ACIT, New Delhi V. Yatinder Kumar Gupta, New Delhi

ITA 5695/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0570 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 08-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARAMITA M BISWAS
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources; Loose papers; Document seized; Question of law; Documents seized
• Section: 92C; 153A; 43; 13; 22; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, E: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.5695/DEL/2015 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11] ACIT, CIRCLE-53(1), ROOM NO.1503, 15 TH FLOOR, E2 BLOCK, DR. S.P.M. CIVIC CENTRE, J.L.N. MARG, NEW DELHI-110002 YATINDER KUMAR GUPTA, C-92, SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-2, NEW DELHI PAN-ABPPG1134R REVENUE ASSESSEE REVENUE BY MS. PARAMITA M. BISWAS, CIT-DR ASSESSEE BY SH. GAURAV BANSAL, CA DATE OF HEARING 02.06.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT .07.2021 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 29.04.2015 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II, AG RA, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2 ITA NO.5695/DEL/2015 2. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER:- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,15,00,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED MONEY WAS INVESTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IN J.P. GREEN, GREATER NODIA. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DERIVES INCOME FROM BUSINESS, INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. A SE ARCH U/S 132(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, WAS CONDUCTED ON 17.09.2010 AT THE PREMISES OF THE SHARDA GROUP OF AGRA INCLUDING THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND ASSETS, ETC. WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A D ATED 17.01.2012, THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 21.09.2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.19,47,520/- . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTED THAT CERTAIN PAPERS MARKED AS ANNEXURE A-II IN PARTY A-I WHICH WERE SEIZED RELATES TO SAME PROPERTY TRANSACTION WH ICH GIVES CALCULATION OF PAYMENTS MADE FOR PURCHASING A HOUSE . THE AO OBSERVED THAT AS PER THIS PAPER, A HOUSE WAS PURCHA SED IN A COLONY DEVELOPED BY JAYPEE GROUP. ON ENQUIRY BEING MADE ABOUT THE ENTRIES MADE IN THIS PAPER, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED 3 ITA NO.5695/DEL/2015 BEFORE THE AO IN A REPLY FILED ON 29.03.2013 STATIN G THAT ONE PERSON NAMED SHRI ROHIT GUPTA WHO HAD EARLIER BOOKE D ONE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN JAYPEE GREENS, GREATER NOID A WANTED TO SELL THE SAID PROPERTY MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED PAPE R. ALL THE NOTINGS, IN THE SEIZED PAPER ARE AS PER PURCHASE TE RMS AGREED BY SHRI ROHIT GUPTA. THE BROKER INFORMED TO THE ASS ESSEE THAT SHRI ROHIT GUPTA WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO PAY FURTH ER INSTALMENTS AND HENCE, HE WANTED TO TRANSFER HIS AL LOTMENT. AS PER THE ASSESSEES REPLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO, H E CONTACTED THE CONCERNED PERSON OF JAYPEE GREENS, GREATER NOID A TO CONFIRM WHETHER THE SAID PROPERTY HAS BEEN ALLOTTED TO SHRI ROHIT GUPTA OR NOT. HE GOT IT CONFIRMED FROM JAYPEE GREENS THAT THE PROPERTY WAS BOOKED BY SHRI ROHIT GUPTA AN D HE HAD ALREADY PAID RS.1.65 CRORE AND FURTHER AMOUNT DUE F ROM HIM TO BE PAID IMMEDIATELY WAS APPROXIMATELY RS.1.00 CRORE . JAYPEE GREENS PEOPLE INFORMED THAT IF THE ASSESSEE WANTED TO TRANSFER THE ALLOTMENT IN HIS FAVOUR, HE HAD TO PAY RS.1.65 CRORE TO SHRI ROHIT GUPTA AND RS.1.00 CRORE TO THE COMPANY, JAYPE E GREENS, GREATER NOIDA. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER MENTIONED IN HI S REPLY FILED BEFORE THE AO THAT HE AGREED TO PURCHASE THE SAID P ROPERTY AND TO PAY RS.1.65 CRORE TO SHRI ROHIT GUPTA. AFTER PAY MENT TO SHRI 4 ITA NO.5695/DEL/2015 ROHIT GUPTA, HIS ALLOTMENT WAS CANCELLED AND THE PR OPERTY WAS BOOKED IN THE NAME OF SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA JOIN TLY WITH HIS WIFE SMT SEEMA GUPTA BY JAYPEE GREENS, GREATER NOIDA AND TOTAL PURCHASE AMOUNT FINALIZED WITH JAYPEE GRE ENS WAS RS.5.85 CRORE OUT OF WHICH, RS.1.65 CRORE WAS PAID TO SHRI ROHIT GUPTA FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SMT. SEEMA GUP TA AND FURTHER RS.1.00 CRORE WAS PAID TO JAYPEE GREEN, GRE ATER NOIDA FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SMT. SEEMA GUPTA AND PARTL Y FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI PRADEEP GUPTA. THE ASSESSE E MENTIONED IN HIS REPLY TO THE AO THAT THESE PAYMENT S ARE VERIFIABLE FROM THE BANK STATEMENT FILED BY HIM. TH US, AS PER THE ASSESSEE, TOTAL PAYMENT MADE TO ACQUIRE THIS PR OPERTY IS RS.2.65 CRORE AND THE SAME IS CLEAR FROM THE PAYMEN T PLAN LETTER ISSUED BY JAYPEE GREENS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO F ILED COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL ALLOTMENT LETTER AND THE PAYMENT PL AN ISSUED BY JAYPEE GREENS, GREATER NOIDA. IT WAS CLARIFIED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN HIS REPLY TO THE AO THAT HE HAS NOT MADE ANY PAY MENT ON 15.11.2009 AND 01.11.2009. HE FURTHER CLARIFIED THA T HE HAS NO CONCERN WITH THE NOTING AS MENTIONED IN THE IMPUGNE D PAPER AND THE SAME HAS BEEN EXPLAINED GIVING FOLLOWING FA CTS:- 5 ITA NO.5695/DEL/2015 (A) THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN ALLOTTED IN FAVOUR OF SH RI PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA JOINTLY WITH SMT. SEEMA GUPTA BY JAY PEE GREENS, GREATER NOIDA AS PER THEIR PROVISIONAL ALLOTMENT LETTER DATED 17.09.2012. THE TOTAL PURCHASE PRICE FOR THE SAID PROPERTY AS PER THE PROVISIONAL ALLOTMENT LETTER IS RS.5.85 CRO RE. THE PAYMENT OF RS.2.65 CRORE WAS PAID OUT OF RS.5.85 CRORE AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT IS TO BE PAID AS PER THE PAYMENT PLAN ISSUED BY JAY PEE GREENS, GREATER NOIDA 4. AFTER GIVING THE ABOVE FACTS RELATING TO PURCH ASE OF PROPERTY AS MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED PAPER, THE ASSE SSEE FURTHER EMPHASIZED IN HIS REPLY THAT PERUSAL OF ALL THE DOCUMENTS CONCLUSIVELY PROVES THAT NO PAYMENT OVER AND ABOVE RS.2.65 CRORE HAS BEEN MADE AND HENCE, THE NO TINGS MENTIONED IN THE ALLEGED SEIZED PAPERS CANNOT IN AN Y WAY BE RELATED WITH THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ARGUED THAT JAYPE E GREENS ARE THE WELL ESTABLISHED, WELL REPUTED AND ONE OF T HE BIGGEST BUILDERS AND THEY DO NOT CHARGE ANY AMOUNT OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNT AS AGREED FOR ANY PARTICULAR TRANSACTION . THE ASSESSEE ALSO REPLIED THAT HE DOES NOT KNOW SHRI RO HIT GUPTA 6 ITA NO.5695/DEL/2015 AND REEVA KHETRPAL. THE BROKER ONLY INFORMED THAT T HE SAID PROPERTY WAS BOOKED BY SHRI ROHIT GUPTA WHICH HE GO T CONFIRMED FROM JAYPEE GREEN'S BEFORE GETTING THE PR OPERTY ALLOTTED IN HIS FAVOUR. 4.1. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE R EPLY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. HE NOTED THAT AS PER ASSESS EES REPLY TOTAL PURCHASE PRICE FOR THE SAID PROPERTY AS PER T HE PROVISIONAL ALLOTMENT LETTER IS RS.5.85 CRORE WHILE ON PAPER THIS WAS FINALIZED AT RS.4.92 CRORE AND THEN AT RS.5.65 CRORE. HE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SAID IN HIS REPLY THAT THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN ALLOTTED IN FAVOUR OF PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA JOINTLY WITH SMT. SEEMA GUPTA BY JAYPEE GREENS AS PER THEIR PROVISIONAL ALLOTMENT LETTER DATED 17.09.2012 WHILE AS PER PAPER ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENTS TILL 15.11.2009 AN D FURTHER THE PAYMENT OF RS.1.65 CRORE WAS DONE ON 01 .10.2009. THEREFORE, HE CONCLUDED THAT CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DATES OF PAYMENT, THE HOUSE SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED ON OR NEAR ABOUT THIS DATE. AS REGARDS THE NAME OF SHRI ROHIT GUPTA AND REEVA KHETRPAL, THE AO POINTED OUT THAT BOTH THESE NAMES ARE MENTIONED ON THESE PAPERS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS PURC HASED 7 ITA NO.5695/DEL/2015 PROPERTY FROM SHRI ROHIT GUPTA BUT HE IS NOW DENYIN G ABOUT KNOWING SHRI ROHIT GUPTA AND REEVA KHETRPAL . THE AO EXAMINED THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND WAS OF THE OPINIO N THAT THIS IS A COMMON PRACTICE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE U SED THE WORD A FOR ACCOUNTED MONEY AND B FOR UNACCOUNTE D MONEY. THE AO FURTHER DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AF TER EXAMINATION OF THE SEIZED PAPERS KEEPING IN VIEW HI S FINDINGS THAT THE WORD A & B IS MENTIONED IN OTHER PAPER S FOUND IN SEARCH THAT THIS IS VERY CLEAR THAT ON FIRST, SHRI ROHIT GUPTA FINALIZED THE DEAL OF PROPERTY WITH JAYPEE FOR RS.4 92.25 LAKH IN WHICH HE PAID TO JAYPEE AT RS.1.55 CRORE ON 11.01.2 008 AND RS.10 LAC ON 31.10.2008. THE AO FURTHER DISCUSSED I N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE PR OPERTY FROM MR. ROHIT GUPTA AND RS.1.65 CRORE WAS GIVEN AS ACCOUNTED A AMOUNT TO HIM WITH PREMIUM OF RS.72.7 2 LAC AS UNACCOUNTED B AMOUNT. THEREFORE, TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.237.72 LAKHS WERE PAID TO SHRI ROHIT GUPTA AND REST AMOUNT IS TO BE PAID IS RS.254.53 LAKHS. THE AO FURTHER DISCUSSED I N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT DURING TRANSFER PROCESS, JAYP EE INCREASED TOTAL AMOUNT TO RS.565 LAKHS BECAUSE OF T HE FOLLOWING REASONS AS MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED PAPERS . 8 ITA NO.5695/DEL/2015 10% PENALTY CHARGES OF RS.492.25 LAKHS = RS.49.23 LAKHS GOLF MEMBERSHIP CHARGE + SPORTS MEMBERSHIP =RS.23.5 2 LAKHS 5. AFTER GIVING THE ABOVE DETAILS OF INCREASE IN THE PRICE OF THE PROPERTY PURCHASED FROM JAYPEE, THE AO HAS HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.565 IS DIVIDED IN TWO PARTS, AMOUNT A OF RS.350 LAKHS AND B OF RS.215 LAKHS. THE AO HAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT BECAUSE AMOUNT OF RS.165 LAKHS WAS ALREADY PAID TO SHRI ROHIT GUPTA, THEREFORE, REST AMOUNT IS CALCULATED AT RS.185 LAKHS AND IN B AMOUNT RS.72.75 LAKHS HA S ALREADY BEEN PAID AND REST AMOUNT OF RS.142.25 IS PAID ON 01/11/2009 TO THE JAY PEE AS PER CALCULATION MENTIO NED ON PAPER. AFTER EXAMINING THE ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS F ROM THE SEIZED PAPER, THE AO CONCLUDED THAT THIS IS VERY CL EAR THAT AMOUNT OF RS.215 LAKH MENTIONED AS AMOUNT B IS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND TREATED THE SAME AS UNDISCLOSED. THE AO ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITION OF RS .2.15 CRORE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE MADE ELABORATE ARGUMENTS STATING THAT THE AO HAS MADE AD DITION ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION AND SURMISES WITHOUT APPRE CIATING 9 ITA NO.5695/DEL/2015 THAT NEITHER HE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY NOR HE MADE ANY PAYMENT. FURTHER, THE ALLOTMENT LETTER WAS NOT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE OR HIS WIFE. ALTHOUGH THE SEIZED PAPER S WERE FOUND FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE BUT IT IS NOT RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE PRESUMPTION DRAWN BY THE AO U/S 2 92C OF THE ACT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDE NCE. FURTHER, THE DOCUMENT FOUND IS NOT IN THE HANDWRITI NG OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSACTION TO OK PLACE FOR A SUM OF RS.5.50 CRORES AND OUT OF THE SAID AMOUNT A SUM OF RS.1.65 CRORES WAS MADE TO MR. ROHIT GUPTA WHICH WA S ALREADY PAID BY HIM TO THE BUILDER. FURTHER, THE P RICE OF THE PROPERTY IS MORE THAN THE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THE S EIZED DOCUMENT FOUND AND THE ENTIRE PAYMENT WERE MADE BY CHEQUE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND NO UNACCOUNTED CASH IS INVOLVED. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE CONCERNED BROKER WITH REQUEST TO ADMIT THE SAME UNDER RULE 46 A OF I.T. RULES AND ALSO REQUESTED THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO EXAM INE THE BROKER TO PROVE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE AFFIDAVIT FI LED BEFORE HIM. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL E VIDENCE FILED BEFORE HIM, EXAMINED THE BROKER AND ALSO CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIO N OF THE 10 ITA NO.5695/DEL/2015 ASSESSEE, THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO AND THE REJOI NDER OF THE ASSESSEE TO SUCH REMAND REPORT, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 5.10 I HAVE EXAMINED ALL THE DETAILS BROUGHT BEF ORE ME BY ID. AR AS WELL AS THE AO RELATING TO THE SEIZED DOC UMENT IN WHICH CERTAIN RECORDING HAS BEEN MADE RELATING TO P URCHASE OF A PROPERTY UNDER DISPUTE. IN ORDER TO DECIDE THE IS SUE RELATING TO ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSES SEE IN THE SAID PROPERTY, I HAVE DECIDED TO FIRST EXAMINE THE IMPUGNED SEIZED DOCUMENT. THIS SEIZED DOCUMENT IS P LACE AS ANNEXURE A-1 OF THIS ORDER. LOOKING TO THIS SEIZED DOCUMENT, TOTAL PRICE OF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE ME NTIONED AS RS.5.65 CRORE OUT OF WHICH, RS, 3.5 CRORE IS MENTIO NED AS A AND RS. 2.15 IS MENTIONED AS B. THUS, TOTAL PRICE OF THE PROPERTY HAS COME TO RS.5.65 CRORE. OUT OF THE AMOU NT MENTIONED AS A AT RS.3.5 CRORE, PAYMENT OF RS.1.6 5 CRORE HAS BEEN SHOWN AND AGAINST THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.1.8 5 CRORE, JAYPEE GREENS, GREATER NOIDA IS WRITTEN. ON THE BAS IS OF THESE NOTINGS MADE IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT, THE AO CONCLUD ED THAT OUT OF RS 3.5 CRORE MENTIONED AS A AMOUNT, RS.1.6 5 CRORE IS PAID BY CHEQUE TO SHRI ROHIT GUPTA FROM WHOM PROPER TY WAS PURCHASED AND BALANCE RS.1.85 CRORE WAS REQUIRED TO BE PAID TO JAYPEE GREENS, GREATER NOIDA. FOR E3 AMOUNT OF RS.2.15 CRORE, IT HAS BEEN CONCLUDED BY THE AO THAT THE SAM E HAS BEEN PAID IN CASH TO THE PERSON FROM WHOM THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN PURCHASED AS UNACCOUNTED PAYMENT AND HENCE, HE ADDE D THIS AMOUNT IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ASSUMING THAT THIS PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE (APPELLANT). NOW, THESE NOTINGS MADE IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT ARE REQUI RED TO BE EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTUAL POSITION RELAT ING TO THIS PROPERTY. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THIS PROPERTY IS IN THE NAME OF ELDER BROTHER OF ASSESSEE (SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR GU PTA AND HIS WIFE SMT. SEEMA GUPTA). THIS FACT HAS ALSO BEEN TOLD TO THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. AS FAR AS THE PRICE OF THE PROPERTY IS CONCERNED, I HAVE FOUND FROM THE AL LOTMENT LETTER ISSUED BY JAYPEE GREENS AS WELL AS THE PAYME NT PLAN THAT TOTAL PRICE OF THE PROPERTY IS RS.5.85 CRORE. THIS FACT HAS ALSO BEEN STATED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE AO DURING T HE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. THE PRICE OF RS.5.85 CRORE M ENTIONED IN ALLOTMENT LETTER OF JAYPEE ISSUED TO SRI PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA AND SMT. SEEMA GUPTA IS MORE THAN THE AMOUNT OF RS.5.65 CRORE MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT. THE AO HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD TO SHOW THATTHE 11 ITA NO.5695/DEL/2015 VALUE OR THE PRICE OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY IS MORE THAN THE AMOUNT OF RS.5.85 CRORE MENTIONED IN THE ALLOTMENT LETTER ISSUED BY JAYPEE GREENS. THE ASSESSEE(APPELLAN.T) H AS VERY CLEARLY SHOWN BY GIVING THE DETAILS OF CHEQUES ISSU ED SO FAR THAT TOTAL PAYMENT OF RS.2,67,57,500/- IS MADE AS P ER THE DETAILS GIVEN BELOW:- DATE CHEQUE NO. AMOUNT 1.10.2009 230832 ISSUED FROM SYN BANK OF SMT. SEEMA GUPTA 1,65,00,000 31.93.2012 778618 ISSUED FROM SYN BANK OF PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA 50,00,000/- 31.03.2012 230845 ISSUED FROM SYN BANK OF SMT. SEEMA GUPTA 52,57,500/- 5.11 FROM THE PAYMENT PLAN ISSUED BY JAYPEE GREENS, GREATER NOIDA, IT HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE(AP PELLANT) THAT TOTAL PRICE OF THE PROPERTY IS RS.5.85 CRORE O UT OF WHICH, RS.2.65 CRORE HAS BEEN PAID INCLUDING SERVICE TAX A ND REMAINING AMOUNTING OF RS.3.20 CRORE IS OUTSTANDING . 5.12 CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DETAILS OF PRICE OF THE PROP ERTY AND THE PAYMENTS MADE SO FAR, I FIND THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF ANY PAYMENT MADE IN CASH DOES NOT ARISE BECAUSE PRI CE OF THE PROPERTY ITSELF IS MORE THAN WHAT IS SHOWN IN THE S EIZED DOCUMENT OUT OF WHICH RS.2.65 CORE HAVE BEEN PAID I N CHEQUE AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.3.20 CRORE ARE STILL SHOWN OUTSTANDING IN THE PAYMENT PLAN OF JAYPEE GREENS. T HE QUESTION OF MAKING PAYMENT IN CASH OVER AND ABOVE T HE PRICE OF THE PROPERTY MENTIONED IN THE ALLOTMENT LETTER A RISES ONLY WHEN IT IS PROVED THAT THE VALUE /PRICE OF THE PROP ERTY IS MORE THAN THE PRICE MENTIONED IN THE ALLOTMENT LETTER. N EITHER SEIZED DOCUMENT ESTABLISHES THAT THE PRICE OF THE PROPERTY IS MORE THAN THE PRICE MENTIONED IN THE ALLOTMENT LETTER NO R THE AO HAS BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE PRI CE OF THE PROPERTY IS MORE THAN RS.5.85 CRORE MENTIONED IN TH E ALLOTMENT LETTER. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE HERE THAT THE PROPERTY IS NOT IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE(APPELLANT) BUT IT IS IN NAM E OF BROTHER SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA & SMT. SEEMA GUPTA AND SO FAR ALL PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THEM. THEREFORE, POSSIBI LITY OF MAKING ANY UNACCENTED INVESTMENT IN THIS PROPERTY B Y THE ASSESSEE(APPELLANT) DOES NOT ARISE. THE AO ONLY ARG UMENT IS THAT THOUGH THE PROPERTY IS IN THE NAME OF SHRI PRA DEEP KUMAR GUPTA AND SMT. SEEMA GUPTA BUT ALL THE DEALINGS HAV E BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND HE IS A KEY PERSON FOR MAK ING THIS DEALING. THEREFORE, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHE R PROPERTY IS IN THE NAME OF SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA AND SMT.SEE MA 12 ITA NO.5695/DEL/2015 GUPTA, AS PER THE AO, UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN CAS H TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2.15 CRORE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESS EE. IF THIS ARGUMENT OF THE AO IS ACCEPTED THAT THE UNACCOUNTED PAYMENT OF RS.2.15 CRORE IN CASH HAS BEEN MADE BY SHRI Y.K. GUPTA FOR PURCHASE OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY, THE TOTAL PRICE OF IMPUGNED PROPERTY WOULD COME TO RS.8 CRORE (RS.5.85 CRORE +R S.2.15 CRORE). HOWEVER, NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RE CORD BY THE AO SHOWING THAT TOTAL PRICE OF THE PROPERTY OR ITS VALUE IS ASESSED AT RS.8 CRORE. IN FACT THE AO HAS NOT EVEN DISPUTED THE TOTAL PRICE OF THE PROPERTY OR ITS VALUE SHOWN IN THE ALLOTMENT LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE(APPELLAN T). THEREFORE, HIS ARGUMENT OF MAKING OF UNACCOUNTED PA YMENT IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2.15 CRORE FOR PURCHASING THIS PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE C ONVINCING AT ALL. HIS ANOTHER ARGUMENT OF MAKING OF UNACCOUNT ED INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SAID PROPERTY BEC AUSE HE WAS INVOLVED IN THE DEAL IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT T HAT THE PROPERTY IS IN THE NAME OF HIS ELDER BROTHER, HAS A LSO NOT BEEN FOUND CONVINCING. IN THIS REGARD, I AGREE WITH THE ID. AR AS ARGUED BY HIM IN THE REJOINDER THAT THE ARGUMENT OF THE AO THAT WITH REGARD TO THE PROPERTY AT JAYPEE GREENS, GREATER NOIDA , THE BROKER MET SHRI Y.K. GUPTA AND HE DOES NOT KNOW SHRI P.K. GUPTA, DOES NOT MAKE ANY MATERIAL DIFFERE NCE AS ALL THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI P.K. GUPTA AND SMT. SEEMA GUPTA AND THE PROPERTY IS ALSO BOOKED AND ALLOTTED IN THE JOINT NAME OF SHRI PRADEEP KUMA R GUPTA & SMT. SEEMA GUPTA AND ALL THE DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCE S IN THIS REGARD, ARE ALREADY ON RECORD AND SHOW THAT TH IS PROPERTY BELONGS TO THEM. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE HERE THAT THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW /PROOF THAT THE CHEQUES T O SHRI ROHIT GUPTA AND FURTHER CHEQUE TO JAYPEE GREENS WER E GIVEN BY SHRI Y.K. GUPTA. AS REGARDS TO AMOUNT MENTIONED AS A & B IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT AND CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE AO THAT AMOUNT B IS PAID IN CASH, I FIND THAT THE ID . AR HAS CORRECTLY REFERRED TO DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT AGRA IN THE APPEAL OF SHARDA EDUCATIONAL TRUST WITH REGARD TO T HE PAPER SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI Y.K. GUPTA. IN TH IS DECISION, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IN ABSENCE OF ANY RECOVERY OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL WAS OF VIEW THAT VARIOUS DOCUMENTS /LIST A NNEXED WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS NOT ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDEN CE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ARGUMENT OF AO THAT B AMOUNT MENTIONED IN SEIZED DOCUMENT IS PAYMENT IN CASH CAN NOT BE ACCEPTED BECAUSE AS I HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED THAT T HERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF MAKING CASH PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF THIS PROPERTY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT TOTAL PRICE OF TH E PROPERTY AS MENTIONED IN THE ALLOTMENT LETTER OF JAYPEE GREENS IS MORE THAN WHAT IS MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT. OUT OF THE 13 ITA NO.5695/DEL/2015 TOTAL PRICE OF RS. 5.85 CRORE MENTIONED IN THE ALLO TMENT LETTER, THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ELDER BROTHER OF THE ASSESS EE AND HIS WIFE TOTALING TO RS.2.65 CRORE HAS ALREADY BEEN MENTIONED IN THE PAYMENT PLAN OF JAYPEE GREENS AND BALANCE AM OUNT OF RS.3.20 IS STILL SHOWN OUTSTANDING. THERE IS NO EVI DENCE THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS MORE THAN RS. 5.85 CRO RE. THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT, IT IS NOT PROVED THAT THE AMOUNT A MENTIONED AS RS.3.5 CRORE IS CH EQUE AMOUNT AND RS.2.15 CRORE MENTIONED AS B IS CASH A MOUNT. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING ALL THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS DISCUSSED BY ME AND TAKING INTO ACCO UNT THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY IS NOT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE(APPELLANT), NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HAND OF THE ASSESSEE TREATING RS.2.15 CRORE AS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE(APPELLANT). THEREFO RE, I DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.2.15 CRORE MADE IN THE AS SESSMENT ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS TAKEN IN APPEAL DISPUTI NG THE ADDITION OF RS.2.15 CRORE ARE ALLOWED. 7. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A ), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 8. THE LD. DR HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELEING THE ADDITION WITHOUT APPRECIAT ING THAT SEIZED DOCUMENTS CONTAINS NOTING WHICH CLEARLY SHOW S THAT AMOUNT OF RS.2.15 LAKHS IS THE UNACCOUNTED MONEY GI VEN IN BLACK. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) BE SET-ASIDE AND THE ORDER OF THE AO SHOULD BE RESTORED. 9. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OT HER HAND, STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED C IT(A). 14 ITA NO.5695/DEL/2015 REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE AO AS WELL AS THE LEA RNED CIT(A) AND THE VARIOUS PAGES OF THE PAPER BOOK, HE SUBMITT ED THAT THE PROPERTY IS IN THE NAME OF ELDER BROTHER OF TH E ASSESSEE NAMELY SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA AND HIS WIFE SMT. S EEMA GUPTA. THE PRICE OF RS.5.85 CRORES MENTIONED IN ALL OTMENT LETTER OF JAYPEE GROUP ISSUED TO SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA AND SMT. SEEMA GUPTA IS MORE THAN THE AMOUNT O FRS. 5.65 CRORES MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT. HE SUBMITT ED THAT THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SH OW THAT THE VALUE OR THE PRICE OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY IS MORE THAN THE AMOUNT OF RS.5.85 CRORES MENTIONED IN THE ALLOT MENT LETTER ISSUED BY JAYPEE GREENS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PRI CE OF THE PROPERTY ITSELF IS MORE THAN WHAT IS SHOWN IN THE S EIZED DOCUMENTS OUT WHICH RS.2.65 CRORE HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID IN CHEQUE AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.3.20 CRORE ARE STIL L SHOWN OUTSTANDING IN THE PAYMENT PLAN OF JAYPEE GREENS. T HEREFORE, THE POSSIBILITY OF ANY PAYMENT MADE IN CASH DOES NO T ARISE. HE SUBMITTED THAT NEITHER THE SEIZED DOCUMENT ESTABLIS HES THAT THE PRICE OF THE PROPERTY IS MORE THAN THE PRICE ME NTIONED IN THE ALLOTMENT LETTER NOR THE AO HAS BROUGHT ANY EVI DENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE PRICE OF THE PROPERTY IS MO RE THAN 15 ITA NO.5695/DEL/2015 RS.5.85 CRORES MENTIONED IN THE ALLOTMENT LETTER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY IS NOT IN THE NAME OF T HE ASSESSEE BUT IT IS IN THE NAME OF ELDER BROTHER SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA AND SMT. SEEMA GUPTA. THEREFORE, POSSIBILITY OF MAKING ANY UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN THIS PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT ARISE. HE SUBMITTED THAT IF THE A RGUMENT OF THE AO IS ACCEPTED THAT THE UNACCOUNTED PAYMENT OF RS.2.15 CRORE IN CASH HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PUR CHASE OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY, THE TOTAL PRICE OF THE IMPUG NED PROPERTY WOULD COME TO RS.8 CRORE. HOWEVER, NO EVI DENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO TO SHOW THAT THE T OTAL PRICE OF THE PROPERTY OR ITS VALUE IS ASSESSED AT RS.8 CR ORES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NEVER DISPUTED THE TOTAL PRICE OF THE PROPERTY OR ITS VALUE SHOWN IN THE ALLOTMENT LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 10. SO FAR AS THE ARGUMENT OF THE AO THAT WITH RE GARD TO THE PROPERTY AT JAYPEE GREENS, GREATER NOIDA, THE B ROKER MET SHRI Y.K. GUPTA AND HE DOES NOT KNOW SHRI P.K. GUPT A, DOES NOT MAKE ANY MATERIAL DIFFERENCE AS ALL THE PAYMENT S ARE MADE FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI P.K. GUPTA AND SMT. S EEMA 16 ITA NO.5695/DEL/2015 GUPTA AND THE PROPERTY IS ALSO BOOKED AND ALLOTTED IN THE JOINT NAME OF SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA AND SMT. SEEMA GUP TA. RELYING ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS, THE LEARNED COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CI T(A) IS FULLY JUSTIFIED AND THEREFORE, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE SHOULD BE DISMISSED:- I. CIT VS PRAVEEN JUNEJA ITA NO.56/2017 (DELHI HIGH CO URT) II. CIT VS PRAVEEN JUNEJA ITA NO.57/2017 (DELHI HIGH CO URT) III. PR. CIT VS UMESH ISHRANI [2019] 108 TAXMANN.COM 437(BOM.) IV. PR. CIT VS DELCO INDIA (P) LTD. [2016] 67 TAXMANN.C OM 357 (DEL.) V. SHARDA EDUCATIONAL TRUST VS CIT (C), KANPUR [2014] 43 TAXMANN.COM 95 (AGRA. TRIB.) 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE B Y BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECI SIONS CITED BEFORE US. WE FIND ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMEN TS MARKED 17 ITA NO.5695/DEL/2015 AS ANNEXURE A-1, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.2.15 C ORES TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE AMOUNT MENTIONED AS B-II, REPRESENTS THE UNACCOUNTE D INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH HE MADE THE ADDITI ON. WE FIND THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION, THE R EASONS OF WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE OR DER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION SO MADE. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE ELDER BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI PRADEEP K UMAR GUPTA AND HIS WIFE SMT. SEEMA GUPTA. THE PAYMENTS HAVE B EEN MADE FROM THEIR BANK ACCOUNT AND NO AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THE PRICE OF RS.5.85 CORES MENTI ONED IN ALLOTMENT LETTER OF JAYPEE ISSUED TO SHRI PRADEEP K UMAR GUPTA AND SMT. SEEMA GUPTA IS MORE THAN THE AMOUNT OF RS. 5.65 CRORES MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. THE A O HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE VALUE OR THE PRICE OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY IS MORE THAN THE AMO UNT OF RS.5.85 CRORES MENTIONED IN THE ALLOTMENT LETTER, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 7 TO 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK. WE FURTHER FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE 18 ITA NO.5695/DEL/2015 ASSESSEE THAT WHEN THE PRICE OF THE PROPERTY ITSELF IS MORE THAN WHAT IS SHOWN IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS OUT WHICH RS. 2.65 CRORE HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID IN CHEQUE AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.3.20 CRORE ARE STILL SHOWN OUTSTANDING IN THE PA YMENT PLAN OF JAYPEE GREENS, THEREFORE, THE POSSIBILITY OF ANY PAYMENT MADE IN CASH DOES NOT ARISE. FURTHER, NEITHER THE SEIZED DOCUMENT ESTABLISHES THAT THE PRICE OF THE PROPERTY IS MORE THAN THE PRICE MENTIONED IN THE ALLOTMENT LETTER NO R THE AO HAS BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE PRICE OF THE PROPERTY IS MORE THAN RS.5.85 CRORES MENTIONED IN THE ALLOTMENT LETTER. SINCE, THE PROPERTY IS NOT IN T HE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE BUT IS IN THE NAME OF HIS ELDER BROTHER SH RI PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA AND SMT. SEEMA GUPTA FROM WHOSE BANK ACCOUNT PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE, THEREFORE, WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E THAT POSSIBILITY OF MAKING UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN THI S PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT ARISE AND ADDITION, IF ANY , COULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE A ND HIS WIFE BUT NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE. WE FURTHER FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT IF THE ARGUMENT OF THE AO THAT UN ACCOUNTED 19 ITA NO.5695/DEL/2015 MONEY OF RS.2.15 CORES IN CASH HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY THEN THE TOTAL PRICE OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY WOULD COME TO RS.8 C RORES WHICH IS NOT POSSIBLE IN ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE PRICE OF SIMILAR PROPERTY IN THE SAID SOCIETY I S RS.8 CRORES. FURTHER, NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO THAT TOTAL PRICE OF THE PROPERTY OR ITS VALUE IS AS SESSED AT RS.8 CRORES. THE AO HAS NEVER DISPUTED THE TOTAL PRICE OF THE PROPERTY OR ITS VALUE SHOWN IN THE ALLOTMENT LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. OTHER ARGUMENT OF THE AO THAT WIT H REGARD TO THE PROPERTY AT JAYPEE GREENS, GREATER NOIDA, THE B ROKER MET SHRI Y.K. GUPTA AND HE DOES NOT KNOW SHRI P.K. GUPT A IN OUR OPINION DOES NOT MAKE ANY MATERIAL DIFFERENCE AT AL L, SINCE, ALL THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT O F SHRI P.K. GUPTA AND SMT. SEEMA GUPTA AND THE PROPERTY IS ALSO BOOKED AND ALLOTTED IN THE JOINT NAME OF SHRI PRADE EP KUMAR GUPTA AND SMT. SEEMA GUPTA. 12. WE FURTHER FIND, ALTHOUGH THE SEIZED DOCUMENT S WERE FOUND FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE BUT IT IS NOT RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE TRANSACTION WAS RELATING TO TH E PURCHASE 20 ITA NO.5695/DEL/2015 OF THE PROPERTY BY ELDER BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE. THE PRESUMPTION DRAWN BY THE AO U/S 292C OF THE ACT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. ENTRIES R EFLECTED IN THESE PAPERS WERE NOT REPRESENTED BY ANY EVIDENCE O N RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID ANY CASH AS ALLEGED BY T HE AO. 13. WE FIND THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF PR. CIT VS DELCO INDIA (P) LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD TH AT NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT ON BASIS OF LOOSE P APERS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH IN ASSESSEES CASE INDICATI NG ASSESSEES TRANSACTION WITH A COMPANY WHEN ASSESSEE NOT ONLY CLEARLY DENIED HAVING ANY DEALING WITH SAID COMPANY BUT ALSO PRODUCED ALL NECESSARY DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE NECESSARY ENQUIRIES AND A LETTER FROM DIRECTOR OF THAT COMPANY CONFORMING THAT SAID COMPANY DID NOT HAVE A NY TRANSACTION WITH ASSESSEE. 13.1. WE FIND AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS UMESH ISHRANI (SUPRA). IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS A PARTNER IN THE FIRM. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, CERTAIN LOO SE PAPERS IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF SHOPS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. ON THE 21 ITA NO.5695/DEL/2015 BASIS OF LOOSE PAPERS, ADDITIONS WERE MADE IN THE H ANDS OF THE INDIVIDUAL PARTNERS AND ON PROTECTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM. WHILE DELETING SUCH ADDITION IN CASE OF THE A SSESSEE, THE TRIBUNAL NOTED THAT SUCH LOOSE PAPERS NOWHERE SHOW THAT ANY PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY SAME PARTNER AND FURTHER NO E NQUIRY WAS MADE WITH THE SELLER OF THE SHOPS OR THE DEVELO PER. THE TRIBUNAL, CONCLUDED THAT ENTRIES REFLECTED IN THE L OOSE PAPERS, WERE NOT CORROBORATED WITH ANY OTHER EVIDENCE ON RE CORD. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 14. WE FIND THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS PRAVEEN JUNEJA (SUPRA) HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 4. A SEARCH TOOK PLACE IN THE PREMISES OF THE RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE PURSUANT TO WHICH CERTAIN DOCUM ENTS WERE SEIZED. THE DOCUMENT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ABOVE ADDITION WAS MADE WAS A PIECE OF PAPER DATED 24TH NOVEMBER, 2003. IT CONTAINED A HAND-WRITTEN FIGURE OF '8050'. IN TWO COLUMNS IT SET OUT DETAILS OF PURPORTEDLY EX PENSES ON DRIVE WAY, TENNIS COURT, GARDEN LIGHTS ETC. IN THE LEFT COLUMN TOTALLING '9.45' AND SOME OTHER EXPENSES RELATING T O THE ARCHITECT, WOODEN FITTINGS, BATHROOM FITTINGS, ETC. IN THE RIGHT COLUMN TOTALING '13.45'. 5. THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE W AS THAT HE WAS A DIRECTOR OF OMAXE LTD., A COMPANY IN THE CONS TRUCTION BUSINESS. HE SOUGHT TO EXPLAIN THAT THE SAID PAPER CONTAINING ESTIMATES IN RELATION TO THE OMAXE PLAZA PROJECT OF THE COMPANY WAS WITH HIM IN THAT CAPACITY. THE CIT (A) REJECTED THE ABOVE EXPLANATION ON THE GROUND THAT SEIZED DOC UMENT NOWHERE CONTAINED THE NAME OMAXE LTD. SINCE THE SAI D 22 ITA NO.5695/DEL/2015 DOCUMENT HAD BEEN SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF ASSE SSEE, THE CIT (A) DREW A PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 292C OF TH E ACT WAS THAT IT BELONGED TO HIM. FURTHER, THE CIT(A) PROCEE DED ON THE BASIS THAT THE FIGURE OF '8050' WAS IN FACT RS. 80, 50,000 AND CONSTITUTED THE UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUBMITTED ANY EVIDENCE LIKE A CONF IRMATION LETTER OR ANY OTHER DOCUMENT TO SHOW THAT EXPENDITU RE RELATED TO OMAXE LTD. 6. THE ITAT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER NOTED THA T THE DOCUMENT WAS SILENT AS TO THE PAYER AND PAYEE OF T HE AMOUNT IN QUESTION NOR DOES IT DISCLOSE THAT THE PAYMENT W AS MADE BY CHEQUE OR CASH NOR IT IS PROVED THAT THE DOCUMENT I S IN THE HANDWRITING OF ASSESSEE OR AT LEAST BEARS HIS SIGNA TURES. 7. IN THE CONSIDERED VIEW OF THE COURT, THE ADDITION OF RS.80,50,000 MERELY ON THE BASIS OF A SINGLE DOCUME NT WITHOUT MAKING ANY FURTHER ENQUIRY WAS NOT JUSTIFIE D. NO ATTEMPT WAS MADE BY THE AO TO FIND OUT IF IN FACT I T CONSTITUTED ESTIMATES RELATING THE CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECT OF O MAXE LTD. 8. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE IMPUGNED ORDER O F THE ITAT SUFFERS FROM NO LEGAL INFIRMITY AND DOES NOT GIVE R ISE TO ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW. 15. SINCE, IN THE INSTANCE CASE, THE PROPERTY WAS IN THE NAME OF ELDER BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE NAMELY SHRI P RADEEP KUMAR GUPTA AND HIS WIFE SMT. SEEMA GUPTA, THE PRIC E OF RS.5.85 CORES MENTIONED IN ALLOTMENT LETTER IS MORE THAN THE AMOUNT OF RS.5.65 CRORES MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED DO CUMENTS AND CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE DOCUMENT FOUND IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT RELATE TO HIM BUT HIS BROTHER AND HIS WIFE AND FURTHER CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ENTIRE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS BY H IS BROTHER AND HIS WIFE, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE DET AILED DISCUSSION BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION, 23 ITA NO.5695/DEL/2015 WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE SAME. ACCORDIN GLY, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS UPHELD AND THE GROUN D RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENU E IS DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15/07/20 21. SD/- SD/- [SUCHITRA KAMBLE] [R.K.PA NDA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DELHI; DATED: 15/07/2021. F{X~{T? F{X~{T? F{X~{T? F{X~{T? FA FA FA FA P.S P.SP.S P.S COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI