIONED AT PAGE 27 ARE INTEREST AND LOSS AND WHICH HAS BEEN INTERPR ETED AS INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WHICH IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. IV). ALSO, THE BASIS OF MAKING THE ADDITION AS PER MIND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS TO MAKE AN EXORBITANT ADDITION, WHICH IS BORNE OUT FROM THE FACT THAT THE TOTAL INVESTMENT WHICH HE HAS TAKEN AND THE TOTAL SALES H AVE BEEN ADDED. THIS IS AGAIN IS AN INCORRECT APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER BY TAKING THE DUMB DOCUMENT AS THE BASIS FOR MAKING THE UNCALLED FOR ADDITION OF RS. 14,49,14,000/-. 9.1 IT WAS STATED THAT ALL THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROPERTY WERE DULY ACCOUNTED FOR AND THE DEPARTMENT DID NOT GET ANY DOCUMENT RELATING TO UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE / SALE OF PROPERTY OR ANY OTHER INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSEE IN ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR DURING THE COUR SE OF SEARCH. THE ADDITION WERE MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF NOTING IN THE DIARY WHICH HAD NOT BEEN CORRELATED TO ANY DOCUMENT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 132(4A ) OF THE ACT IS AVAILABLE TO THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 132(5) OF THE ACT ONL Y AND WHERE THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED TO PROVIDE SUCH PRESUMPTION IT HAS BEEN SO PROVIDED IN VARIOUS CHAPTER. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT IN THE CHAPTER REL ATING TO SEARCH AND SEIZURE THE PRESUMPTION ABOUT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE DOCUMENT S IS PROVIDED BUT IT IS LIMITED TO THE SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS ABOUT RETENTION OR RELEASE OF THE ASSETS UNDER SECTION 132(5) OF THE ACT WHICH CANNOT BE EXT ENDED TO THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THAT THE PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 132(4A) IS REBUTTABLE 12 PRESUMPTION AND THE SAME CAN ONLY BE RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT WHEN A DOCUMENT IS A SPEAKING ONE AND IT REFLECTS COMPLETE TRANSACTION WITHOUT TWO INTERPRETATIONS. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWI NG CASE LAWS: P.R. METRANI VS. CIT 287 ITR 209 (SC) ACIT VS. SATYAPAL WASSAN (2008) 5 DTR (JAB) 202 PAR A 31 GURLAL SINGH GREWAL VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 1208/CHD/20 11 VIDE ORDER DT. 29/08/2012 (CHD) CIT VS. ATAM VALVES (P) LTD. (2009) 184 TAXMAN 6 (P &H) SATNAM SINGH CHHABRA VS. DY. CIT (2002) 74 TTJ(LUCK NOW) 976 CIT VS. RAVI KUMAR 294 ITR 78 (P&H) KANTILAL CHANDULAL & CO. VS. CIT (1982) 136 ITR 88 9 (CAL) 9.2 IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT IN SUCH TYPE OF CASE S THERE CANNOT BE ANY EXTRAPOLATION BY PRESUMING THAT THE FIGURES WERE IN LACS OR CRORES WHEN NO SUCH FIGURES HAD BEEN WRITTEN ON THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED DU RING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: CIT VS,. GIRISH CHAUDHARY (2008) 296 ITR 619 (DEL) ATUL KUMAR JAIN VS. DCIT 64 TTJ 786 (DELHI) 9.3 THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION S OF THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED THE A.O. TO PRODUCE THE SAID SEIZED RECORD AND ALSO TO BRING ON RECORD THE BASIS OF WORKING OUT UNACCOUNTED INCOME / INVESTMENT THE A.O. SUBMITTED HIS REPORT DT. 06/01/2014 AND THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SAID REPORT READ AS UNDER: II) THE NOTINGS ON PAGE NO.27 OF ISB-8 ARE WITH REG ARD TO SALE OF VARIOUS PROPERTIES AMOUNTING TO RS.6,51,97,000/- WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DI SCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. SIMILARLY, THERE ARE NOTINGS ON THIS PAGE REGARDING INVESTMENT TOTALING RS.7,97,17,000/- FOR WHICH DETAILS, SUCH AS NAME OF PERSONS AND THE AMOUNT ARE AVAILABLE ON THIS PAGE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESS MENT PRECEDING THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE IDENTITY OF THESE PERSON S AND INVESTMENT MADE IN VARIOUS PROPERTIES. ON THE TOP OF THIS PAGE, IT HAS BEEN WRITTEN 'JAI SINGH WALA'. THIS SHOWS THAT THE PROPERTY MIGHT BE SITUATED IN J AI SINGH WALA. FURTHER THE TRANSACTIONS ARE RUNNING INTO CRORES AGAINST SOME P ROPERTY WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS JUST TO AVOID 13 INQUIRIES/VERIFICATIONS BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS ONLY PROPOSAL WHICH DID NOT MATERIALIZED IS A VAGUE EXPL ANATION BECAUSE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HE DID NOT SPECIFY THE LAND AND THE PERSON WITH WHOM THE PROPOSAL WAS MADE. THE NOTINGS ON THIS PAGE ALS O SHOW THE AMOUNTS WRITTEN AS SALES/PROFITS. THE ADDITION OF RS. 14,49,14,000/- HAS BEEN MADE WH ICH IS THE TOTAL OF SALES AND INVESTMENT WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. JAI SINGH WALA 4,67,50,000/- PROFIT 1 ACRE 9,37,000/- PROFIT 2 ACRE 9,10,000/- SALE HANS NAGAR 1,66,00,000/- S.J. 6,51,97,000/- 9.4 THE LD. CIT(A) MENTIONED THAT A LETTER WAS WRIT TEN ON 04/12/2013 TO THE SUB-REGISTRAR CUM TEHSILDAR, BATHINDA REGARDING PUR CHASE / SALE OF PROPERTIES BY SHRI INDERJEET SINGH BRAR I.E; THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS DURING THE PERIOD 01/04/2009 TO 31/03/2011 IN THE AREA OF HANS NAGAR, BATHINDA; BIR TALAB, BATHINDA; VILL. JAI SINGH WALA, BATHINDA; LAL SINGH BASTI, BATHINDA AND MULTANIA ROAD, BATHINDA. HE ALSO MENTIONED THAT A REPLY WAS RECEIVED VIDE LETTER NO. 575 DATED 12/12/2013 IN WHICH IT HAD BEEN STATED THAT S HRI INDERJEET SINGH BRAR HAS SOLD 35 KANALS OF LAND IN VILL. JAI SINGH WALA ON 0 5/06/2009 AND SMT. JASWINDER KAUR W/O SHRI KARNAIL SINGH (MOTHER OF SH. INDERJEE T SINGH BRAR) HAD ALSO SOLD LAND MEASURING 32 KANAL 14 MARLA IN VILL. JAI SINGH WALA ON 05/06/2009 AND THAT NO OTHER PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED OR SOLD DURING THE PER IOD 01/04/2009 TO 31/03/2011 BY THE ASSESSEE OR HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. 9.5 THE A.O. SUBMITTED IN HIS REPORT THAT IT WAS TH E MODUS-OPERANDI OF THE PROPERTY DEALERS THAT GENERALLY THEY DO NOT PURCHAS E THE PROPERTY BY WAY OF REGISTRATION DEED BUT ONLY BY WAY OF POWER OF ATTOR NEY AND THE SAME LAND WAS SOLD ON THE BASIS OF POWER OF ATTORNEY, HENCE THEIR NAME DID NOT APPEAR IN THE REGISTRATION DEED OR IN REVENUE RECORDS. IT WAS FUR THER STATED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PIN POINTED THE PROPERTIES AGAINST WHICH HE HAD STATED TO BE ONLY PROPOSALS , HE MAY BE ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE ABO VE PROPERTIES SO THAT THE VERIFICATION COULD BE MADE. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ASKED THE A.O. TO PURSUE THE 14 MATTER IN TERMS OF INVESTIGATING THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THE CONTENTS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND TO RECORD THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESS EE AS THE SAME HAD NOT BEEN DONE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. TH E A.O. WAS ALSO DIRECTED TO MAKE INQUIRIES WITH THE LAND REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THE GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATIONS RECORDED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT. THE REPORT OF THE ENQUIRIES WAS SUBMITTED BY THE A.O. VIDE LETTER DT. 27/01/2014 WHICH READ AS U NDER: 'IN CONTINUATION OF REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED IN THE ABOVE CASE BY THIS OFFICE VIDE LETTER NO.976-77 DATED 06.01.2014, FURTHER REPORT I S BEING SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- AS PER YOUR DIRECTIONS SH. INDERJIT SINGH BRAR WAS CALLED IN THIS OFFICE AND HIS STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED ON 21.01.2014. ALL THE SEI ZED DOCUMENTS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ADDITIONS WERE MADE DURING ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS CONFRONTED TO HIM AND HE WAS REQUIRED TO GIVE EXPLANATION OF THE ENTR IES AGAINST IN THESE DOCUMENTS. ON ALL THESE ENTRIES IN THE SEIZED RECORD THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THESE WERE ONLY PROJECTION. WHEN ASKED TO SPECIFY T HE LAND FOR WHICH THIS PROJECTIONS WERE MADE OR THE NAME OF THE PERSON WIT H WHOM PROJECTIONS WERE MADE, THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT THE MATTER IS VERY OLD AND HE DID NOT REMEMBER ANY SUCH LAND OR THE PERSON (REFER Q.NO.2). EVEN RE GARDING SPECIFIC AMOUNTS WRITTEN ON THESE DOCUMENTS, THE ASSESSEE STILL STAT ED THEM TO BE PROJECTIONS (REFER Q.NO.3). WHERE THE AMOUNT WRITTEN AS 'PAID', THIS W AS STATED THAT THE AMOUNT MIGHT HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO BE PAID (REFER Q.NO.4). AS PER Q.NO.14 THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED HOW THE PROFI TS OF RS.9,37,000/- AND RS.9,10,000/- WERE CALCULATED AGAINST WHICH ' PROPE RTIES (PAGE NO.27 OF ISB-8). THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THESE FIGURES WERE ONLY ESTIMA TES. REGARDING OTHER SEIZED DOCUMENTS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS IN THE REMAND REPORT DATED 06.01.2014, THE ASSESSEE GAVE NO EXPLANATION AND ONLY STATED THAT HE DID NOT REMEMBER THE NATURE OF ENTRIES CONTAINED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. AS PER Q.NO.27 THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED THAT IF HE DOES NOT REMEMBER THE LOCATION OF LAND AND THE NAME OF PERSON WHO MADE TH E PROPOSAL FOR SALE OF LAND IN ALL THE CASES MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED RECORD, TH EN HE SHOULD TELL ONLY THE NAMES OF THREE PERSONS OR LOCATION OF LAND FOR WHICH OFFE RS FOR SALE OF LAND WAS RECEIVED BY HIM DURING THIS PERIOD. EVEN TO THIS QUESTION HE STATED THAT THE MATTER IS VERY OLD AND HE HAS NOT KEPT ANY RECORD. THIS SHOWS GROS S NON-COOPERATIVE ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE AND CLEARLY PROVES THAT HE IS NOT WILL ING TO GIVE ANY INFORMATION TO THE DEPARTMENT TO AVOID FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS. IT IS VERY MUCH UNBELIEVABLE THAT A PERSON OF SOUND MIND IS STATING THAT HE HAS FORGOTT EN ALL THE LAND TRANSACTIONS PROPOSAL DURING THE LAST 7-8 YEARS, NOT EVEN REMEMB ERING NAMES OF THREE PERSONS OR THE LOCATION OF LANDS AGAINST WHICH PROPOSALS WE RE MADE TO HIM WHICH HE NOTED IN HIS DIARY WITH SPECIFIC AMOUNTS. DURING THE POST SEARCH ENQUIRIES BY THE INVESTIGATI ON WING, THE STATEMENTS OF SH. INDERJIT SINGH BRAR WERE RECORDED ON 10.03.2011, HE DID NOT GIVE ANSWER OR EXPLANATION TO THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS CONFRONTED TO H IM BY THE DDIT(INV.). HE JUST ONLY STATED THAT THE ENTRIES CONTAINED IN THESE DOC UMENTS AS DUMB PAPER AND 15 PROJECTIONS. FURTHER, HE ALSO STATED THAT HE WAS NO T IN FRAME OF MIND TO GIVE ANSWER TO THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. KEEPING IN VIEW THE NON-COOPERATIVE ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING EXPLANATION OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS, ADDITIONS MADE ON THE BASIS OF THESE DOCUMENTS MAY KINDLY BE CONFIRMED. COPY OF STATEMEN TS OF SH. INDERJIT SINGH BRAR DATED 21.02.2014 IS ENCLOSED.' THE AFORESAID LETTER OF THE A.O. WAS CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS UNDER: 'DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL THE ISS UE REGARDING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED INV ESTMENT AND SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES WAS DISCUSSED WITH YOUR GOODSE LF. THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF P ROPERTIES DURING THE A.Y. 2005- 06 TO 2011-12 WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO DURING THE CO URSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALONGWITH THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT AND NO ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ON THE BASIS OF ANY DOCUMENT/PURCHASE DEED /AGREEMENT SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR OTHERWISE. SIMILARLY THE EV IDENCE REGARDING SALE OF PROPERTIES HAS BEEN FILED AND NO ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO. THE INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES HAS BEEN DIS CLOSED UNDER THE HEAD FIXED ASSETS IN THE PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET FILED DURING T HE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE PROFIT IF ANY ARISING FROM SALE OF ANY ASSET HAS BEEN DECLARED UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS. NO PROPERTY WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER DEVELOPMENT AND PLOTTING OF THE SAME AND THER E IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE SEIZED RECORD THAT ANY SUCH ACTIVITY WAS CARRIED OU T BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS EXPLAINED IN THE ATTESTED AFFIDAVIT FILED BE FORE THE A.O. THAT:- I) NO INVESTMENT IN ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WAS MADE EITHER BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF/WIFE/CHILDREN IN ANY AREA KNOWN AS HANS NAGAR, LAI SINGH BASTI, MULTANIA ROAD, BIR TALAB DURING ANY PERIOD. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO ONLY ON THE BASIS OF NOTINGS IN THE SEIZED RECORD WITHOU T CORRELATING THE SAME WITH ANY DOCUMENT/AGREEMENT/PURCHASE/SALE DEED WHICH IS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR. II) EVEN THE COMPANY M/S SHEESH MAHAL DEVELOPER LIM ITED DID NOT MAKE ANY INVESTMENT IN ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IN THE AREAS O F LOCALITY KNOWN AS HANS NAGAR, LAL SINGH BASTI, MULTANIA ROAD, BIR TALAB, J AI SINGH WALA ETC. THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED ONLY 1/2 SHARE OF 70 KANAL OF AGRICULTURE LAND AT VILL JAI SINGH WALA ON 03.08.2007 AND THE SAME WAS SOLD ON 3 0.06.2009 AS AGRICULTURE LAND. THE EVIDENCE REGARDING THE SAME WAS FILED DUR ING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 16 DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE AO FAILED TO CORRELATE THE NOTINGS IN THE SEIZED RECORD WITH ANY DOCUMENT/PURCHASE DEED/AGREEMENT TO PROVE THAT SUCH NOTINGS RESULTED INTO ACTUAL INVESTMENTS/SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES OR PROFIT WAS ACTUALLY EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE, EXORBITANT ADDITIO NS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE AO WHICH ARE MERELY BASED ON PRESUMPTIONS. OUR CONTENTION THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FRAMED B Y THE AO WITHOUT MAKING ANY EFFORT TO CORRELATE THE NOTINGS WITH ANY DOCUME NT IN SEIZED RECORDS IS PROVED BEYOND ANY IOTA OF DOUBT FROM THE FACT THAT THE AO M ADE ADDITIONS OF RS. 32,50,00,000/- BASED ON THE NOTINGS OF 35 CR. (WHIC H COULD BE CREDIT ALSO) ON LEFT HAND SIDE OF THE DOCUMENT AND 34,00,000/- ON ACCOUN T OF 34 WRITTEN ON RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 7 OF ISB-11 WHICH SHO WS THAT THE FIGURES HAVE BEEN EXTRAPOLATED BY THE AO BY PRESUMING THAT THEY A RE IN LAC OR CRORES AS PER HIS WHIMS AND FANCIES AND THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN M ADE IN A.Y. 2011-12. SO MUCH SO THAT THE PROFIT OF 6,51,97,000/- HAS BEEN D ETERMINED FROM THE SALE OF PROPERTIES IN WHICH UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT HAVE BEE N DETERMINED AT RS. 7,97,17,000/- RESULTING IN ADDITION OF RS. 14,49,14 ,000/- IN A.Y. 2011-12 ON THE BASIS OF NOTINGS IN THE DOCUMENT NO. 27 ISB-8. SIMILARLY THE WORD PLOTS HAS BEEN EXTRAPOLATED IN DOCUMENT NO. 38 OF ISB-13 AND THE A LLEGED SALE OF RS. 6,32,00,000/- HAS BEEN TAXED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR A.Y. 2007-08. THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING EXORBITANT ADDITION OF RS. 80,63 ,73,444/- FOR A.Y. 2011-12 AND RS. 6,32,00,000/- FOR A.Y. 2007-08 MERELY ON THE BA SIS OF NOTINGS IN THE SEIZED RECORDS SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE AO I S A TYPICAL CASE OF ASSESSMENT BASED SUMMARIZES AND CONJECTURES. THE AB OVE SAID CASES ARE ONLY EXAMPLES AND THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS ON ALL THE AD DITIONS MADE BY THE AO HAS ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE YOUR GOODSELF AND DIS CUSSED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE STATED FACTS, IT IS MOST HUMBL Y PRAYED THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF THE ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES OR THE PRO FITS EARNED FROM SALE OF PROPERTIES MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 9.6 THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT THE NOTINGS ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WERE ONLY PROJECTIONS AND PROPOSALS WHICH DID NOT MATERI ALIZE OR ROUGH NOTINGS. THE RELEVANT SUBMISSIONS FOR THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERAT ION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WERE AS UNDER: SR. PAGE NO. INTERPRETATION BY THE A.O. COMMENTS 1. 25 AND 26 OF ISB 8 (PAGE 2 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER) ADDITION OF RS. 112317600/- (RS. 48700000/ - + RS. 56600000/-+ RS. 7017600/ -) = RS.LL231760 0/- NOTING ON PAGE 26 WHICH IS LOOSE SLIP HAS BEEN WRITTEN AS 48700000/- AS INVEST 44200000/- + 4500000/- FOR 4.5 ACRES OF LAND IN HANS NAGAR, BATHINDA WHICH HAS BEEN WRITTEN ON PAGE 25 WHICH IS ALSO A LOOSE SLIP. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AO HAS INTERPRETED AS INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE IN HANS NAGAR DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE WORD INVEST AND NOT INVESTMENT HAS BEEN USED. THERE ARE NO FURTHER REFERENCE OF ANY TRANSACTION OF SALE OF THIS PROPERTY IN THE SEIZED RECORD. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER/REMAND REPORT THE AO HAS TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 4.87 CRORES AS PART OF THE AMOUNT INVESTED 17 NOTING ON PAGE 26 WHICH IS A LOOSE SLIP OF RS. 56600000/- HAS BEEN TREATED AS PURCHASE OF 7 ACRES OF PROPERTY FOR RS. 56600000/- AND PROFIT OF RS. 7017600/- HAS BEEN WORKED OUT BY COMPUTING THE PURCHASE PRICE OF RS. 1600/- PER SQ, YRD. FOR WHICH NO DETAILS HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT HOW THIS WORKING HAS BEEN MADE. FURTHER 6622 SQ, YRDS HAS BEEN TREATED AS SOLD FOR RS. 16632800/- AND 2250 SQ. YRDS HAS BEEN TREATED SOLD FOR RS. 4500000/- AND RS. 16000000/- AS THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF 2 ACRES. FOR PURCHASE OF 7 ACRES OF LAND IN HANS NAGAR BATHINDA. THIS PROVES THE NON APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE AO BECAUSE 4.5 ACRES @ 80 HAS BEEN NOTED ON PAGE 25 IN THE CONTEXT OF RS. 48700000/- MENTIONED ON PAGE 25 AND TOP OF THE PAGE 26. 1 ACRE OF LAND CONSIST OF 4840 SQ, YRDS AND 55% SALEABLE AREA IS NORMALLY AVAILABLE AFTER LEAVING THE AREA FOR STREETS ETC. THE PURCHASE PRICE HAS BEEN COMPUTED @ RS. 1600/-PER SQ. YRDS WHICH IS WITHOUT ANY DETAILS OF WORKING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR IN THE REMAND REPORT AND THE SAME COMES TO RS. 1670/- IF CALCULATED ACTUALLY FOR 7 ACRES WHICH COMES TO 33180 SQ. YRDS. THE SALEABLE AREA WOULD HAVE BEEN 18600 SQ. YRDS FROM THE TOTAL 7 ACRES OF LAND. BUT THE AO HAS TREATED AS 2 ACRES AND 8852 SQ. YRDS. AS SOLD WHICH MAKES THE PROJECTION INCOMPLETE BECAUSE IF PLOTING IS DONE 2 ACRES CANNOT BE SOLD WITHOUT CONVERTING THE SAME INTO PLOTS AND IF RS. 7017600/- HAS BEEN EARNED FROM 8852 SQ. YRDS WHY 2 ACRES HAS BEEN TREATED TO BE SOLD AT COST PRICE. FURTHER THE AMOUNT OF RS. 16632800/- TAKEN AS SALE PRICE BY THE AO OF 6622 SQ. YRDS THE SAME COMES TO RS. 2500/- PER SQ. YRD AS AGAINST THE AMOUNTS OF @ 2400/- AND 2800/- HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE DOCUMENT. ALL THESE FACTS PROVES THAT THE NOTING ON THIS DOCUMENT ARE ONLY PROJECTIONS AND ESTIMATIONS OTHERWISE THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN NOTED 2 PAGE 27 OF ISB 8 ADDITION OF RS. 144914000/- (PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER) (RS. 65197000/- + RS. 79717000/-) THE SALE WORD HAS BEEN USED ON THIS LOOSE SLIP AND UNDER THE SAME PROFIT 1 ACRE AND 2 ACRES HAS ALSO BEEN MENTIONED TOTAL OF RS. 65197000/- HAS BEEN WRITTEN RS. 79717000/- HAS BEEN INTERPRETED AS INVESTMENT ON THE BASIS OF NOTING ON THIS LOOSE SLIP THE NOTINGS DOES NOT LEAD TO ANY CONCLUSION BECAUSE PROFITS OF RS. 937000/- AND RS. 910000/- NOTED ON THIS DOCUMENT AND CLEARLY LEGIBLE AND REPRODUCED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE THE SALES. THE TOTALING SALES PROVES THAT ONLY ESTIMATES. THE A3 HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS. 65197000/- DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 16600000/- SALE HANS NAGAR HAS BEEN ALSO MENTIONED ON PAGE 26 OF ISB 8 AND PROFIT 937000/-HAS ALSO BEEN MENTIONED ON PAGE 30 OF ISB 8 FOR WHICH SEPARATE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE. ON THE SECOND PART OF THIS DOCUMENT THERE IS NO TOTAL AND WORD INVEST HAS BEEN MENTIONED AND THE AMOUNT OF LOSS AND INTEREST HAS ALSO BEEN TOTALED FOR RS. 79717000/-WHICH INCLUDES RS. 8500000/- BIANA FOR HANS NAGAR FOR WHICH ADDITION OF RS. 56600000/- + 48700000/- HAS BEEN SEPARATELY MADE 18 AS PER NOTING ON PAGE 26. FURTHER RS. 40000000/- AGAINST HANS NAGAR IS ALSO PART OF THE FIGURES AS NOTED ON PAGE 26 BUT SEPARATE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE. THESE FACTS PROVES NON APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE AO. THE FIGURE OF RS. 48700000/- NOTED ON PAGE 25 AND 26 MENTIONED IN ROUND FIGURE OF RS. 40000000/- THAT THE NOTINGS ON THESE LOOSE SLIPS ARE ONLY ESTIMATE. FURTHER THE LOSS 7500000/-INTEREST 800000/- HAS ALSO BEEN ADDED WHILE MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 79717000/- AND THE SAME PROVES THAT THESE ARE ONLY ROUGH NOTINGS WHICH HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE INCOME WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE AO. 3 PAGE 28 OF ISB 8 ADDITION OF RS. 54282079/-(PAGE 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER) (RS. 39275215/- + RS. 15006864/-) THE AO HAS INTERPRETED THE NOTING ON THIS LOOSE SLIP AS TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE/SALE OF LAND IN LAI SINGH BASTI, BATHINDA. THE PURCHASE PRICE HAS BEEN TAKEN AT RS. 39275215/- AND SALE HAS BEEN COMPUTED AT RS. 39710800/-FOR SALE OF 14566 SQ. YRDS OF LAND AND 4308 SQ. YRDS HAS BEEN TREATED AS AVAILABLE @ RS. 2500/- PER SQ. YRD AND THE PROFIT HAS BEEN COMPUTED AT RS. 15006864. THE CALCULATION ON THIS PAGE RELATES TO 23155 SQ. YRDS OF LAND AGAINST WHICH THE SALE AND LEFT AREA IS ONLY 18874 SQ. YRDS. (3666+9700+ 1200 SQ. YRDS TAKEN AS SALES AND 4308 SQ.YRDS AS LEFT OUT AREA) SOLD WITHOUT ANY DETAILS OF THE BALANCE LAND WHICH SHOWS THAT THESE ARE ONLY PROJECTIONS. THE AO HAS NOT TAKEN ANY COGNIZANCE OF THE BALANCE LAND WHICH SHOWS NON APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE AO. THE WORD 1200 SOLD BY 255/85 AND 25 LACS HAS BEEN INTERPRETED AS SALE PRICE OF 1200 SQ. YRDS. LEFT AREA 5558 HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION AS 5558-1200=4308 HAS BEEN TAKEN AS LEFT AREA WHICH SHOWS THAT CALCULATION HAVE BEEN MADE ACCORDING TO CONVENIENCE AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE AO. 4. PAGE 29 OF ISB 8 ADDITION OF RS. 134694265/- (PAGE 5 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER) (RS. 46750000/- + RS. 70526000/- + RS. 17418265/-) THE NOTING OF 5.5 ACRES AND 21.2 KANAL AT JAI SINGH WALA ON THIS LOOSE SLIP HAS BEEN TAKEN AS INVESTMENT. THE NOTINGS OF RS. 70526000/- HAS BEEN TAKEN AS INVESTMENT AT MULTANIA ROAD AND PROFIT OF RS. 17418265/- HAS BEEN COMPUTED FOR WHICH NO DETAILS HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BUT THE SAME HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THE REMAND REPORT. THERE IS NO NOTINGS ON THIS LOOSE SLIP THAT WHETHER THIS TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OR SALE BUT THE SAME AHS BEEN TREATED AS INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY AT JAI SINGH WALA. THERE ARE NO DETAILS OF SALE OF THIS PROPERTY IN THE SEIZED RECORD AND THIS AMOUNT HAS ALSO BEEN MENTIONED ON PAGE 27 FOR WHICH SEPARATE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE. THE TOTAL LAND WAS 27746.80 SQ. YRDS BUT THE PROFIT HAS BEEN COMPUTED FOR ONLY 13835 SQ. YRDS AND THERE IS NO DISCUSSION OF BALANCE LAND OF 13911 SQ. YRDS. WHICH SHOWS THE NON APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE A.O. AND ALSO THE FACT THAT THE NOTINGS ON THIS PAGE ARE ONLY PROJECTIONS AND ESTIMATES RS. 17953000/- HAS ALSO BEEN MENTIONED ON PAGE 27 OF THE SEIZED RECORD FOR WHICH SEPARATE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE. 5. PAGE 30 OF ISB 8 (PAGE 5 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER) ADDITION OF RS. 13437000/- THE INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY AT BIR TALAB HAS BEEN TAKEN AT RS. 12500000/- AND THE NET PROFIT HAS BEEN COMPUTED AT RS. 937000/-. RS. 937000 HAS BEEN MENTIONED ON PAGE 27 OF THE SEIZED RECORD FOR WHICH SEPARATE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE. THE NOTINGS IS ONLY BIR TALAB 1 ACRE 19 PURCHASE PRICE 1.25, SALE PRICE 1.37 AND NET P 937000/- WHICH HAS BEEN INTERPRETED AS A TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE AND SALE IN SOME PROPERTY AT BIR TALAB, BATHINDA. 6. PAGE 5 OF ISB 11 (PAGE 6 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER) ADDITION OF RS. 2000000/- THE NOTINGS OF 20.00 HAS BEEN INTERPRETED AS 2000000/- AS ACCORDING TO THE A.O. THE DETAILS ARE OF SOME PROPERTIES OF 9.5 ACRES IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON 21.01.2014, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLARIFY THAT TILL TO DATE THERE IS NO PROPERTY MENTIONED ON RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE PAGE IN THE NAME OF 2 ACRE ZANDER TOWER. 7 ACRE FARM HOUSE EITHER OWNED BY HIM OR HIS FAMILY MEMBERS AND THESE ARE ROUGH NOTHINGS ONLY. MOREOVER THE DIARY IN WHICH NOTINGS HAVE BEEN MADE IS OF 14.01.2010 BUT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE A.Y. 2011-12 FOR WHICH NO REASONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR THE REMAND REPORT. 7. PAGE 7 OF ISB 11 (PAGE 6&7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER) ADDITION OF RS. 32.5 CRORES AND RS. 34 LACS RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTERPRETED AS INVESTMENT OF RS. 32.5 CRORES AND LEFT HAND SIDE OF THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTEREPRETED AS INVESTMENT OF RS. 3400000/- IN SOME PROPERTIES. THE FIGURE OF RS. 32.5 HAS BEEN TAKEN IN CRORES BY EXTRAPOLATION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF 32.5 CR DESPITE THE FACT THE TOTALING OF THE NOTINGS HAS BEEN MENTIONED AS 35 BUT THE SAME COMES TO 32.5 WHICH PROVES THAT THESE ARE ROUGH NOTINGS OTHERWISE THE PERSON MAKING INVESTMENT TO THE TUNE OF 32.5 CRORES CANNOT WRITE THE TOTAL AS 35 CRORES. THE FIGURES ON RIGHT HAND SIDE WRITTEN AS 34 HAS BEEN INTERPRETED AS 3400000/- WITHOUT LINKING THE NOTING ON THIS PAGE WITH ANY UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT. THE NOTINGS HAS BEEN MADE IN THE DIARY DATED 21.01.2010 BUT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN A.Y. 2011-12 FOR WHICH NO REASON HAVE BEEN GIVEN EITHER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR THE REMAND REPORT. 8. PAGE 6 OF ISB 21 (PAGE 7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER) ADDITION OF RS. 14228500/- ROUGH NOTINGS ON THIS PAGE HAS BEEN TREATED AS SOME PAYMENTS MADE TO VARIOUS PAYMENTS. THE A.O. HAS NOT MADE ANY EFFORTS EITHER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR REMAND REPORT TO GIVE THE NATURE OF PAYMENTS BUT HAVE MADE THE ADDITION WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND. 9. PAGE 4 ISB 21 PAGE 7 & 8 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ADDITION OF RS. 2100000/- THE TOTAL OF 0.21 HAS BEEN EXTRAPOLATED AS 2100000/- AS PAYMENT OF RS. 2100000/- THE FIGURE 0.21 HAS BEEN EXTRAPOLATED AS PAYMENT OF 2100000/- WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE A.O. OR GIVING THE NATURE OF PAYMENT EITHER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF IN THE REMAND REPORT. 9.7 ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS IT WA S STATED THAT THE NOTINGS ON THE SAID LOOSE SLIP WERE ONLY PROJECTIONS AND PROPO SALS FOR WHICH ESTIMATES WERE NOTED BUT DID NOT MATERIALIZE INTO ANY TRANSACTION OF ACTUAL PURCHASE / SALE RESULTING INTO ANY UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT OR PROFIT TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE NOTIN GS ON THE LOOSE SLIP HAD BEEN 20 MADE BY THE A.O. WITHOUT ANY APPLICATION OF MIND AS THE UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN VARIOUS PROPERTIES HAD BEEN CONSIDERE D WITHOUT ANY NOTING ON LOOSE SLIP THAT THE NOTING RELATES TO PURCHASE /SAL E AND PROFITS ON PART OF THE LAND HAD BEEN COMPUTED WITHOUT GOING INTO THE COMPLETE D ETAILS WHICH PROVED THAT THE FIGURES NOTED WERE ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROP OSALS / ESTIMATES. IT WAS STATED THAT THE ADDITIONS HAD BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. WITHOUT GIVING THE SECTION OF THE INCOME TAX ACT UNDER WHICH ADDITIONS HAD BEE N MADE WHICH ALSO PROVED THAT THE ADDITION HAD BEEN MADE WITHOUT APPL ICATION OF MIND. 9.8 THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION S OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REPORT OF THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT SEARCH IN THIS CAS E WAS CARRIED OUT ON 18/02/2011 WHEREIN NO CASH OR ANY VALUABLE EXCEPT 2 00 GMS OF GOLD HAD BEEN SEIZED AND NO DOCUMENTS IN THE FORM OF AGREEMENT TO SELL OR REGISTERED SALE DEEDS HAD BEEN FOUND EVIDENCING ANY UNACCOUNTED PUR CHASE /SALES BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AS HIGHLIGHTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD BEEN FOUND WHICH WERE WRITTEN IN THE HAND OF TH E ASSESSEE HIMSELF, SOME IN THE FORM OF LOOSE PAPERS. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ANY SUCH DOCUMENT HAS TO BE DESCRIPTIVE SPEAKING ENOUGH TO HOLD ON ITS OWN A ND FOR THIS PURPOSE HAS TO RECORD THE SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIPTIVE NATURE OF THE T RANSACTION CARRIED ON, THE SPECIFIC DETAILS OF PROPERTY PURCHASED OR SOLD, THE BUYERS OR SELLERS THEREOF, THE SPECIFIC DATES/YEAR IN WHICH SUCH TRANSACTION HAD B EEN CARRIED OUT AND OTHER ATTENDANTS DETAILS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PRESUMED T RANSACTIONS HAD ACTUALLY TAKEN PLACE AND THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION HAD BEEN AC TUALLY EXCHANGED. HOWEVER IN CASE THE DOCUMENTS SO FOUND AND SEIZED F ALL SHORT IN ANY RESPECT, THE GAPS THEREOF WERE TO BE BRIDGED BY CARRYING OUT INVESTIGATIONS EITHER BY THE INVESTIGATION WING OR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE DOCUMENTS FOUND AND SEIZED HAD NOT SUFFICI ENTLY DESCRIPTIVE AND SPEAKING WHICH IS THE FIRST STEP IN THE PROCESS OF ARRIVING AT THE LIKELY UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE PERSON CONCERNED AND THAT THE NEXT LOGICAL STEP WAS TO COLLECT MORE EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF INVESTI GATIONS SO THAT THE POSSIBILITY 21 OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT / INCOME AS EVIDENCED BY THE SEIZED DOCUMENT WAS ESTABLISHED WITH CERTAIN REASONABLE CERTAINTY. THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE JUDICIAL VIEW ON WHETHER A PARTICULAR SEIZED DO CUMENT WAS SPEAKING ENOUGH OR NOT HAS BEEN EXPRESSED IN NUMBER OF CASES . THE REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: GURLAL SINGH GREWAL VS. ACIT, CIRLCE-VI, LUDHIANA, ITA NO. 1208/CHD/2011 ORDER DT. 29/08/2012 9.9 THE LD. CIT(A) DISCUSSED THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SATYAPAL WASSAN (SUPRA) DECIDED BY THE ITAT JABALPUR ON THE ISSUE O F CATEGORIZATION OF A PARTICULAR DOCUMENT AS DUMB DOCUMENT WHEREIN THE A. O. RELIED UPON THE DOCUMENTS CONTAINED IN THE FOLLOWING DETAILS: G.S 5 RAVI 2 KOTLI 2 UMIYA 2 SWAMY 5 GANPATH 1-1/2 RADHESHYAM SHYAMJIBHAI 1 DARI .30 LAMBA BHU DEV BROS. 2 22.30 9.10 THE LD. CIT(A) REPRODUCED THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ITAT, JABALPUR IN THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO CASE WHICH ARE REPRODUCED VER BATIM AS UNDER: 'WE HAVE ALREADY POINTED OUT ABOVE THAT THIS DOCUME NT IS BEREFT OF NECESSARY DETAILS ABOUT YEAR OF TRANSACTION, OWNERSHIP OF TRA NSACTION, NATURE OF TRANSACTION, NECESSARY CODE FOR DECIPHERING THE FIGURES. IT MAY BE POSSIBLE THAT A DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE COMPLETE IN ALL RESPECTS AS THE BUSINESS MAN OR TAX EVADERS MAY CHOOSE TO RECORD MINIMUM DETAILS ON A DOCUMENT AND KEEP THE REST IN THEIR MEMORY. IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO C ARRY OUT NECESSARY INVESTIGATIONS BY CORRELATING THE IMPUGNED DOCUMENT WITH OTHER DOC UMENTS SEIZED, WITH REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, WITH RECORD KEPT BY OUTS IDE AGENCIES, SUCH AS BANKS OR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS OR DEBTORS/CREDITORS AND FINALLY, BY RECORDING THE 22 STATEMENTS OF CONCERNED PARTIES SO AS TO FILL UP TH E GAPS IN CONFIRMING THE INFERENCE ARISING FROM THE DOCUMENTS FOR A PROPER C HARGE OF TAX. SUCH CORRELATION IS NECESSARY UNLESS THE DOCUMENT IS CAPABLE OF SPEA KING GIVING FULL DETAILS SO AS TO ENABLE ANY INTELLIGENT PERSON TO FIND OUT THE NATUR E OF TRANSACTION, THE YEAR OF TRANSACTION, THE OWNERSHIP OF THE TRANSACTION AND Q UANTUM THEREOF. EVEN IN THAT SITUATION, IT IS NECESSARY TO GIVE OPPORTUNITY TO T HE ASSESSEE TO OFFER HIS EXPLANATION AND INVESTIGATION BE CARRIED OUT TO STRENGTHEN THE DIRECT INFERENCE ARISING FROM THIS DOCUMENT.' 14. THE HON'BLE BENCH FURTHER MADE DETAILED OBSERVA TIONS ON THE ISSUE AS UNDER:- ' LET US NOW EXAMINE HOW ALL THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSES OF LEVYING TAX ON THE BASIS OF A SEIZED DOCUMENT. SEC. 4 RELATES TO CHARGE OF INCOME-TAX. IT READS AS UNDER : 'SEC. 4 (1) WHERE ANY CENTRAL ACT ENACTS THAT INCOM E-TAX SHALL BE CHARGED FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR AT ANY RATE OR RATES, INCOME-TA X AT THAT ATE OR THOSE RATES SHALL BE CHARGED FOR THAT YEAR IN ACCORDANCE WITH A ND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS (INCLUDING PROVISIONS FOR THE LEVY OF ADDITIONAL IN COME-TAX) OF THIS ACT IN RESPECT OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR OF EVERY PERS ON : PROVIDED THAT WHERE BY VIRTUE OF ANY PROVISION OF T HIS ACT, INCOME-TAX IS TO BE CHARGED IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME OF A PERIOD OTHER THAN THE PREVIOUS YEAR, INCOME-TAX SHALL BE CHARGED ACCORDINGLY. (2) IN RESPECT OF INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER SUB-S. (1 ), INCOME-TAX SHALL BE DEDUCTED AT THE SOURCE OR PAID IN ADVANCE, WHERE IT IS SO DEDUCTIBLE OR PAYABLE UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT.' FROM A READING OF ABOVE SECTION, WE FIND FOLLOWING COMPONENTS WHICH ENTER INTO THE CONCEPT OF TAXATION. THE FIRST IS THE TAXABLE E VENT WHICH ATTRACTS THE LEVY. THE SECOND IS THE PERSON ON WHOM THE LEVY IS IMPOSED AN D WHO IS OBLIGED TO PAY THE TAX. THE THIRD IS THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH CHAR GE OF INCOME-TAX IS LEVIED. THE FOURTH IS THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND THE FIFTH IS THE RATE OR RATES AT WHICH TAX IS TO BE IMPOSED. THE RATES ARE PRESCRIBE D IN THE ANNUAL FINANCE ACT. THEREFORE, THIS COMPONENT HAS NO VALUE IN DETERMINI NG TOTAL INCOME ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENT. OUR VIEW IN THIS REGARD IS SUPPO RTED BY THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN GOVIND SARAN GANGA SARAN V S. CST (1985) 155 ITR 144 (SC) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CH ARGING TO TAX, THERE SHOULD BE FOUR COMPONENTS TO BE SATISFIED. FOR THE SAKE OF CO NVENIENCE, WE REFER TO THE RELEVANT HEADNOTES FROM THAT DECISION : 'THE COMPONENT WHICH ENTER INTO THE CONCEPT OF A TA X ARE WELL KNOWN. THE FIRST IS THE CHARACTER OF THE IMPOSITION KNOWN BY ITS NATURE WHICH PRESCRIBES THE TAXABLE EVENT ATTRACTING THE LEVY, THE SECOND IS A CLEAR IN DICATION OF THE PERSON ON WHOM THE LEVY IS IMPOSED AND WHO IS OBLIGED TO PAY THE T AX, THE THIRD IS THE RATE AT WHICH THE TAX IS IMPOSED AND THE FOURTH IS THE MEAS URE OR VALUE TO WHICH THE RATE WILL BE APPLIED FOR COMPUTING THE TAX LIABILITY. IF THOSE COMPONENTS ARE NOT CLEARLY AND DEFINITELY ASCERTAINABLE, IT IS DIFFICULT TO SA Y THAT THE LEVY EXISTS IN POINT OF LAW. 23 ANY UNCERTAINTY OR VAGUENESS IN THE LEGISLATION SCH EME DEFINING ANY OF THOSE COMPONENTS OF THE LEVY WILL BE FATAL TO ITS VALIDIT Y.' NOW LET US EXAMINE THESE COMPONENTS IN DETAIL AND H OW THEY ARE RELEVANT FOR TAXING AN ITEM. THE FIRST COMPONENT SHOWS THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO F IND OUT THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION WHICH IS THE SOURCE OF GENERATING INCOME. IT HAS TO BE CLEARLY SPELT OUT AS TO WHETHER A PARTICULAR TRANSACTION IS OF INCOME YIELD ING NATURE AS PER IT LAW. NOT ALL TRANSACTIONS YIELD TAXABLE INCOME. FIRSTLY, IT IS O NLY THE FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS WHICH YIELD TAXABLE INCOME AND SECONDLY, IT IS OF REVENUE CHARACTER. THE CAPITAL TRANSACTIONS, UNLESS SPECIFIED IN THE IT ACT WILL N OT YIELD TAXABLE INCOME. IT HAS TO BE SHOWN EITHER FROM THE READING OF THE DOCUMENT OR FROM ACCOMPANYING INVESTIGATION THAT THE TRANSACTION RECORDED IN A DO CUMENT IS OF REVENUE CHARACTER OR IS OTHERWISE TAXABLE UNDER IT ACT. AS A QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, THE AO HAS TO SATISFY HIMSELF ON THE BASIS OF COGENT MAT ERIAL, EITHER FOUND IN THE SEARCH OR ON POST-SEARCH ENQUIRIES THAT TRANSACTION RECORDED IN THE IMPUGNED DOCUMENT IS REAL ONE AND NOR IMAGINARY (I.E. AN EST IMATE OR SOMETHING WHICH IS TO TAKE PLACE IN FUTURE) AND IT HAS ACTUALLY TAKEN PLA CE. IT HAS TO BE SHOWN THAT THE TRANSACTION RECORDED IN THE IMPUGNED DOCUMENT IS SA LE OR PURCHASE, ADVANCE OR LOAN, OF CAPITAL OR OF INTEREST; WHETHER IT IS A ST ATEMENT OF EXISTING ASSETS, DISCLOSED OR UNDISCLOSED; WHAT IS THE COMMODITY INVOLVED; WHO ARE THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE TRANSACTION; IF IT IS ADVANCE, THEN WHETHER DEB TORS CONCERNED ARE EXISTING, THEIR IDENTITY; WHETHER ADVANCE SO TAKEN IS REFLECT ED IN THEIR BOOKS; WHETHER ANY INTEREST IS PAID ON SUCH TRANSACTION, WHAT ARE THE DOCUMENTS EXECUTED FOR RECOVERY OF SUCH ADVANCES OR WHAT ARRANGEMENT THE A SSESSEE HAS DONE FOR RECOVERY OF SUCH ADVANCES; WHETHER THERE ARE ANY OT HER RELATED DOCUMENT FOUND IN THE SEARCH; WHETHER ANY PERSON RECORDED IN THE IMPUGNED DOCUMENTS HAD, OTHERWISE ANY OTHER TRANSACTION WITH THE ASSES SEE RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AO HAS SIMPLY PRESUM ED THAT THE ALLEGED FIGURES ARE ADVANCES WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY MATERIAL ON RE CORD TO SUPPORT SUCH PRESUMPTION. ABOUT THE SECOND COMPONENT THE CHARGING SECTION CLE ARLY SPELLS OUT THAT INCOME-TAX WILL BE LEVIED ON THE TOTAL INCOME OF A PERSON. THE PERSON MUST BE THE ONE AS DEFINED IN S. 2(31). IT MUST BE CLEARLY ESTA BLISHED WHO IS THAT PERSON WHETHER HE IS THE ONE FROM WHOSE POSSESSION THE DOC UMENT IS RECOVERED OR SOMEONE ELSE. MERELY BECAUSE A DOCUMENT IS RECOVERE D FROM THE BODY OF A PERSON, DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY LEAD TO THE INFERENC E THAT IT BELONGED TO HIM. IT IS ONLY FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES THAT PRESUMPTION UNDER S. 132(4A) HAS BEEN ENACTED AND NOT FOR ALL PURPOSES INCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT. FURTHER, THIS PRESUMPTION IS NOT CONCLUSIVE. IT IS REBUTTABLE. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS, BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT DENIED OWNERSHIP OF THE DOCUMENT AND, FURTHER, SMT. NIRMAL KANTA, WIFE OF SRI DHARAMVIRWASSAN ADMITTED THAT IT BELONGED TO HER HU SBAND; IT COULD NOT BE INFERRED WITHOUT REBUTTING THOSE EVIDENCES (FILED I N THE FORM OF AFFIDAVITS BEFORE THE AO) THAT DOCUMENT AND TRANSACTIONS RECORDED THE REIN, IN FACT, BELONGED TO SRI SATYAPAL WASSAN. ONUS UNDER S. 132(4A) IS ALWAY S SHIFTING. THIS SUB-SECTION PROVIDES THAT : 24 SEC. 132 (4A)WHERE ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOC UMENTS, MONEY, BULLION JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING ARE OR IS FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF ANY PERSON IN THE COURSE OF A SEARCH, IT MAY BE PRESUMED (I) THAT SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS, MO NEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING BELONG OR BELONGS TO SUCH PERSON; (II) THAT THE CONTENTS OF SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS ARE TRUE; AND (III) THAT SIGNATURE AND EVERY OTHER PART OF SUCH B OOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS WHICH PURPORT TO BE IN THE HANDWRIT ING OF ANY PARTICULAR PERSON OR WHICH MAY REASONABLY BE ASSUME D TO HAVE BEEN SIGNED BY, OR TO BE IN THE HANDWRITING OF ANY PARTI CULAR PERSON, ARE IN THAT PERSON'S HANDWRITING, AND IN THE CASE OF A DOC UMENT STAMPED, EXECUTED OR ATTESTED BY THE PERSON BY WHOM IT PURPO RTS TO HAVE BEEN SO EXECUTED OR ATTESTED.' THUS, THE LEGISLATURE HAS USED THE WORDS 'MAY PRESU ME'. A PRESUMPTION IS AN INFERENCE DRAWN FROM OTHER KNOWN OR PROVED FACTS. I T IS A RULE OF LAW UNDER WHICH COURTS ARE AUTHORIZED TO DRAW A PARTICULAR INFERENC E FROM CERTAIN SET OF FACTS. THIS CAN BE DISPROVED BY OTHER EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY OTHE R PARTY. THE WORDS 'MAY PRESUME' LEAVE IT TO THE COURT TO MAKE OR NOT TO MA KE THE PRESUMPTION ACCORDING TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. SUCH PR ESUMPTION IS OPTIONAL AND THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO MAKE IT. EVEN IF SUCH PRE SUMPTION IS MADE, IT IS ONLY REBUTTABLE ONE. A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION IS, THUS, CLEARLY A RULE OF EVIDENCE WHICH HAS THE EFFECT OF SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROO F BY LEADING THE EVIDENCE. INITIALLY THE AO WOULD BE JUSTIFIED TO MAKE SUCH PRE SUMPTION, IF DRAWN AFTER JUDICIAL APPLICATION OF MIND TO THE FACT OF THE CASE. THEREA FTER, WHEN THE ASSESSEE LEADS THE EVIDENCE, THEN THE AO HAS TO CONSIDER IT JUDICIA LLY. WHAT AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE ONE REQUIRES TO REBUT THE EVIDENCE DEPENDS UPON FAC TS OF EACH CASE. THERE IS NO RIGID RULE IN THIS BEHALF. SOMETIMES, MERE STATEMEN T OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ENOUGH. HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN ADDL. CIT V S. THAHRAYAMAL BALCHAND 1977 CTR (RAJ) 219 : (1980) 124 ITR 111 (RAJ) OBSER VED AS UNDER : THE EVIDENCE WHICH SATISFIED THE TRIBUNAL WAS THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. AS POINTED OUT ABOVE WHAT QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE WOULD REBUT A LEGAL PRESUMPTION IN A GIVEN SET OF FACTS DOES NOT ADMIT OF ANY RIGID RULE. THE EVIDENCE MAY BE DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL OR BOTH AND A MERE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ENOUGH IN SOME CASES. IT DOES NOT RAISE A QU ESTION OF LAW.' THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS AFFIDAVIT AND ALSO THE AFFID AVIT OF SMT. NIRMALAKANTAWASSAN WIFE OF DHARAMVIR WASSAN TO THE EFFECT THAT IMPUGNE D DOCUMENT CONTAINED TRANSACTION BELONGING TO SHRI DHARAMVIRWASSAN. IT C OULD NOT BE SAID THAT ONUS DID NOT SHIFT TO THE AO. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE AFF IDAVITS, EVEN IF REGARDED AS SELF- SERVING DO NOT LOSE THEIR EVIDENTIARY VALUE IF THER E IS NO MATERIAL CONTRARY TO THE AVERMENTS MADE IN THE AFFIDAVIT. WHEN SUFFICIENT OT HER MATERIAL IS FOUND IN THE SEARCH WHICH CORROBORATES THAT DOCUMENT BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE, THEN DENIAL OF SUCH OWNERSHIP MERELY BY AFFIDAVITS WILL BE MEAN INGLESS AND THEY DO NOT CARRY ANY WEIGHT TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION LYING ON THE AS SESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, NOTHING IS SHOWN BY THE AO THAT THERE WAS OTHER MAT ERIAL CORRELATED WITH THE IMPUGNED DOCUMENT CLEARLY SHOWING THAT IT BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE. UNDER 25 THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUCCESSFULLY SHIFTED THE ONUS ON TO THE AO BY FILING THE AFFIDAVITS. THEY MAY BE SELF-SERVING BUT CARRY ENOUGH WEIGHT TO SHIFT THE BURDEN OR REBUT THE PRESUMPTION. ONCE THE ONUS I S SHIFTED TO THE AO, HE WAS DUTY-BOUND TO COLLECT EVIDENCE SO AS TO BELIE THE C ONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND HOLD THAT DOCUMENT AND TRANSACTIONS RECORDED THEREI N, IN FACT, BELONGED TO SATYAPAL WASSAN. IF THE AO HAS NOT DONE SO, IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THE SECOND COMPONENT OF LEVY OF CHARGE HAS BEEN PROPERLY ESTAB LISHED BY HIM. THE THIRD COMPONENT IN LEVY OF CHARGE IS ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE DOCUMENT AND/OR FOLLOW UP INVESTIGATION MUST ESTABLISH THE PERIOD O F TRANSACTION BEFORE CHARGE OF INCOME-TAX COULD BE LEVIED DURING THE CURRENT ASSES SMENT YEAR. THE DOCUMENT IS SILENT ON THIS ASPECT. IT IS ONLY POST-SEARCH INVES TIGATION AND CORRELATION WITH OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT COULD HAVE FILLED UP THE GAP. SINCE THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO INDICATE IN CERTAIN TERMS THE PERIOD OF T RANSACTION, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO INFER THAT THE TRANSACTIONS BELONGED TO THIS YEAR. THE LAST COMPONENT IS THE QUANTUM OF INCOME. AS STA TED ABOVE, THE AO HAS FAILED TO PROPERLY DECODE THE FIGURES MENTIONED IN THE DOCUMENT AS TO WHETHER THEY ARE IN THOUSANDS OR IN TEN THOUSANDS OR IN LAK HS AND WHAT IS THE UNIT OF THESE TRANSACTIONS. THE DOCUMENT DOES NOT TELL ANYTHING A BOUT THIS. IT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE ONLY BY WAY OF INVESTIGATION. IT HAS NOT BEEN DONE. THEREFORE, ONE CANNOT INFER MERELY FROM THE FACE OF THE DOCUMENT AS TO WH AT IS THE TOTAL OF THOSE TRANSACTIONS AND WHETHER THEY ARE IN RUPEES OR IN K ILOGRAMS OR SOMETHING ELSE. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH PROPER DECODING AND CLARIFICATI ON OF NUMBER/QUANTITY INVOLVED, NO CHARGE OF INCOME-TAX CAN BE LEVIED. IF THE FIGURES IN THE DOCUMENTS ARE SAME THESE ARE THE QUANTITIES THEN THEY HAVE TO BE CONVERTED IN TERMS OF MONEY. THERE HAS TO BE SOME BASIS FOR CONVERSION. I F IT IS MONEY, THEN IT HAS TO BE SHOWN HOW MUCH IT IS. THE PRESUMPTION THAT THESE FI GURES ARE IN LAKHS IS SIMPLY BALD, WILD AND BASELESS. WE HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO I NFER THAT THE AO HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS DUTIES. HE DREW INFERENCES, MADE PRES UMPTIONS, RELIED ON SURMISES AND THUS MADE UNSUSTAINABLE ADDITIONS. THE ABOVE DISCUSSION ALSO LEADS US TO INFER THAT A CHARGE ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENT CAN BE LEVIED ONLY WHEN THE DOCUMENT IS A SPEAKING ONE. THE DOCUMENT SHOULD SPEAK EITHER OUT OF ITSELF OR IN TH E COMPANY OF OTHER MATERIAL FOUND ON INVESTIGATION AND/OR IN THE SEARCH. THE SP EAKING FROM THE DOCUMENT SHOULD BE LOUD, CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS IN RESPECT OF ALL THE FOUR COMPONENTS AS DESCRIBED ABOVE. IF IT IS NOT SO, THEN DOCUMENT IS ONLY A DUMB DOCUMENT. NO CHARGE CAN BE LEVIED ON THE BASIS OF A DUMB DOCUMEN T. WE ALSO NOTICE THAT THE AO COULD NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CHARGED ANY INTEREST, IF AT ALL THE IMPUGNED FIGURES WERE A DVANCES. THERE IS NO MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE AO HAS TAXED THESE ADVANCES AS WEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS ALSO NO MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKE N.ANY ACTION TO RECOVER THE MONEY FROM THE ALLEGED DEBTORS. IT IS NOT BELIEVABL E THAT THE ASSESSEE OR HIS LEGAL HEIR WOULD FORGET THEIR MONEY LYING WITH THE DEBTOR S. BY ONE WAY OR OTHER, HE OR HIS LEGAL HEIR WOULD TRY TO RECOVER THE MONEY. THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT DONE ANYTHING TO FIND OUT THAT AFTER THE SEARCH IN APRIL , 1995. WE ARE ALSO UNABLE TO SATISFY OURSELVES AS TO WHY THE ALLEGED TRANSACTION S ARE CONSIDERED IN THE ASST. YR. 1989-90 WHEN THERE IS NO DATE MENTIONED ON THE DOCU MENT. ONCE SEARCH TOOK PLACE IN APRIL, 1995, THEN UNDATED -APER COULD BE P RESUMED TO BE BELONGING TO 26 THAT PERIOD AND HENCE, THE YEAR OF TAXABILITY WOULD BE ASST. YR. 1996-97. THUS, IT IS MERELY BY SURMISES THAT THE AO HAS TAXED IT IN THE Y EAR 1989-90. OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISIONS OF TRIBUNAL I N SEVERAL OTHER CASES. IN BANSAL STRIPS (P) LTD. VS. ASSTT. CIT (2006) 100 TTJ (DEL) 665 : (2006) 99 ITD 177 (DEL), THE AO HAS FOUND CERTAIN LOOSE PAPERS DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH INDICATED THAT CERTAIN FIGURES AGAINST CERTAIN NAMES WERE WRITTEN. THEY WERE DECODED TO MAKE THE TOTAL TO RS. 53,69,260. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THAT (I) THE IMPUGNED SEIZED PAPERS ARE DUMB DOCUMENTS AND NO AD DITION CAN BE MADE ON THEIR BASIS IN THE ABSENCE OF CORROBORATIVE MATE RIALS. NO CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF UNACCOUNTED CASH, JEWELLERY OR INVESTMENT OUTSIDE THE BOOKS WAS FOUND IN THE SEARCH, (II) THE ASSESSEE FR OM THE VERY INCEPTION DENIED HAVING ANY NEXUS WITH THE SEIZED PAPERS, (III) THE IMPUGNED PAPERS DID NOT CONSTITUTE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, (IV) THE SAID PAPERS A RE UNSIGNED AND, THEREFORE, NOT SUFFICIENT TO FASTEN THE LIABILITY ON THE ASSESSEE. (V) THE AO DID NOT CARRY OUT ANY ENQUIRY BY SUMMONING THE PERSONS NAMED IN THE SEIZE D PAPERS ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THEIR ADDRESSES, (VI) SOME O F THE DOCUMENTS DID NOT SPECIFY THE YEAR. THE REVENUE DID NOT DISCHARGE THE ONUS LYING ON THEM TO PROVE THAT THE DOCUMENTS PERTAINED TO THE BLOCK PERIOD. ON THIS BASIS, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF SEIZ ED PAPERS AS MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH THE AO IS GROSSLY INADEQUATE. IN KAY CEE ELECTRICALS VS. DY. CIT (2003) 81 TTJ (D EL) 734 : (2003) 87 ITD 35 (DEL), IT HAS BEEN HELD IN PARA 21 THAT WHERE SEIZED SLIPS DI D NOT CONTAIN ANY AMOUNT THE SAME CAN BE TREATED ONLY AS DUMB DOCUMENT AND ON TH AT BASIS NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE. IN THE SAME CASE, OTHER SLIPS WERE FOUND A LONG WITH THE CASH. THE CONTENTS OF THE SLIPS WERE CORRELATED WITH THE CASH FOUND AND, THEREFORE, ENTRIES IN THE SLIPS WERE TREATED AS REFLECTED UNACCOUNTED INC OME. THOSE SLIPS CONTAINED DETAILS OF THE AMOUNTS HAVING CORRELATION WITH THE CASH FOUND FROM THE SAME ALMIRAH. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THEM AS SPEAKING DO CUMENTS REFLECTING UNDISCLOSED INCOME. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, IT S NOT ESTABLISHED THAT DOCUMENT NO. 7 CONTAINED ANY AMOUNT. IN D.N KAMANI (HUF) VS. DY. CIT (1999) 65 TTJ (PAT) (TM) 504 : (2000) 241 ITR 85 (PAT)(TM)(AT), IT WAS HELD BY THE THIRD MEMBER THAT WHERE DOCUMENT DID NOT REFLECT ANY ON-MONEY TAKEN IN RESPECT OF SOME OTHER FLATS SOLD, THEN ADDITIONS ON THAT BASIS COULD NOT BE MADE. IT MEANS THAT RECORDI NG OF RECEIPT OF ON-MONEY IN RESPECT OF ONE FLAT CAN RESULT INTO ADDITION IN RES PECT OF THAT FLAT ONLY AND ON THAT BASIS NO FURTHER ADDITION COULD BE MADE IN RESPECT OF OTHER FLATS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE DOCUMENT DID NOT REFLECT RECEIPT OF SUCH ON-MONEY IN RESPECT OF OTHERS. TO THAT EXTENT, THE DOCUMENT WAS TREATED AS DUMB DOCUMENT. IN STEEL HOME VS. ASSTT. CIT (1999) 65 TTJ (DEL) 39 3 : (1999) 69 ITD 240 (DEL), THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT WHERE THE ENTRIES RECORDED ON A DOCUMENT FOUND IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH COULD NOT BE RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE, THEN ANY MENTIONING OF LOW WITHDRAWALS OR PURCHASE OF PLOTS OR THE MENTIONING OF STOCK OR THE FIGURES OF STOCK COULD NOT BE ADDED AS THE ASSESSEE'S INCOME AS THEY COULD NOT BE RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE. IT SHOWS THAT IT IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR TH E AO TO FIND OUT THAT THE ENTRIES AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR CASE, WHERE AFFIDAVIT IS FILED THAT ENTRIES RELATED TO DHARAMVIRWASSAN AND N OT TO THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS INCUMBENT ON THE AO TO CARRY OUT NECESSARY ENQUIRIES AND RELATE THE TRANSACTIONS 27 WITH SRI SATYAPAL WASSAN. SINCE SUCH EXERCISE HAS N OT BEEN DONE, THE & DOCUMENT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION OR EVEN OTHERWISE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. - IN THE CASE OF SMT. NEENASYAL VS. ASSTT. CIT (2000) 69 TTJ (CHD) 516 : (1999) 70 ITD 62 (CHD), THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF A SHWANI KUMAR VS. ITO (1991) 42 TTJ (DEL) 644 : (1991) 39 ITD 183 (DEL) WAS REFERRE D IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE DOCUMENTS FOUND AT THE TIME OF THE SEARCH DID NOT I NDICATE WHETHER FIGURES REFERRED TO IN THE PAPER REFLECT QUANTITIES OF MONE Y OR TO QUANTITIES OF GOODS, THE SAME ARE ONLY DUMB DOCUMENTS AND, THEREFORE, NO ADD ITION COULD BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF SUCH DOCUMENTS. IT WAS HELD IN NEENA S YALS CASE (SUPRA) THAT WHERE A DOCUMENT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IS OPE N TO MORE THAN ONE POSSIBILITY OF INTERPRETATION AND DOES NOT PROVE CO NCLUSIVELY THAT ANY PREMIUM WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE OR RECEIVED BY THE SELLER THEN NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE IN RESPECT OF PREMIUM PAID ON PURCHASE OF PLOT . FROM THIS DECISION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE DOCUMENT MUST UNMISTAKABLY REFLECT T HE TRANSACTION WITHOUT HAVING ANY SECOND INTERPRETATION. IN ELITE DEVELOPERS VS. DY. CIT (2000) 68 TTJ (NAG) 616 : (2000) 73 ITD 379 (NAG), IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE SEIZED DOCUMENTS EVIDENCING REC EIPT OF ON-MONEY BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT SPEAKING DOCUMENTS AS THEY DID NO T CONTAIN ANY NARRATION OR DESCRIPTION ABOUT DIFFERENT FIGURES NOTED THEREON A ND DEPARTMENT HAVING FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE TO CORR OBORATE ALLEGATION REGARDING RECEIPT OF ON-MONEY, THEN PRESUMPTION ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS COULD NOT BE RAISED. SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASES OF KISHANCHANDSOBHRAJMAL VS. ASSTT. CIT (1991) 42 TTJ (JP) 423 : (1992) 41 ITD 9 7 (JP) AND AGRAWAL MOTORS VS. ASSTT. CIT (2000) 66 TTJ (JAB) 130 : (1999) 68 ITD 407 (JA B). THE CRUX OF THESE DECISIONS IS THAT A DOCUMENT FOUN D DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH MUST BE A SPEAKING ONE AND WITHOUT ANY SECOND INTER PRETATION, MUST REFLECT ALL THE DETAILS ABOUT THE TRANSACTION OF THE ASSESSEE I N THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. ANY GAP IN VARIOUS COMPONENTS AS MENTIONED IN S. 4 OF THE IT ACT MUST BE FILLED UP BY THE AO THROUGH INVESTIGATIONS AND CORRELATIONS WI TH OTHER MATERIAL FOUND EITHER DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH OR ON INVESTIGATION . AS A RESULT, WE HOLD THAT DOCUMENT NO. 7 IS A NON-SPEAKING DOCUMENT.' 9.11 THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE DETAILED ANAL YSIS OF THE JUDICIAL VIEW ON WHETHER A PARTICULAR DOCUMENT IS SUFFICIENTLY DESCR IPTIVE/SPEAKING OR DUMB HAS TO BE APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER CONSID ERATION. THE LD. CIT(A) DISCUSSED THE DOCUMENT FOUND, SIZED AND RELIED UPON BY THE A.O. TO MAKE THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AT PAGE NO. 49 TO 59 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, FOR THE COST OF REPETITION THE SAME ARE NOT REPRODUCED HEREIN. 28 9.12 THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE COMMON FEATU RE AMONGST ALL THE DOCUMENTS WAS THAT THERE WAS A GENERAL SPECIFICATIO N OF LOCATION OF SOME PROPERTY AND RECORDING OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS AS PURCHA SES / SALES AND RESULTANT FIGURES AS PROFITS AS WELL. HOWEVER NO SPECIFIC DAT ES WERE RECORDED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS NEITHER THERE WAS ANY DETAIL OF RECEIPTS /PAYMENTS EITHER IN CASH OR IN CHEQUE ON A SEQUENTIAL BASIS. HE FURTHER OBSERVE D THAT RECORDINGS WERE INFACT A SUMMARY OF VARIOUS EITHER ESTIMATES OR TRANSACTIO NS WHICH COULD HAVE HAPPENED, IT THEREFORE BECOMES APPARENT THAT APART FROM SEIZURE OF THE IMPUGNED DOCUMENTS DURING SEARCH NO FURTHER EFFORTS HAD BEEN MADE BY THE INVESTIGATION WING TO BRING ON RECORD ANY CORROBORA TIVE EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE VERACITY OF SUCH DOCUMENTS AND ALSO TO ESTABLIS H THAT TRANSACTIONS AS RECORDED HAD ACTUALLY TAKEN PLACE AT SOME POINT OF TIME AND AT THE GIVEN LOCATIONS. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NO SUCH EFFORTS HAD BEEN MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER AS WELL. HOWEVER, DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE A.O. WAS DIRECTED TO PURSUE THE MATTER FURTHER AND IN THIS REGARD INVESTIGATION WAS DIRECTED TO BE CAUSED TO FIND OUT FROM THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IF THE ASSESSEE OR ANY OF HIS ENTITIES HAD CARRIED OUT CERTAIN LAND TRANSACTIONS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION OR EARLIER YEARS. 9.13 THE LD. CIT(A) POINTED OUT THAT THE ENQUIRIES SO CAUSED REVEALED THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH CORRESPONDING EXISTENCE OF ANY OF THE ASSESSEES ENTITITES AS BUYER OR SELLER DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . THE TRANSACTIONS THAT HAD BEEN RECORDED IN THE REVENUE RECORDS ALSO STOOD REF LECTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS DETAILED BY THE A.O. IN THE REMAND REPORT WHICH THREW UP THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE ENTIRE SET OF TRA NSACTIONS AS INDICATED / SUGGESTED BY THE IMPUGNED SEIZED RECORD COULD HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF DOCUM ENTATION LIKE AGREEMENT TO SELL OR REGISTRATION DEEDS. SUCH A POSSIBILITY OFF COURSE COULD NOT BE RULED OUT. 29 9.14 THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSES SEE BEING IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS WOULD BE GETTING PROPOSALS F ROM THE MARKET WHICH IN TURN HAVE TO BE WORKED UPON IN ORDER TO HAVE SUFFICIENT DATA TO MAKE THE DECISION WHETHER TO GO AHEAD WITH THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION O R NOT. THEREFORE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS MADE BEFORE THE A.O. AND DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE HIM THAT RECORDINGS ON THE IMPUGNED SEIZED D OCUMENTS WERE JUST ESTIMATES COULD ALSO BE A DISTINCT POSSIBILITY IN V IEW OF THE PECULIAR NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A ) OBSERVED THAT IN THE ABOVE SAID BACKGROUND THAT THE DOCUMENTS FOUND AND SEIZED HAVE TO BE ANALYZED AND APPRECIATED TO SEE IF THOSE DOCUMENT STOOD ON T HEIR OWN WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATION TO SHOW THAT CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE / SALES OF LAND HAD TAKEN PLACE OR NOT. 9.15 THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT PAGES AT SERIAL N O. 25,26,27,28,29 AND 30 OF ANNEXURE ISB-8 WERE ALL INTERRELATED IN TERMS OF TH EIR IMPACT. THE LD. CIT(A) POINTED OUT THAT DOCUMENTS AT S.NO. 25 AND 26 RECOR DS CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS PERTAINING TO HANS NAGAR AND SALES THEREOF AND DOCU MENT AT S.NO. 27 WAS A SUMMARY OF FUNDS AVAILABLE ON A GIVEN DATE WITH THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENT PROJECTS AND ALSO RECORD BELOW INVESTMENT S IN THE SAME FROM DIFFERENT PERSONS LIKE SHRI AULAKH AND SHRI I.S. BRAR ETC. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE DOCUMENTS AT S.NO. 27 TALKS OF SALE OF JAI SINGH WA LA TO THE TUNE OF RS. 4,67,50,000/- AND THE SAME TRANSACTION WAS RECORDED AT PAGE NO. 29 IN A MORE DESCRIPTIVE WAY AS FOLLOWED: JAI SINGH WALA ACRES @ 15 = 1,27,50,000/- BACK 21-2 @ 16 = 3,40,00,000/- 4,67,50,000/- 30 9.16 THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE WORKING ON PAGE NO. 29 WAS THEREFORE CARRIED TO PAGE NO. 27. HE ALSO POINTED O UT THAT THE WORKING AT PAGE NO. 30 WITH RESPECT TO PROFIT WAS THE SALE OF LAND AT BIR TALAB TO THE TUNE OF RS. 9.37 LACS & RS. 9.10 LACS HAD BEEN RECORDED WHICH W AS CARRIED ON TO PAGE NO. 27 AND THE RECORDING ON THE LOWER HALF PORTION OF P AGE NO. 29 IN RESPECT OF MULTANIA ROAD (AULAKH) HAD BEEN DONE WHEREIN INVEST MENT OF RS. 1,79,53,000/- HAD BEEN WORKED OUT WHICH GETS REFLECTED AT PAGE NO . 27 ON THE LOWER HALF PORTION, FURTHER THE SALE OF HANS NAGAR ON UPPER PO RTION OF PAGE NO. 27 TO TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1.66 CRORE HAD BEEN RECORDED WHICH FIND S MENTIONED AT PAGE NO. 25 AS WELL AS SALE OF HANSNAGAR AT THE SAME FIGURE OF RS. 1.66 CRORES. SIMILARLY, RECORDING OF RS. 4 CRORES ON PAGE NO. 27 WITH REFER ENCE TO HANS NAGAR ON LOWER PORTION COULD ALSO BE SEEN AT PAGE NO. 26 WHICH SHO WS THAT THE A.O. HAD BEEN WRONG IN TAKING EACH DOCUMENTS BY ITSELF AND MAKING ADDITION THEREOF TIME AND AGAIN PERTAINING TO THE SAME TRANSACTIONS. AT THE S AME TIME, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED ON THESE PA PERS WERE MERE ESTIMATES WAS ALSO NOT ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE OF CLEAR INTERCONNE CTION BETWEEN RECORDING ON THE DIFFERENT PAPERS AND THE SPECIFIC AMOUNTS RE CORDED TIME AND AGAIN. ACCORDING TO THE LD. CIT(A) IT WAS QUITE DIFFICULT TO RECONCILE WITH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ALL THE RECORDINGS PERTAINING TO DIFFERENT TRANSACTIONS / LOCATIONS WERE SUMMARIZED AT ONE POINT OF TIME FOR SOME FINANCIAL WORKINGS AND THE SAME DID NOT REPRESENT THE RECORD OF EVENTS ACT UALLY HAPPENED. HE THEREFORE HELD THAT THE SIMILAR RECORD AT PAGE NO. 27 REPRESENT THE ACTUAL STATE OF AFFAIRS ON THE GIVEN DATE WHICH IN THE ABSENCE O F ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY COULD BE TAKEN AS THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE REFORE THE AMOUNT OF RS. 6,51,97,000/- RECORDED AT PAGE NO. 27 COULD BE TREA TED AS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH TAKES CARE OF THE INVESTMENT IN HANS NAGAR AND JAI SINGH WALA AS THIS LEVEL OF AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS COULD BE SAID TO BE ENOUGH TO TAKE CARE OF THE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED ON THESE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. 31 9.17 THE LD. CIT(A) CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE R ECORDINGS AT PAGE NO. 28 OF THE ANNEXURE ISB-8 DID NOT REPRESENT THE RECORD OF TRANSACTIONS WHICH HAD ACTUALLY HAPPENED AS THE ENTIRE RECORDINGS SEEM TO BE A PROPOSAL WHEREIN EVEN THE WORKING WAS ERRONEOUS IN TERMS OF CALCULAT ION, SUCH ACCOUNT OF WORKING COULD BE ACCEPTED IN RESPECT OF ANY PROPOSA L BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE NO COGNIZANCE OF THE SAME COULD BE TAKEN IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT TH E ADDITION MADE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 35 CRORES AT PAGE NO. 7 OF ANNEXURE ISB-11WA S NOT WARRANTED AS THE RECORDINGS ON THE IMPUGNED SEIZED DOCUMENTS DID NOT CONVEY WHETHER IT WAS INVESTMENT OR SALES OR RECORD OF AMOUNTS ADVANCED O R RECORD OF AMOUNTS RECEIVED. THE DESCRIPTION ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE ALS O DID NOT RECORD ANY DETAILS TO MAKE COMPLETE PICTURE SO AS TO LEAD TO ADDITION OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 35 CRORES. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE DOCUMENTS COULD BE CLEA RLY DESCRIBED AS DUMB DOCUMENT BECAUSE OF THE ABSENCE OF VITAL FEATURES T O PERMIT THE SAME TO BE TAKEN AS THE BASIS FOR AN ADDITION. SIMILAR WAS THE CASE WITH THE FIGURE OF 34 WRITTEN ON THE SAME PAGE ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE. 9.18 THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1,42,28,500/- ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENT A T PAGE NO. 6 WAS RELATED TO THE RECORDINGS AT PAGE NO. 7, THE SAME FIGURES HAD BEEN REPEATED AGAIN. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE RECORDINGS WERE NOT DESCR IPTIVE ENOUGH TO HOLD INDEPENDENTLY AND EVEN IF THE SAME WAS PRESUMED TO BE RECORD OF PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THERE IS NOTHING TO DISCOUNT T HE POSSIBILITY THAT SAME COULD BE PART OF TRANSACTIONS WITH RESPECT TO OTHER PROPERTIES WHICH HAD BEEN HELD AS UNACCOUNTED IN THE EARLIER PORTION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. ACCORDING TO HIM THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO WARRANT AN INDEPENDENT ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF THIS DOCUMENT. SIMILAR WAS THE CASE WI TH RESPECT TO ADDITION OF RS. 21,00,000/- ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENT AT SERIAL NO. 4 AND 5, EVEN OTHERWISE, THE AVAILABILITY OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME TO THE TUNE OF R S. 6,51,00,000/- WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE POSSIBILITY OF UNACCOUNTED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 32 21,00,000/- AND RS. 1,42,00,000/- AS RECORDED ON PA GE NO. 4 AND 6. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,51,00,000/- WAS SUSTAINED AND THE REMAINING ADDITIONS WERE DELETED. 10. NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE DEL ETION OF THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS MENTIONED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND TH E ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SUSTENANCE OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,51, 00,000/-. 11. LD. CIT DR REITERATED THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE A.O. AND STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY HIM. IT WA S FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DOCUMENT NO. 25 & 26 OF ISB-8 HAD DESCRIPTION OF IN VESTMENT IN PROPERTIES AT HANS NAGAR, BHATINDA AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,87,00,000/- & RS. 5,66,00,000/- AND THAT THE A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT. HOWEVER, VIDE LETTER DT. 11/03/2013 THE ASSESSEE DENIED HAVING IN VESTED IN THE SAID PROPERTIES AND TERMED THE SEIZED PAPER AS DUMB DOCUMENTS. BUT, THE A.O. DID NOT ACCEPT THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND OBSERVED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD SOLD TOTAL OF 8822 SQUARE YARDS AT RS. 2,11,32,800/- IN THREE INS TANCES AND WORKED OUT THE PROFIT ON SALE OF LAND AT RS. 70,17,600/-. ACCORDIN GLY, ADDITION OF RS. 11,23,17,600/- (RS. 48700000+RS. 56600000+RS. 7017600) WAS RIGHTLY MADE BY THE A.O. AND THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE SAME. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE DOCUMENT NO. 27 OF ISB-8 THE DESCRIPTION OF INV ESTMENT & SALE IN PROPERTIES AT VILLAGE JAI SINGH WALA WAS THERE AND THE A.O. RIGHT LY WORKED OUT THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AT RS. 7,97,17,000/- ON WHIC H PROFIT OF RS. 6,51,97,000/- WAS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE THE ADDITION O F RS. 14,49,14,000/- WAS RIGHTLY MADE BY THE A.O. AND THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE SAME. 11.1 IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT HE DOCUMENT NO. 28 OF ISB-8 MENTIONED THE TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO 23155 SQ. YARDS OF LAND SI TUATED AT LAL SINGH BASTI, BATHINDA FOR WHICH INVESTMENT OF RS. 3,92,75,215/- WAS MADE OUT OF WHICH THE LAND MEASURING 14566 SQ. YARDS WAS SOLD FOR RS. 3,9 7,10,800/- BY MAKING THE 33 PROFIT OF RS. 1,50,06,864/- THEREFORE THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,42,82,079/- (RS. 3,92,75,215/- + 1,50,06,864/-) WAS RIGHTLY MADE BY THE A.O. AND THE LD. CIT(A) WRONGLY DELETED THE SAME. 11.2 THE LD. CIT DR STATED THAT THE DOCUMENT NUMBER 29 OF ISB-8 HAD THE DESCRIPTION OF TRANSACTIONS IN TWO LANDS MEASURING 5.5 ACE AND 21 KANAL 2 MARLA SITUATED AT VILLAGE JAI SINGH WALA & MULTANI ROAD, BATHINDA. THUS THE SPECIFIC FIGURES OF INVESTMENT ALONGWITH AREA OF THE LAND WE RE MENTIONED ON THE SEIZED PAPERS THEREFORE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLA INED INVESTMENT OF RS. 4,67,50,000/- & RS. 7,05,26,000/- ALONGWITH PROFIT OF RS. 1,74,18,265/- TOTALING OF RS 13,46,94,265/- WAS RIGHTLY MADE BY THE A.O. 11.3 IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE DOCUMENT NO. 30 OF ISB-8 MENTIONED THE PURCHASE OF LAND AT BIR TALAB FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1.25 CRORE ON WHICH PROFIT OF RS. 9,37,000/- WAS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE FORE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,34,37,000/- (RS. 1,25,00,000/- + RS. 9,37,000/-) WAS RIGHTLY MADE BY THE A.O. 11.4 IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT ON THE BACK SIDE OF THE DOCUMENTS NO. 5 OF ISB-11, DETAILS OF INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTIES AMO UNTING TO RS. 20,00,000/- WAS MENTIONED AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS A DUMB DOCUMENT WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. THEREFORE THE ADDITION OF RS. 20,00,000/- WAS RIGHTLY MADE AND THE LD. CIT(A) WRONGLY DELETED THE SAME. 11.5 IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE DOCUMENT NUM BER 7 OF ISB-11 HAD TWO PARTS, ONE MENTIONED INVESTMENT OF RS. 35,00,00,000 /-. HOWEVER THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THERE WAS CALCULATION MISTAKE AND THE CORRECT VALUE WAS RS. 32.5 CRORE THE A.O. RIGHTLY CONSIDERED THAT THOSE DOCUMENTS WERE N OT DUMB DOCUMENTS AS THE SPECIFIC FIGURES OF INVESTMENTS ALONGWITH AREA OF L AND AND ITS SITUATION WERE MENTIONED THEREFORE THE ADDITION OF RS. 32.5 LACS A ND RS. 34 LACS WAS RIGHTLY MADE BY THE A.O. AND LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED I N DELETING THE SAME. 34 11.6 IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DOCUMENTS NOS. 6 TO 8 OF ISB-21 HAD SHOWN THE PAYMENT OF RS. 1,42,28,500/- WHICH WERE SPECIFI C FIGURE, THEREFORE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED PAYMENT AMOUNTIN G TO RS. 1,42,28,500/- WAS RIGHTLY MADE BY THE A.O. 11.7 IT WAS STATED THAT DOCUMENT NO. 4 OF ISB-21 HA D SHOWN PAYMENT OF RS. 21,00,000/- TO VARIOUS PERSONS, THEREFORE THE A.O. RIGHTLY CONSIDERED THAT THE SAID DOCUMENT WAS NOT A DUMB DOCUMENT AND MADE THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 21,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED PAYMENT. THE LD. CIT DR S UBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ONLY ADD ITION OF RS 6,51,97,000/- INSTEAD OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AMOUNTING TO RS. 8 0,63,73,444/-. 11.8 THE LD. CIT DR ALSO FURNISHED THE WRITTEN SUBM ISSIONS WHICH ARE REPRODUCED VERBATIM AS UNDER: ARGUMENTS: A) THE CIT (A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACTS THAT T HE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE NOT DUMB DOCUMENTS RATHER THEY ARE SPEAKING DOCUMENTS CONTAINING METICULOUS DETAILS OF VARIOUS TRANSACTIONS HAVING SUFFICIENT DESCRIPTION OF UNACCOUNTED AMOUNTS IN RE SPECT OF ALL THE ADDITIONS MADE. B) THE CIT (A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACTS THAT T HE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE SOURCE OF AMOUNTS MENTIONED IN SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND ALSO FAILED TO PROVE THE NATURE OF DOCUMENTS SEIZED. THE SEIZED DOCUMENT S WERE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE GAVE VAGUE REPLIES TO THE QUESTIONS ASKED. SUCH VAGUE REPLIES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE LISTED BELOW; > THESE ARE ONLY PROJECTIONS. > THE MATTER IS VERY OLD AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT REM EMBER ANY SUCH LAND OR THE PERSON. > REGARDING THE AMOUNT SHOWN AS PAID ON SOME SEIZED D OCUMENTS, THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT THE AMOUNT MIGHT HAVE BEEN RE QUIRED TO BE PAID. > THE FIGURES WERE ONLY ESTIMATES. > WHEN ASKED THAT IF DOES NOT REMEMBER THE LOCATION O F THE LAND AND THE NAME OF PERSON WHO MADE THE PROPOSAL FOR SALE OF LA ND IN ALL THE CASES MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS, THEN HE SHOULD T ELL ONLY THE NAMES OF 3 PERSONS OR LOCATIONS OF LAND FOR WHICH OFFERS FOR S ALE OF LAND WAS RECEIVED BY HIM. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT THE MATTER IS VERY OLD AN D HE HAS NOT KEPT ANY RECORD. 35 C) THE ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN VERY NON COOP ERATIVE DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND DURI NG THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS ALSO. D) THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT (A) HAD SUBMITTED THAT ADDITIONS WERE MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF NOTINGS IN THE DIARY WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CORRELATED TO ANY DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE DIARY CONTAINS DETAILS OF UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTIONS/INVESTMENTS, HOW CAN TH EY BE CORRELATED WITH BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR LAND REVENUE RECORDS. E) THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT (A) HAD RELIED UPON CAS E LAW IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS SATYAPAL ASSAN (2008) 5 DTR (JAB) 202 (PARA 32). THIS CASE LAW IS IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE AS THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS ARE SPEAKING ONES H AVING SPECIFIC FIGURES AND AREA OF LAND. F) THE ASSESSEE HAD REFERRED SOME OTHER CASE LAWS WHER EIN ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN DELETED AS THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED IN THOSE CASES WERE NOT SPEAKING ONES. HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SEIZED DO CUMENTS HAVE SPECIFIC AMOUNTS AND AREA, SO THE CASE LAWS REFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS CASE. G) THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT HAS STATED THAT IT IS THE MODUS OPERANDI OF THE PROPERTY DEALERS THAT THEY DO NOT P URCHASE THE PROPERTY BY WAY OF REGISTRATION DEED BUT ONLY BY WA Y OF POWER OF ATTORNEY AND THE SAME LAND IS SOLD ON THE BASIS OF THAT POWER OF ATTORNEY. THEREFORE, THEIR NAMES DO NOT APPEAR IN T HE LAND REVENUE RECORDS. THIS ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT RULE D OUT BY THE CIT (A). H) THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED BY TH E AO DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. SOME RELEVANT QUESTIONS AND THE IR ANSWERS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER (PAGE 48 TO 52 OF ASSESSEE'S PAPER BOOK) Q2: CAN YOU TELL ME THE SPECIFIC LAND FOR WHICH THE PROPOSAL WAS RECEIVED AND NAME OF PERSON WHO MADE THE PROPOSAL FOR SALE OF LA ND? ANS: I DO NOT REMEMBER THE PERSON WHO MADE THE OFFE R. Q4: IF THESE ARE PROJECTIONS, HOW THE WORD 'PAID' R S. 4.87/- HAS BEEN WRITTEN? ANS: THIS CAN BE THE AMOUNT WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN R EQUIRED TO BE PAID. Q9: IF THE PROPOSAL WERE LARGE IN NUMBERS THEN WHY ONLY ONE HAS BEEN WRITTEN IN THIS RECORD? ANS: IT IS A LOOSE SLIP AND I HAVE NOT KEPT ANY REC ORD OF THE PROPOSALS AND REMAINING MIGHT HAVE BEEN DESTROYED AS NONE OF THE PROPOSALS MATERIALIZED. 36 THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GETTING LARGE NUMBERS OF PROP OSALS HOWEVER, STRANGELY NONE OF THEM MATERIALIZED. QLL: ON PAGE 26 OF THIS ANNEXURE ALSO REVEALS THAT A MOUNT OF RS. 4.87 LACS HAS BEEN INVESTED IN HANS NAGAR THE SAME AMOUNT WAS WRI TTEN AS PAID ON PAGE 25. PLEASE EXPLAIN. ANS: IT WAS ONLY PROPOSED INVESTMEN T WHICH DID NOT MATURE. THE SAME FIGURES FIND MENTION ON 2 PAGES, THE ASSES SEE STILL STATED THAT THESE WERE ONLY PROPOSALS. THE ASSESSEE WAS VERY SURE THAT THE SE WERE ONLY PROPOSALS BUT DID NOT REMEMBER ANY OTHER DETAILS LIKE NAME OF THE PRO POSER, TIME PERIOD OF RECEIVING THE PROPOSALS. Q16: ON LOWER PART OF PAGE 27 THERE IS NOTING REGARD ING INVESTMENT OF RS. 6,29,17,000/- AND THE NAMES OF THE PERSONS ARE ALSO MENTIONED. PLEASE TELL THE IDENTIFICATION OF THESE ENTRIES AND PERSONS WHO INV ESTED THE AMOUNTS. ANS: THE WORD WRITTEN IS 'INVEST' NOT INVESTED. HEN CE THE FIGURES WRITTEN ON THIS PAGE ARE ALL THE PROPOSALS OF INVESTMENT. HOWEVER NO INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY ME OR MY FAMILY ................ Q19: AT THIS PAGE THE WORD 1200 SOLD AT RS. 25,00,0 00/- IS WRITTEN AND BELOW THIS LEFT LAND 4308 SQ. YD. IS WRITTEN. PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS. ANS: THE WORD SOLD HAS BEEN USED FOR THE EXPRESSION TO BE SOLD AS THE NOTINGS ON THIS PAPER IS ONLY A PROPOSAL WHICH DID NOT MATERIA LIZE. THE ASSESSEE AT ONE POINT IS VERY PARTICULAR ABOUT WORDING THAT THE WORD WRITTEN IS 'INVEST' 'NOT INVESTED'. ON THE OTHER HAND HE STATE D THAT WORD 'SOLD' IS USED FOR 'TO BE SOLD' AND 'PAID' FOR TO 'BE PAID' (Q4). MOREOVER , 'SOLD' OR 'TO BE SOLD' COMES ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS HOLDING THE LAND, HOWEVER, HE IS DENYING HAVING INVESTED IN THE PROPERTIES AT THE FIRST PLACE, HOW COME HE CAN WRITE 'SOLD' OR 'TO BE SOLD' WHEN HE IS NOT HOLDING THE LAND. THUS, THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST HUMAN PROBABILITIES AND THEREFORE, THE SAME IS NOT RELIAB LE. I) THE ASSESSEE HAS TIME AND AGAIN STATED THAT THE ENTRIES IN THE DIARY WERE ONLY PROJECTIONS, HOWEVER, NOWHERE WORDS LIKE ESTIMATE, PROPOSALS, PR OJECTIONS ETC. ARE MENTIONED. MOREOVER, THERE ARE NO CALCULATION E RRORS. EVEN ON PAGE NO. 27 OF ISB-8 SPECIFIC AMOUNTS OF PROFITS ARE WRITTEN. DURIN G THE RECORDING OF STATEMENT THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED HOW THESE PROFITS WERE CALCULATE D, HE AGAIN GAVE THE SAME REPLY THAT HE HAD BEEN GIVING TO OTHER QUESTIONS TH AT THESE WERE ONLY ESTIMATES. HOW CAN SOMEONE ESTIMATE PROFIT ON LAND WHICH HE HA S YET NOT ACQUIRED. AS PER THE ASSESSEE HE WAS NOT HOLDING ANY OF THE LAND MEN TIONED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. GOING BY HIS WORDS THAT THE ENTRIES IN T HE SEIZED DOCUMENTS ARE ONLY PROPOSALS, IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVES A PROPOSA L FOR PURCHASE OF LAND, AT THE SAME TIME HE MAKES AN ESTIMATE FOR SAL E OF THE SAME LAND AND CALCULATES PROFIT (SPECIFIC FIGURES OF RS. 9,37,000 /- AND RS. 9,10,000/- NOT SOME ESTIMATE LIKE 9 TO 10 LACS) ON THE TRANSACTION AND MAKES NOTE OF THE PROFIT. THIS IS ONLY POSSIBLE IF ASSESSEE CAN FORESEE THE FUTURE. T HE LAND DEALS GENERALLY INVOLVE 37 LOTS OF NEGOTIATIONS, MENTIONING OF SPECIFIC FIGURE S OF PROFIT IS ONLY POSSIBLE WHEN THE DEALS HAVE ACTUALLY TAKEN PLACE. J) THE CIT (A) HAS ANALYSED THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AN D CONCLUDED THAT RECORDING AT PAGE NO. 27 OF ISB-8 REPRESENTS THE ACTUAL STATE OF AFFAIRS. THE ENTRIES AT OTHER PAGES ARE CONCLUDED IN PAGE NO. 27. THE CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE AO HAS BEEN CAREFUL IN NOT ADDING THE SAME AMOUNTS TWICE. THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN FOR ALL THE INDEPENDENT ENTRIES . K) THE CIT (A) HAS DESCRIBED THE ENTIRE ISB-11 AS D UMB DOCUMENT AS THE RECORDING ON THE DOCUMENT DO NOT CONVEY WHETHER IT IS INVESTM ENT OR SALES OR RECORD AMOUNTS ADVANCED OR RECEIVED. THIS IMPLIES THAT THE CIT (A) DID AGREE THAT THE AMOUNT MENTIONED REPRESENT SALE/INVESTMENT/PAYMENTS /RECEIPTS. ALL THESE ARE UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTIONS AND REQUIRE TO BE ADDED. I T WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROPERLY EXPLAIN THE CONTEST OF THE DOC UMENT. HOWEVER, DESPITE NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES, THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN NON- COOPERATIVE. AS SUCH THE AO HAS RIGHTFULLY MADE THE ADDITIONS. 1) THE CIT (A) VIDE PARA 18 OF HIS ORDER HAS STATED THAT ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO OF RS. 1,42,28,500/- ON THE BASIS OF PAGE NO. 6 OF ISB-21 ARE RELATED TO RECORDINGS AT PAGE NO. 7. THE SAME FIGURES HAVE BEEN REPEATED AGAIN. THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF FIGURES APPEARING AT PAGE NO. 6 ONLY. T HE REPETITION OF FIGURES AT PAGE 7 HAS NOT BEEN ADDED. REPETITION ONLY PROVES THAT T HE FIGURES ARE NOT MERE ESTIMATES BUT ACTUAL TRANSACTIONS. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO MAY PLEASE BE RESTORED. 12. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND F URTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH HAS BEEN DULY DISCUSSED BY HIM IN PARA 6 AT PAGE NO S. 5-11 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED T HE BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WHICH READ AS UNDER: (I) THE DOCUMENT WAS CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE IN A.Y.2008-09 WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE SUB MITTED DURING THE COURSE OF A. Y. 2008-09 FT NO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED FOR A. Y. 2007-08. (II) THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENT IS 2 5/2 FT WILD GUESS ON THE BASIS IT HAS BEEN ADOPTED AS 25.02.2007 DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENT IS A PAGE OF DIARY ON WHICH THE PRINTED DA TE IS 26 TH OF OCTOBER FT THE YEAR MENTIONED IS 2007. (III) THE A.O. HAS INTERPRETED THE NOTINGS AS SALE O F PROPERTIES BY TAKING THE FIGURES OF 4,77,00,0001- & 1,55,00,000/- DESPITE THE FACT T HAT NEITHER THERE IS MENTION OF WORD PLOTS AGAINST THE FIGURE OF 4,77,00,0001- & NO R THERE IS MENTION OF THE WORD 38 PLOTS AGAINST ANY OTHER FIGURE THE TOTAL OF WHICH H AS BEEN TAKEN AT RS. 1,55,00,000/-. (IV) THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT DURING THE COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT HE DID NOT INDULGE IN ANY PURCHASE OR SALE OF PROPERTY. (V) THAT THE DEPARTMENT DID NOT GET ANY SALE DEED/A GREEMENT OR ANY OTHER DOCUMENT RELATING TO UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE/SALE OF P ROPERTY FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH & THE O NLY SEIZURE FROM THE ASSESSEE WAS OF 200 GMS OF GOLD AT THE TIME OF SEAR CH CARRIED OUT OF 18.02.2011. (VI) THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO PURSUE THE MATTER FURTHER IN TERMS OF INVESTIGATING THE RAMIFICATIONS OF CONTENTS OF SEIZ ED DOCUMENTS & THE AO WAS ALSO DIRECTED TO MAKE ENQUIRIES WITH THE LAND R EVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THE GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATIONS RECORDED IN THE SEIZED D OCUMENT. (VII) THE REPORT OF THE ENQUIRY BY THE AO HAS BEEN D ISCUSSED IN PARA 7 ON PAGE 11 & 12 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. THE REJOINDER BY TH E ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN PARA 8 ON PAGE 12-15 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER & THE CRUX OF THE SAME IS AS UNDER:- THE WORD PLOT HAS BEEN EXTRAPOLATED & SALE HAS BEEN PRESUMED ON THE BASIS OF 3975000*12= 47700000/- & 12 HAS BEEN INTERPOLATED A S PLOTS. (VIII) THE NON APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE AO IS APPA RENT FROM THE FACT THAT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE REMAND REPORT IT HAS BEEN STAT ED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE INVESTED RS.4,77,00,000/- IN THE PROPERTIE S BUT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER & AT THE END OF THE REMAND REPORT THE SAME HA S BEEN TREATED AS SALE OF 12 PLOTS. (IX) THE NOTINGS OF THIS DOCUMENT ARE ONLY PROJECTI ON FOR CONVERTING THE LAND INTO PLOTS. (X) THAT WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL THE CIT(A) DISCU SSED AT HOW A DOCUMENT SEIZED HAS TO BE INTERPRETED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COM PUTING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME & HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE BE NCH OF GURLAL SINGH GREWAL VS. ACIT DATED 29.08.2012. KINDLY REFER TO P ARA 9-11 ON PAGE 16 & 17 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. (XI) THE CIT(A) HAS FURTHER RELIED ON THE ORDER OF JABALPUR BENCH OF THE IT AT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SATYAPAL WASSAN & THE DETAI LED FINDINGS OF THE HON'BLE BENCH HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED IN PARA 12-14 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. (XII) ACCORDING TO THE JABALPUR BENCH OF THE HON'BL E IT AT THE DOCUMENT SHOULD SPEAK EITHER OF ITSELF OR IN THE COMPANY OF OTHER MATERIAL FOUND ON INVESTIGATION AND/OR IN THE SEARCH & FOUR COMPONENT S HAVE BEEN LAID DOWN TO PUT THE SEIZED DOCUMENT IN THE CATEGORY OF SPEAK ING DOCUMENT AS COMPARED TO A DUMB DOCUMENT. 39 THE FIRST COMPONENT IS THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION TH AT WHETHER IT IS A PURCHASE/SALE, ADVANCE OR LOAN, OF CAPITAL OR OF IN TEREST; WHETHER IT IS A STATEMENT OF EXISTING ASSETS, DISCLOSED OR UNDISCLOSED; WHAT IS THE COMMODITY INVOLVED; WHO ARE THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE TRANSACTION; IF IT I S ADVANCE, THEN WHETHER DEBTORS CONCERNED ARE EXISTING, THEIR IDENTITY; WHETHER ADV ANCE SO TAKEN IS REFLECTED IN THEIR BOOKS; WHETHER ANY INTEREST IS PAID ON SUCH T RANSACTION, WHAT ARE THE DOCUMENTS EXECUTED FOR RECOVERY OF SUCH ADVANCES OR WHAT ARRANGEMENT THE ASSESSEE HAS DONE FOR RECOVERY OF SUCH ADVANCES; WH ETHER THERE ARE ANY OTHER RELATED DOCUMENT FOUND IN THE SEARCH; WHETHER ANY P ERSON RECORDED IN THE IMPUGNED DOCUMENTS HAD, OTHERWISE ANY OTHER TRANSAC TION WITH THE ASSESSEE RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS. (PB-20) THE SECOND COMPONENT IS THE PERSON FROM WHOSE POSSE SSION THE DOCUMENT IS RECOVERED. THE THIRD COMPONENT IS THE ASSESSMENT YEAR TO WHICH THE INCOME BELONGS. THE FOURTH & LAST COMPONENT IS QUANTUM OF INCOME. ACCORDING TO THE JABALPUR BENCH OF THE ITAT THE SPE AKING FROM THE DOCUMENT SHOULD SPEAK EITHER OUT OF ITSELF OR IN THE COMPANY OF OTHER MATERIAL FOUND ON INVESTIGATION AND/OR IN THE SEARCH. THE SPEAKING FR OM THE DOCUMENT SHOULD BE LOUD, CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS IN RESPECT OF ALL THE F OUR COMPONENTS AS DESCRIBED ABOVE. IF IT IS NOT SO, THEN THE DOCUMENT IS ONLY A DUMB DOCUMENT. NO CHARGE CAN BE LEVIED ON THE BASIS OF A DUMB DOCUMENT. (PB- 24) THE JABALPUR BENCH OF THE ITAT RELIED ON THE FOLLOW ING JUDGEMENTS TO RECORD THE CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT 'THE CRUX OF THESE DEC ISIONS IS THAT A DOCUMENT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH MUST BE A SPEAKING ONE AND WITHOUT ANY SECOND INTERPRETATION, MUST REFLECT ALL THE DETAILS ABOUT THE TRANSACTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. ANY GAP IN VARIOUS CO MPONENTS AS MENTIONED IN S.4 OF THE IT ACT MUST BE FILLED UP BY THE AO THROUGH IN VESTIGATIONS AND CORRELATIONS WITH OTHER MATERIAL FOUND EITHER DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH OR ON INVESTIGATION. AS A RESULT, WE HOLD THAT DOCUMENT N O. 7 IS A NON-SPEAKING DOCUMENT.' (PB 27) (I) BANSAL STRIPS (P) LTD. VS. ASSTT. CIT (2006) 10 0 TTJ (DEL) 665: (2006) 99 ITD 177 (DEL) (II) KAY CEE ELECTRICALS VS. DY. CIT (2003) 81 TTJ (DEL) 734: (2003) 87 ITD 35 (DEL) (III) D.N KAMANI (HUF) VS. DY. CIT (1999) 65 TTJ (PAT)(TM) 504: (2000) 241 ITR 85 (PAT)(TM)(AT) (IV) STEEL HOME VS. ASSTT. CIT (1999) 65 TTJ (DEL) 393: (1999) 69 ITD 240 (DEL) (V) SMT. NEENA SYAL VS. ASSTT. CIT (2000) 69 TTJ (C HD) 516: (1999) 70 ITD 62 (CHD) (VI) ASHWANI KUMAR VS. ITO (1991) 42 TTJ (DEL) 644: (1991) 39 ITD 183 (DEL) (VII) ELITE DEVELOPERS VS. DY. CIT (2000) 68 TTJ (N AG) 616: (2000) 73 ITD 379 (NAG) 40 (VIII) KISHANCHAND SOBHRAJMAL VS. ASSTT. CIT(1991) 42 TTJ (JP) 423 : (1992) 41 ITD 97 (JP) (IX) AGRAWAL MOTORS VS. ASSTT. CIT (2000) 66 TTJ (JAB) 130 : (1999) 68 ITD 407 (JAB) THE CIT (A) AFTER DISCUSSING THE FACTS & FINDINGS O F THE ORDERS OF THE DIFFERENT BENCHES OF THE IT AT HELD IN PARA 15 THAT : (I) THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE LOCATION OF THE PROP ERTY CONCERN & ALSO THE BUYERS/SELLERS, THE MENTION OF WARD NO.28 ON TO P OF THE PAGE HAS BEEN PRESUMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE THE LOCATION WHERE SUCH TRANSACTIONS COULD HAVE HAPPENED. HOWEVE R THE PERUSAL OF THE ENTIRE DIARY REVEALS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS RECORDED AT PAGE NO.25 OF THE SAME DIARY VARIOUS WARDS OF THE CITY W HICH APPARENTLY MEANS THAT SAME HAVE BEEN RECORDED FOR CARRYING OUT POLITICAL WORK IN MIND AND THEREFORE MENTION OF WARD NO. 28 DOES N OT SEEM TO HAVE ANY CONNECTION WITH REGARD TO TRANSACTIONS RECORDED THEREIN. (II) THE DOCUMENT DOES NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT DETAILS TO REASONABLY CONCLUDE THAT ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE EITHER PURCHASED OR SOLD CERTAIN IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES & IT IS POSSIBLE THAT BEING IN THE REAL ESTATE BUSINESS THE ABOVE RECORD REPRESENTS CALCULATIONS W ITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN DEAL AVAILABLE IN THE MARKET. THE CIT(A) HA S FURTHER RECORDED A FINDING THAT THE AO HAS MERELY SIMPLISTIC PRESUMPTIONS AND NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO CORROBORA TE THE POSSIBILITY OF TRANSACTION SUGGESTED BY THE IMPUGNE D SEIZED DOCUMENT. (PB-28) (III) THAT IN PARA 16 ON PAGE 28 FT 29 OF THE AP PELLATE ORDER THE CIT(A) HAS FURTHER RECORDED A FINDING THAT THE AO HAD BEEN DIRECTED TO TAKE OUT INFORMATION FROM THE LAND REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN ORDER TO FIND OUT I F THE APPELLANT OR ANY OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS OR BUSINESS ENTITIES HAS PURCHASED O R SOLD ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ENQUI RIES SO CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER REVEALED THAT NO SUCH TRANSACTION HAD BEEN CARRIED OUT AND SPECIFIC TRANSACTION THAT HAVE BEEN REVEALED BY THE LAND REVENUE AUTHORITIES WAS FOUND RECORDED AND DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WITH EXTREMELY LIMITED DESCRIPTION RECORDED ON THE SEIZE D DOCUMENTS, IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY PRESUMPTUOUS TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD UNACCOUNTED INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.6,77,00,0001 - ESPECIAL LY WHEN NO UNACCOUNTED ASSETS HAD BEEN FOUND DURING SEARCH OPERATIONS NOR ANY TIT LE PAPERS OR AGREEMENTS TO SELL/PURCHASE HAD BEEN FOUND TO SUPPORT SUCH VOLUMI NOUS TRANSACTIONS AS CONCLUDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE CI RCUMSTANCES, IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY FARFETCHED TO HOLD THE VIEW THAT THE SEIZ ED DOCUMENT COULD BE MADE THE BASIS OF IMPUGNED UNACCOUNTED INCOME. 13. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED A CHART IN REBUTTAL OF THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LD. CIT DR IN TABULAR FORM W HICH READ AS UNDER: NOW COMING TO THE ARGUMENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT RAISE D IN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE BENCH THE REBUTTAL TO THE SAME IS AS UNDER: - 41 42 43 13.1 IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PAGE OF THE DIARY WHICH WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE MONTH MENTIONED WAS OCTOBER AND THE DATE IS 25 TH AND ON THE TOP OF THE DIARY THE YEAR MENTIONED IS 2007 THE REFORE EVEN THE SAID PAGE OF THE DIARY DID NOT RELATE TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION AND THE A.O. PRESUMED 44 THE NOTHINGS 25/2 A 25.02.2007 WHICH WAS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT NO ADDITION COULD HAVE BEEN MADE WITHOUT ANY C ORROBORATED EVIDENCE AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE ITAT CHANDIGARH B BENCH IN T HE CASE OF SHRI MANA SINGLA VS. DCIT IN ITA NO. 229/CHD/2013, FOR THE A.Y. 2006 -07 VIDE ORDER DT. 07/05/2019. IT WAS STATED THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN DENIED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A DIRECTOR IN THE REAL ESTATE COMPANY WHERE THERE WERE PURCHASE AND S ALE TRANSACTIONS, CERTAIN PROPOSALS WERE RECEIVED IN THE CASE OF COMPANY AND CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS WERE NOTED DOWN IN A VERY ROUGH MANNER. IT WAS STATED TH AT THE A.O. MADE DETAILED ENQUIRIES DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS FROM THE LAND REVENUE AUTHORITIES WHICH REVEALED THAT THERE WAS NO PURCHASE AND SALES OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE OR HIS FAMILY MEMBERS, THIS FACT HAS B EEN MENTIONED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AT PAGE NO. 29 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 13.2 LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DU RING THE COURSE OF SEARCH NO DOCUMENT IN THE FORM OF AGREEMENT TO SELL OR REGIST ERED SALE DEED HAD BEEN FOUND EVIDENCING IN UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE / SALE OF THE PROPERTY. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE A.O. ONLY ON THE BASIS OF NOTINGS ON SOME DOCUMENTS WHICH ACCORDING TO THE A.O. REPRESEN TED UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND ITS PROFIT BUT THE A.O. FAILED TO MENTION THAT UNDER WHICH SECTION OF THE INCOME TAX ACT THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE AND THE SAME WAS THE POSITION IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PAS SED BY THE LD. CIT(A). IT WAS STATED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF FIRST APPELLAT E PROCEEDINGS THE A.O. MADE ENQUIRIES FROM THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES OF BATHINDA, THE RESULT OF THE ENQUIRIES HAD BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AT PAGE NO. 25 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH READ AS UNDER: 'A LETTER WAS WRITTEN ON 04.12.2013 TO THE SUB-REGI STRAR-CUM TEHSILDAR, BATHINDA REGARDING PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTIES BY SH. INDERJ EET SINGH BRAR AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS DURING THE PERIOD 01.04.2009 TO 31.03.2011 IN THE AREA OF HANS NAGAR, BATHINDA; BIR TALAB, BATHINDA; VILL JAI SINGH WALA, BATHINDA; LAI SINGH BASTI, BATHINDA AND MULTANIA ROAD, BATHINDA. A REPLY WAS R ECEIVED FROM HIM VIDE LETTER NO. 575 DATED 12.12.2013 IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN STATE D THAT SH. INDERJEET SINGH BRAR HAD SOLD 35 CANALS OF LAND IN VILL. JAI SINGH WALA ON 05.06.2009. FURTHER SMT. 45 JASWINDER KAUR W/O SH. KARNAIL SINGH (MOTHER OF SH. INDERJEET SINGH BRAR) AND ALSO SOLD LAND 32 CANAL 14 MARIA IN VILL. JAI SINGH WALA ON 05.06.2009. NO OTHER PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED OR SOLD DURING THE PERIOD 01.04.2009 TO 31.03.2011 BY SH. INDERJEET SINGH BRAR OR HIS FAMILY MEMBERS AS REPORTED BY THE TEHSILDAR, BATHINDA AS PER HIS LETTER REFERRED ABOVE.' 13.3 IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THE A.O. IN HIS REMAN D REPORT STATED AS UNDER: 'IT IS THE MODUS-OPERANDI OF THE PROPERTY DEALERS THAT GENERALLY THEY DO NOT PURCHASE THE PROPERTY BY WAY OF REGISTRATION DEED BUT ONLY BY WAY OF POWER OF ATTORNEY AND THE SAME LAND IS SOLD ON THE BASIS OF THAT POWER OF ATTORNEY. HENCE THEIR NAME DO NOT APPEAR IN REGISTRATION DEED OR IN REVENUE RECORDS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PIN-POINTED THE PROPERTIES AGAINST WHICH HE HAS STATED TO BE ONLY PROPOSALS, HE MAY BE ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE ABOVE PROPERTIES SO THAT THE VERIFICATION CA N BE MADE NOW OR THE UNDER SIGNED SHOULD BE AUTHORIZED TO MAKE SUCH INQUIRIES/VERIFICATIONS, OTHERWISE ADDITION MAY KINDLY BE CONFIRMED' 13.4 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THA T IT WAS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT NEITHER ANY POWER OF ATTORNEY RELATING TO ANY PROPERTY, ALLEGED TO BE MENTIONED AT THE LOCATION IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS W AS IMPOUNDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AND DURING THE COURSE OF ENQUIRIES FROM REVENUE AUTHORITIES BY THE A.O. NO SUCH REGISTERED POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS REPORTED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY AND THAT EVEN IF IT WAS TO BE PRESUMED THAT THERE WAS SOME POWER OF ATTORNEY THEN THE NAME OF SUCH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER WAS TO BE MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED BUT NAME OF THE ASSES SEE APPEARED NOWHERE. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 9 ON PA GE 37 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE SEARCH IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 18/02/2011 WHEREIN NO CASH OR ANY VALUABLE EXCEP T 200 GMS OF GOLD HAS BEEN SEIZED. FURTHER, NO DOCUMENTS IN THE FORM OF A GREEMENT TO SELL OR REGISTERED SALE DEED HAD BEEN FOUND EVIDENCING ANY UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES AND SALES BY THE ASSESSEE. 13.5 IT WAS STATED THAT ALL THE PURCHASES OR SALES WHICH WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT, REFERENC E WAS MADE TO PAGE NO. 4 46 TO 10 OF THE ASSESSEES COMPILATION WHICH ARE THE C OPIES OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEARS 2004-05 TO 2010-11. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT APART FROM THOSE PURCHASES AND SALES DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE, NO OTHER SALE OR PURCHASE WAS MADE. IT WAS STATED THAT THE A SSESSEE FURNISHED THE AFFIDAVIT DT. 04/03/2013 DULY ATTESTED BY THE NOTAR Y PUBLIC BEFORE THE A.O. DISCLOSING ALL THE FACTS AND STATED THAT THE TRANSA CTIONS OF THE SALE AND PURCHASE AS MENTIONED AT PAGE NO. 4 TO 10 OF THE ASSESSEES COMPILATION HAD BEEN DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT, REFERENCE WAS MADE TO PAGE NO. 25 AND 26 OF THE ASSESSEES COMPILATION WHICH IS THE COPY OF THE SAI D AFFIDAVIT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS N OT JUSTIFIED AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V/S SATYAPAL W ASSAN 5 DTR 202, ITAT, JABAIPUR BENCH P R METRANI V/S COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 287 ITR 209 (SC) GURLAL SINGH GREWAL V/S ACIT, ITA NO.1208/CHD/2011, ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH, CHANDIGARH ORDER DT. 29/08/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V/S ATAM VALVES (P) LTD 184 TAXMAN 6 P&H-HC COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V/S RAVI KUMAR 294 ITR 7 8 P&H-HC KANTILAL CHANDULAL & CO. V/S COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 136 ITR 889 CAL-HC COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V/S GIRISH CHAUDHARY 296 ITR 619 DEL-HC ATUL KUMAR JAIN V/S DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX 64 TTJ 786 DEL SATNAM SINGH CHHABRA VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX 74 TTJ 976 ITAT-LKW CIT VS. RAVI KUMAR (2008) 168 TAXMAN 150 (P&H) MANAV SINGLA VS. DCIT IN ITA NO. 229/CHD/2013, CHAN DIGARH BENCH, CHANDIGARH ORDER DT. 07/05/2019 DCIT V/S HARVINDER PAL SINGLA ITA NO. 456-458/CHD/2 014, ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH, CHANDIGARH ORDER DT. 05/01/2016 DCIT VS. SNJ DISTILLERS PVT. LTD. 87 ITR (TRIB) 540 (CHENNAI) PICHESWAR GADDE VS. ITO, ITAT, DELHI BENCH 202 DTR 4 1 (DEL) 47 14. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CA SE A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 18/0 2/2011, DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH NO DOCUMENTS IN THE FORM OF AGREEMENT TO SEL L OR REGISTERED SALE DEED, EVIDENCING UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE / SALE OF THE PROPE RTY BY THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN FOUND. HOWEVER THE ADDITIONS HAD BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF NOTINGS ON SOME DOCUMENTS / LOOSE PAPERS BUT IN THO SE NOTINGS, NOWHERE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS MENTIONED. ACCORDING TO THE ASS ESSEE THOSE NOTINGS WERE ROUGH ESTIMATE BY THE COMPANY IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS A DIRECTOR. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE A.O. ON THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A) MADE THE ENQUIRIES FROM THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES OF BHATINDA. THE RESULT OF THOSE ENQUIRIES HAD BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AT PAGE NO. 25 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE SUB REGISTRAR CUM TEHSI LDAR BHATINDA, IN RESPONSE TO THE LETTER WRITTEN BY THE A.O. DT. 04/12/2013 RE GARDING PURCHASE / SALE OF PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS DUR ING THE PERIOD FROM 01/04/2009 TO 31/03/2011, REPLIED VIDE LETTER NO. 5 75 DT. 12/12/2013 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD 35 KANAL OF LAND IN VILLAGE JAI S INGH WALA ON 05/06/2009 AND MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE NAMELY SMT. JASWINDER KAUR W /O SHRI KARNAIL SINGH ALSO SOLD LAND MEASURING 32 CANAL 14 MARLA IN VILLAGE JA I SINGH WALA ON 05/06/2009 AND NO OTHER PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED OR SOLD DURING THE PERIOD 01/04/2009 TO 31/03/2011BY THE ASSESSEE OR HIS FAMILY MEMBER. IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS NOTICED THAT THE A.O. IN HIS REMAND REPORT STATED THAT IT I S THE MODUS-OPERANDI OF THE PROPERTY DEALERS THAT GENERALLY THEY DO NOT PURCHAS E THE PROPERTY BY WAY OF REGISTRATION DEED BUT ONLY BY WAY OF POWER OF ATTOR NEY AND THE SAME LAND IS SOLD ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID POWER OF ATTORNEY, HE NCE THEIR NAME DID NOT APPEAR IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED OR IN THE REVENU E RECORD. HOWEVER NEITHER ANY POWER OF ATTORNEY IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE, RELATING TO ANY PROPERTY ALLEGED TO BE MENTIONED AT THE LOCATION IN THE SEIZ ED DOCUMENT WAS 48 IMPOUNDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, NOR THE REVENUE AUTHORITY REPORTED ANY SUCH INSTANCE WHEN THE ENQUIRIES WERE MADE BY THE A.O. FROM THOSE AUTHORITES AND NO SUCH SALE DEEDS WERE FOUND WHERE IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS APPEARING AS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER. IN THE INSTANT CASE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH NO VALUABLE OR CASH WAS FOUND OR SEIZED EXCEPT 200 GMS OF GOLD AND NO DOCUMENT IN THE FORM OF AGREEMENT TO SE LL OR REGISTERED SALE DEED HAD BEEN FOUND EVIDENCING ANY UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE / SALE BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS FACT HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY STATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 5 AT PAGE 37 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THEREFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NO T JUSTIFIED IN PRESUMING THAT CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS WERE CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSE E PARTICULARLY WHEN HE HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT NO DOCUMENTS IN THE FORM OF A GREEMENT TO SELL OR REGISTERED SALE DEED HAD BEEN FOUND EVIDENCING ANY UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE / SALE BY THE ASSESSEE. 14.1 ON A SIMILAR ISSUE THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAVI KUMAR [2008] 168 TAXMAN 150 (P&H) HELD AS UNDER; IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE IN POSSESSION OF LOOSE SLIPS AND NOT OF ANY VALUABLE ARTICLES OR THINGS. NEIT HER THE POSSESSION NOR THE OWNERSHIP OF ANY JEWELLERY MENTIONED IN THE SLIPS COU LD BE PROVED. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A HAD RIGHTLY NOT BEEN APPLIED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE. ACCORDINGL Y, THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN DELETING ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY ILLEGALITY ON THE BAS IS OF WHICH THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL COULD BE SAID TO BE P ERVERSE. THEREFORE, THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL WERE NOT PERVERSE. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THE A.O. MADE THE ADDITION S ONLY ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS ON WHICH THERE WERE SOME NOTINGS BUT NEITHER THE POSSESSION NOR THE OWNERSHIP OF ANY PROPERTY MENTIONED IN THOS E LOOSE SLIPS COULD BE PROVED TO BE BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE K EEPING IN VIEW THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN TH E AFORESAID CASE, NO ADDITION COULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 49 14.2 ON A SIMILAR ISSUE THE ITAT CHENNAI BENCH IN T HE CASE OF DCIT VS. SNJ DISTILLERS PVT. LTD. 87 ITR (TRIB) 540 (CHENNAI) HE LD AS UNDER; STATEMENTS RECORDED UNDER VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ARE A VITAL TOOL IN THE HANDS OF THE INCOME-TAX AUT HORITIES IN THEIR THRUST TO ESTABLISH CERTAIN FACTUAL AND LEGAL POSITION S. ADMISSION IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE AND IT IS ADMIS SIBLE AGAINST ITS MAKERS, BUT A STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR SURVEY IS AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE IF IT IS SUPPORTED BY C ORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. IF THE CONTENTS RECORDED IN THE STATEMENT ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE, SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE STAT EMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH NO ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN THE STATEMENT HAS B EEN RETRACTED WITH A SWORN AFFIDAVIT ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS GIVEN UND ER MENTAL PRESSURE AND DISTURBED STATE OF MIND. IT IS A WELL-S ETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT ADMISSION IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDE NCE, BUT IT IS OPEN TO THE PERSON WHO MADE THE ADMISSION TO SHOW THAT IT IS I NCORRECT. IT HAS FURTHER BEEN HELD THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS U NACCOUNTED CASH RECEIPTS FROM VENDORS AND SUPPLIERS WAS SOLELY ON THE B ASIS OF THE SCRIBBLING PAD FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH COUPLE D WITH THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FROM B, CASHIER/ACCOUNTANT, S, PURCHASE MANAGER AND J, THE MANAGI NG DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE. EXCEPT THOSE DOCUMENTS, THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAD NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY OTHER EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ADD ITIONS MADE TOWARDS UNACCOUNTED CASH RECEIPTS AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT HAS ALSO BEEN HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT MADE ANY ATTEMPT TO CORRO BORATE THE ENTRIES MENTIONED IN THE SCRIBBLING PAD TO THE NAMES AND AD DRESS OF SUPPLIERS AND VENDORS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC R EFERENCE TO THE SOURCE OF CASH RECEIPT AND FROM WHOM CASH HAD BEEN RECEI VED AND THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE FOR WHICH CASH HAD BEEN PAID AND T HE PERSONS TO WHOM SAID CASH HAD BEEN PAID, IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTS OF THE SCRIBBLING PAD AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE DEPARTMENT HAD FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY COGENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE CONCLUSIVELY THAT THE NOTINGS IN THE SEIZED PAPERS REFERRED TO THE UNACCOUNTED CASH RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE. 50 14.3 SIMILARLY THE ITAT DELHI F BENCH IN THE CASE OF PICHESWAR GADDE VS. ITO, ITAT 202 DTR 41(SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER: IT APPEARS THAT THE, ENTIRE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MA DE ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT PROVISIONS OF S. 292C CLEARLY APPLY ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ADDITIONS MADE MERELY ON PRESUMPTION UNDER S. 132(4A)/292C CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AS THE PRESUMPTION HAS TO BE BACKED BY DIRECT AND CORROBOR ATIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE NOTINGS HAVE MATERIALIZED INTO INCOME OR UNEXPLAINE D INCOME/UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THAT OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO CORROBORAT IVE / DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THE ADDITIONS SO MADE. IT HAS FURTHER BEEN HELD THAT NO DATES HAVE BEEN MENTIONED IN THE IMPUGNED ENT RIES WHICH ARE BASIS OF THE ADDITIONS. WHEN NO DATES HAVE BEEN MENTIONED, THEN THE AO COULD NOT COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE DOCUMENT PERTAINS TO ASST. YR. 2008-09. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS IN TOTALITY THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ARE W ITHOUT ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO HESITATION IN DELETING THE ADDITION. 14.4 IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THERE WERE CERTAIN NO TINGS ON VARIOUS DOCUMENTS / LOOSE PAPERS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WH ICH ARE PLACED AT PAGE NO. 49 TO 59 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE WORD USED IN SO ME OF THOSE DOCUMENTS WAS INVEST NOT THE INVESTMENT WHICH IS APPARENT FROM TH E AFORESAID PAGES REPRODUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. SO THERE IS NO FORCE IN THIS CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THOSE WERE THE PROPOSALS TO INVEST AND NO INVESTMENT WAS ACTUALLY MADE, THIS FA CT HAS CATEGORICALLY BEEN MENTIONED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER A T PAGE NO. 25 WHEREIN THE LD. CIT(A) HAD MENTIONED THAT A LETTER WAS WRITTEN ON 04/12/2013 TO THE SUB REGISTRAR CUM TEHSILDAR, BHATINDA REGARDING PURCHAS E AND SALE OF PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS, IN THE REPLY D T. 12/12/2013 TO THE SAID LETTER, IT HAD BEEN STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SO LD 35 KANAL OF LAND IN VILLAGE JAI SINGH WALA ON 05/06/2009 AND HIS MOTHER SMT. JA SVINDER ALSO SOLD LAND MEASURING 32 KANAL 14 MARLAS IN VILLAGE JAI SINGH W ALA ON 05/06/2009, THOSE TRANSACTIONS WERE ALSO DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE WH ICH IS CLEAR FROM THE DETAILS OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE PLACED AT PAGE NO. 9 OF TH E ASSESSEES COMPILATION. 51 14.5 IN THE INSTANT CASE NOTHING IS BROUGHT ON RECO RD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE NOTINGS IN THE LOOSE PAPERS WHICH ARE CLAIMED TO BE PROPOSAL ONLY, MATERIALIZED ANY TIME. THE LD. CIT(A) CATEGORICALLY STATED AT TH E END OF THE PARA 17 OF PAGE NO. 63 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE DOCUMENTS COU LD BE CLEARLY DESCRIBED AS DUMB DOCUMENT BECAUSE OF THE ABSENCE OF VITAL FEATU RE TO PERMIT THE SAME TO BE TAKEN AS THE BASIS FOR AN ADDITION. HE ALSO CATE GORICALLY STATED THAT THE SAME FIGURES HAD BEEN REPEATED AGAIN AND AGAIN, THE RECO RDING WERE NOT DESCRIPTIVE ENOUGH TO HOLD INDEPENDENTLY AND EVEN IF THE SAME W AS PRESUMED TO BE RECORD OF PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS NOTHING TO DISCOUNT THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE SAME COULD BE PART OF TRANSACT ION WITH RESPECT TO OTHER PROPERTIES WHICH HAVE BEEN HELD AS UNACCOUNTED. 14.6 IN THE INSTANT CASE NEITHER THE DATES PERTAINI NG AND RELEVANT TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE MENTIONED ON THE LOOSE PAP ERS / DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH NOR THE NOTINGS WERE BA CKED BY DIRECT OR CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE NOTINGS HAVE MATERI ALIZED INTO SALE / PURCHASE OF PROPERTY OR THERE WAS ANY AGREEMENT TO SELL, WHI CH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THERE WAS NO CORROBORATIVE / DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE TO JU STIFY THE ADDITIONS SO MADE / SUSTAINED. 14.7 THEREFORE BY CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE F ACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND IN VIEW OF THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS MADE IN THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO CASES, IN OUR OPINION, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTI FIED IN HOLDING THAT THE SUMMARY RECORDED AT PAGE NO. 27 REPRESENTED THE ACTUAL SET OF AFFAIRS ON THE GIVEN DATES WHICH IN THE ABSENCE OF ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY CO ULD BE TAKEN AS YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THEREFORE THE AMOUNT OF RS. 6,51, 97,000/- RECORDED AT PAGE NO. 27 COULD BE TREATED AS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT O F THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AT P AGE NO. 51 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. HOWEVER NOWHERE IT HAS BEEN MENTION ED THAT THOSE WERE THE PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS AN ADMIT TED FACT THAT NO AGREEMENT 52 TO SELL OR SALE DEED HAVING THE NAME OF THE ASSESSE E WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. WE THEREFORE CONSIDERING THE TOTA LITY OF THE FACTS ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A)A MOUNTING TO RS. 6,51,97,000/- WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AS THE SAME WAS MADE BY THE A.O. ONLY ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION. ACCORDINGLY THE AFORESAID ADDITION SUS TAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS DELETED. 15. IN ITA NO. 455/CHD/2014 FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 I. E; THE APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT WHEREIN FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAIS ED: 1(A). THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.6.32 CRORE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 1(B). THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS IN THE REMAND REPORT. 1(C) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENT WAS NOT DUMB DOCUMENT RATH ER THIS WAS SPEAKING DOCUMENT CONTAINING METICULOUS DETAIL OF VARIOUS TR ANSACTIONS HAVING SUFFICIENT DESCRIPTION OF UNACCOUNTED AMOUNTS. 1(D) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED D OCUMENT WHICH WAS ALSO CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE WHILE RECORDING HIS STAT EMENT FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE GAVE VAGUE REPLIES TO THE QUERIES RAISED AND HIS AT TITUDE WAS NOT CO-OPERATIVE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE FAI LED TO DISCLOSE THE SOURCE OF AMOUNTS IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT AND NATURE OF DOCUME NT. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROU NDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD AND DISPOSED OFF. 3. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BE SET-ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED . 15.1 FROM THE AFORESAID GROUNDS IT WOULD BE CLEAR T HAT THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT ARE SIMILAR AS WERE INVOLVED IN ITA NO. 454/CHD/2014 FOR THE A.Y. 2011-12, FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND EVEN THE RIVAL CON TENTIONS WERE THE SAME, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS IN THE AMOUNT OF THE DELETION OF ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O THEREFORE, OUR FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE FORMER PART OF THIS ORDER RELATING TO THE A.Y. 53 2011-12 IN ITA NO. 454/CHD/2014 AND 461/CHD/2014, SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS . ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT. 16. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE DEPARTMENT ARE DI SMISSED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21/10/2021) SD/- SD/- .. .., (R.L. NEGI ) ( N.K. SAIN I) # $%/ JUDICIAL MEMBER / VICE PRESIDENT AG DATE: 21/10/2021 (+! ,-.- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. $ / CIT 4. $ / 01 THE CIT(A) 5. -2 45&456789 DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 8:% GUARD FILE