ITO, New Delhi V. M/s. Nahid Finlease Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6246/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5676 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHEFALI SWAROOP
• Assessee Lawyers: S K TULSIAN
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Search and seizure; Document seized; Source of fund; Documents seized
• Section: 153A; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH E : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.6246/DEL./2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) ITO, WARD 13 (1), VS. M/S. NAHID FINLEASE PVT. LTD ., NEW DELHI. 16 TH FLOOR, STATESMAN HOUSE, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI 110 001. (PAN : AABCN5146L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.K. TULSIAN, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : MS. SHEFALI SWAROOP, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 13.06.2018 DATE OF ORDER : 22.06.2018 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE APPELLANT, INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 13 (1), NE W DELHI (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE REVENUE) BY FILIN G THE PRESENT APPEAL, SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATE D 01.08.2014 PASSED BY LD. CIT (APPEALS)-XII, NEW DELHI QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA THAT :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AMOUNTING TO RS.4,66,00,000/- BY IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS BEEN ATTEMPTING TO PASS OFF THESE TRANSACTIONS AS GENUIN E. IT IS QUITE ITA NO.6246/DEL./2014 2 POSSIBLE THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE SUCCEEDED IN ITS DESIGN BUT FOR THE SEARCH IN THE CASE OF THE JAIN BROTHERS WHE RE COMPLETE EVIDENCE OR COLORABLE MECHANISM USED BY THE ASSESSE E HAS BEEN SEIZED. THE DOCUMENTS ARE SELF SPEAKING AND ARE GIV EN GRAPHIC PICTURE OF THE MODUS OPERANDI ADOPTED BY THE PARTIE S INVOLVED. IT IS QUITE DISTURBING TO NOTE THE EASE WITH WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONDUCTING ITS AFFAIRS TRANSFORMING ITS UNACCO UNTED MONEY INTO REGULAR TRANSACTIONS. IT NEEDS TO BE EMPHASIZE D HERE THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS HAVE NOT TAKEN PLACE IN A PERIOD OF ONE OR TWO MONTHS BUT ARE SPREAD OVER A PERIOD OF 43 MONTHS FO R DIFFERENT ENTITIES OF THE TODAY GROUP RUNNING INTO APPROXIMAT ELY MORE THAN 1000 INDIVIDUAL TRANSACTIONS. THE LAW ALLOWS T HE ASSESSING OFFICER TO LIFT THE CORPORATE VEIL TO UNMASK THE RE AL FROM THE APPARENT AND ALSO TO GO BEHIND THE TRANSACTION TO U NDERSTAND THEIR TRUE IMPORT. THE LAW ALSO ALLOWS THE AUTHORIT IES TO TEST THE TRANSACTIONS ON A TOUCHES TONE OF HUMAN PROBABILITY TO ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION WHICH THE RATIONALE MIND WOULD ARRIVE AT. AFTER GOING BEHIND THE TRANSACTIONS ON PAPER AND AFTER LI FTING THE CORPORATE VEIL, AS IN EARLIER PARAGRAPHS, IT HAS BE EN PROVED THAT THE APPARENT WAS NOT REAL. 2. ON THE FACTS AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.4,66,00, 000/- BY IGNORING THE CLEAR JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS IN THE C ASES OF CIT VS. NIPUN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS [2013] 350 ITR 40 7 (DEL), CIT VS. NOVA PROMOTERS AND FINLEASE PVT. LTD. [2012 ] 342 ITR 169 (DEL), AND DELHI HIGH COURT ORDER DATED 22.11.2 013 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. N R PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD. THE APPELLA NT CRAVES TO BE ALLOWED TO ADD ANY FRESH GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND/OR D ELETE OR AMEND ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICA TION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : THE ASSESSEE IS INTO THE REAL ESTATE AND HOSPITALITY BUSINESS ACTIVITIES IN NCR AND OTHER PA RTS OF THE COUNTRY SINCE 2004. DURING THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION CONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF M/S. TODAY HOMES AND I NFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. AND ITS GROUP CONCERNS ON 26.11.2009 CONC LUDED ON 25.01.2010, CERTAIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT/DOCUMENTS PERT AINING TO ASSESSEE COMPANY WERE FOUND AND SEIZED, SUFFICIENT TO INITIATE ITA NO.6246/DEL./2014 3 PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT , 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT). ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER RECORDIN G SATISFACTION INITIATED PROCEEDINGS BY WAY OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 153A AND 153C DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE RETURN WITHI N 15 DAYS FROM THE SERVICE OF NOTICE WHICH WAS DULY SERVED. ASSES SEE OPTED TO GET THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 31.05.2006 D ECLARING LOSS OF RS.4,11,906/- AS REPLY TO THE NOTICE. THE NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142 (1) WERE ISSUED ALONG WITH DETAILED QUESTIONNAI RE. AO FOUND CREDITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,66,00,000/- IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH IMMEDIATE SOURCE OF THIS AMOUNT F ROM M/S. BJ BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.. BUT, THEREAFTER, SAME HAS BEE N SHOWN TO BE SOURCED FROM DIFFERENT ENTITY, M/S. JAIN BROTHERS. ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED TO PASS ALL THESE TRANSACTIONS AS GENUINE. AO DECLINING THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE PROCEEDED TO LIFT THE CORPORATE VEIL TO UNMASK THE REAL FROM THE APPARENT BY GOING BEHIND THE TRANSACTIONS AND CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS OF RS. 4,66,00,000/- WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND MAD E ADDITION THEREOF TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BY WAY OF APPEAL BEF ORE THE LD. CIT (A) WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITION BY ALLOWING TH E APPEAL. ITA NO.6246/DEL./2014 4 FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE HAS COME UP BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL, GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS R ELIED UPON AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN T HE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. UNDISPUTEDLY, PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C WERE INITIATE D ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH AND SEI ZURE OPERATION CONDUCTED ON 26.11.2009. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OPTED TO TREAT HIS RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 31 .05.2006 AS ITS REPLY TO THE NOTICE. 6. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE AO HAS MADE D ETAILED DISCUSSION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS TO THE EXISTE NCE OF SHELL COMPANIES CONTROLLED BY GAMBHIRS AND JAIN BROTHERS. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,66,00,000/- FROM M/S. BJ BUILDWELL PVT. LTD. DURING FY 2005-06 RELEVANT TO AY 2006-07. 7. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE AO IN HIS SAT ISFACTION NOTE DATED 06.06.2011 RELIED UPON ONE AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 05.05.2016 FOR RS.5,01,51,000/- ONLY ENTERED INTO B ETWEEN UTI AND NAHIND FINLEASE PVT. LTD. FOR OFFICE SPACE NO.A-160 1 AND B-1601 AT 16 TH FLOOR OF STATESMAN HOUSE, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DEL HI IN ITA NO.6246/DEL./2014 5 ORDER TO INITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C. FOR RE ADY PERUSAL, SATISFACTION NOTE, AVAILABLE AT PAGE 55 OF THE PAPE R BOOK, IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER :- M/S. NAHID FINLEASE PVT LTD (PAN- AABCN5146L) A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CARRIED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES AS WELL AS THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF TOD AY GROUP OF CASES ON 26. 11. 2009 AND WAS FINALLY CONCLUDED ON 25.01. 2010. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION A T THE VARIOUS PREMISES OF TODAY GROUP OF CASES FOLLOWING DOCUMENT S BELONGING TO M/S NAHID FINLEASE PVT. LTD. WERE FOUND AND SEIZ ED: PREMISES : 16 TH FLOOR, STATESMAN HOUSE, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, N. DELHI (PARTY-H-3) PARTY H-3, ANNEXURE A-2 : PAGE NO. DESCRIPTION 35 50 AGREEMENT FOR SALE DATED 05-05-06 FOR RS.5,01,51,000/- BETWEEN UTI AND NAHID FINLEASE PVT . LTD. FOR OFFICE SPACE NOS.A-1601 AND B-1601 AT 16 TH FLOOR OF STATESMAN HOUSE BARAKHAMBA ROAD NEW DELHI. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, IT IS ESTABLISHED BEYOND DOUBT TH AT MANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SE IZURE ACTION ON TODAY GROUP OF CASES BELONG TO M/S NAHID FINLEAS E PVT. LTD. I.E. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND HENCE PREREQUISITE CO NDITION TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS 'U/S 153C OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961 ARE ISSUED FOR AY 2004-05 TO 2009-10 IN THE CASE OF M/S . NAHID FINLEASE PVT. LTD. I.E. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 8. LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE AMOUNT R ECEIVED FORM M/S. BJ BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.. ITA NO.6246/DEL./2014 6 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPO RTING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) CONTENDED INTER ALIA THAT THE SATISFACTION NOTE, AVAILABLE AT PAGE 55 OF THE PAPER BOOK, APPARENTLY SHOWS THAT NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT BEL ONGING TO ASSESSEE WAS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION EXCE PT THE AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 05.05.2006 FOR A CONSIDERAT ION OF RS.5,01,51,000/- BETWEEN UTI LIMITED AND THE ASSESS EE COMPANY FOR OFFICE SPACE NO.A-1601 AND B-1601 AT 16 TH FLOOR OF STATESMAN HOUSE, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI; THAT INCRIMINATI NG MATERIAL REFERRED TO IN THE SATISFACTION NOTE DOES NOT PERTA IN TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION AND RELIED UPON THE DEC ISION RENDERED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY (2017) 397 ITR 344 (SC). 10. WHEN WE EXAMINE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PARTICULAR LY PARA 1.5 (J) AT PAGE 54, THE AO HAS BASED THE ENTIRE ADDITIO N ON THE GROUND THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.4,66,00,000/- HAS BEEN FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE IMMEDIATE SOURCE OF THIS AMOUNT HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE FROM M/S. BJ BUILDWELL PVT. LTD. THEREAFTER, THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE SOURCED FROM DIFFERENT ENTITIES OF JAIN BROTHERS AND AS SUCH FAI LED TO PASS THE TEST OF GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS U/S 68 OF THE AC T. ITA NO.6246/DEL./2014 7 11. FIRST OF ALL, THE ADDITION HAS NOT BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTION NOTE (SUPRA) WHEREIN INCRIMINATING MAT ERIAL IS AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 05.05.2006 FOR RS.5,01,51 ,000/- BETWEEN UTI LIMITED AND NAHIND FINLEASE AND THERE I S NO REFERENCE TO ANY ALLEGED TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN ASSES SEE AND BJ BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.. LD. CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDIT ION ON THE GROUND THAT THE DOCUMENTS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH PRO CEEDINGS U/S 153C WERE INITIATED HAVE ALREADY BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE AO VIDE SUBMISSION DATED 14.11.2011, AVAILAB LE AT PAGES 73 TO 93 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 12. ASSESSEE BROUGHT ON RECORD, VIDE LETTER DATED 1 4.11.2011, DOCUMENTS, VIZ., (I) COMPLETE ADDRESS & PAN OF BJ B UILDWELL PVT. LTD.; (II) CONFIRMATION SIGNED BY BJ BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.; AND (III) COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF BJ BUILDWELL PVT. LTD . REFLECTING THE SOURCE OF FUNDS; AND ALSO VIDE LETTER DATED 19.12.2 011, THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT ON RECORD THE FOLLOWING THE DOCUMENTS :- (I) MEMORANDUM & ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF BJ BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.; (II) COPY OF MASTER DATA FROM THE ROC SITE OF BJ BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.; (III) COPY OF ITR AND AUDITED FINANCIAL OF BJ BUILD WELL PVT. LTD. FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDING 31.03.2006. ITA NO.6246/DEL./2014 8 13. WHEN ALL THE DOCUMENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN BROUGH T ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S IN THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO U /S 153C IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF PROCEEDINGS. SO, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION ON LEGAL GROUND. 14. EVEN, ON MERITS, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD COMPLETE IDENTITY WITH PAN, CONFIRMATION, BANK STAT EMENTS, MEMORANDUM OF ARTICLE AND AUDITED FINANCIALS OF BJ BUILDWELL PVT. LTD. TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSAC TIONS, THE AO CANNOT MAKE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES THAT FUNDS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM BJ BUILDWELL PVT. LTD. WERE IN FACT HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM JAIN BROTHERS. 15. IN ANY CASE, THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE TRANSACTIONS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE SAID AMOUNT IS REQUI RED TO BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF BJ BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.. E VEN OTHERWISE, FOR ARGUMENTS SAKE, EVEN IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT ADDI TION IS TO BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTION NOTE, WHICH IS NO T RECORDED ON THE BASIS OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL NOR IT PERTAINS TO THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT, QUA AMOUNT RECEIVED BY VIRTUE OF THE AG REEMENT TO SELL DATED 05.05.2006, THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF WHICH CAN ONLY BE MADE IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND NOT IN THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT. ITA NO.6246/DEL./2014 9 16. HONBLE APEX COURT IN CIT VS. SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY (SUPRA) WHILE DECIDING THE IDENTICAL ISSUE PERTAINING TO SECTION 153C HELD AS UNDER :- SEARCH AND SEIZURE ASSESSMENT OF THIRD PERSON SATISFACTION NOTE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL SEIZED M UST PERTAIN TO ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTION MATERIAL ON WHICH SATISFACTION BASED PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2004-05 OR THEREAFTER NOTICE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 TO 2003-04 NOT SUSTAINABLE INCOME-TAX ACT , 1961, S. 153C. 15. ON THE BASIS OF SIMILAR SATISFACTION NOTE DATED 06.06.2011 ADDITION WAS MADE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AYS 20 07-08 TO 2009-10 BY INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C WHIC H WAS ALSO DELETED BY THE LD. CIT (A) AND THE SAID ORDER HAS B EEN UPHELD BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS.4822 TO 4824/DEL/2014 ORDER DATED 22.01.2018 BY RETURNING FOLLOWING FINDINGS :- 15. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IN THE LIG HT OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS, IT IS CLEAR THAT IN TERMS OF S ECTION 153C OF THE ACT, THE AO SHOULD BE SATISFIED THAT AN Y MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE S OR THINGS OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITION BELONG OR BELONGS TO A PERSON OTHER THA N THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A OF THE ACT AND H E SHALL HAND OVER THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS TO THE AO HAVI NG JURISDICTION OVER THAT PERSON. THEREFORE, THE SATIS FACTION OF THE AO BEFORE INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C IS MUST THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE INCRIMINATING I N NATURE BELONG OR BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO PROCEED U/S 153C OF THE ACT. THE COPY OF THE SATISFACTION NOTE RECORDED BY THE AO U/S 153C IS FI LED AT ITA NO.6246/DEL./2014 10 PAGE 71 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN THIS SATISFACTION NOT E, THE AO HAS REFERRED TO THE SEIZED ANNEXURES/DOCUMENTS WHICH IS AGREEMENT FOR SALE DATED 05.05.2006 FOR RS.5,01,51,000/- BETWEEN UTI AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR PURCHASE OF OFFICE SPACE IN PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16TH FLOOR, STATESMAN HOUSE, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI. THE AO ON THE BASIS OF THIS SEIZED DOCUMENTS SATISFIED HIMSELF THAT THERE IS AN ESCAPE MENT OF INCOME, HOWEVER, THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION HAVE ALREADY BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REGUL AR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. TH E PROPERTY IS TAKEN IN THE SCHEDULE OF FIXED ASSETS I N THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE. COPY OF WHICH IS FIL ED AT PAGE 67 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN PARA 2 HAS MENTIONED THE SAME FACT THAT TH E PROPERTY IN QUESTION HAS BEEN PURCHASED BY THE ASSE SSEE FROM M/S UTI LTD. ON 05.05.2006 IN AY 2007-08. THE AO DID NOT MAKE ANY ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY TREATING UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE AO MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR DOCUMENTS BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND AND SEIZED DURING SEARCH. WHEN THE PROPERTY W AS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 05.05.2006 HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, THE SAME COULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OR INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IN NATURE AGAINST THE ASSESS EE. THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DID NOT QUESTION THE AFORESAID SEIZED DOCUMENT I.E AGREEMENT TO SALE FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING ANY ADDITION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE . IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE REASONS ASSIGNED BY THE AO IN TH E SATISFACTION NOTE WERE SILENT ABOUT ANY INCRIMINATI NG INFORMATION OR UNACCOUNTED OR UNDISCLOSED HIDDEN, INCOME, SEIZED BY THE REVENUE FROM THE ASSESSEE. TH E REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO IN THE SATISFACTION NOTE ARE FACTUALLY INCORRECT OR WITHOUT SUSTENANCE BECAUSE T HE PROPERTY IN QUESTION PURCHASED ON 05.05.2006 WAS ALREADY DISCLOSED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR AY 2007-08. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF AO BEING SATISFIED WITH CONDITIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT SO AS TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C OF THE A CT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE SATISFACTION HAS ALSO NOT RECORDED IN CASE OF PERSON SEARCHED AS PER LAW BECA USE ITA NO.6246/DEL./2014 11 IT IS RECORDED IN CASE OF ASSESSEE ONLY. IT IS, THE REFORE, BAD IN LAW. LD.CIT(A), THEREFORE, HAS RIGHTLY APPRECIATED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND CORRECTLY HE LD THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE WITHOUT REFERENCE T O ANY MATERIAL, FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THEREFORE, IT IS CLEARLY BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C OF THE ACT BECAUSE THE ANNUL LETTING VALUE WAS DETERMINED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR WIT HOUT REFERENCE TO ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURIN G THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE AO MERELY ON PRESUMPTION ASSUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS LET OUT ENTIRE OFFICE SPACE OF M/S TODAY HOTELS PVT. LTD. THE ISSUE IS, THEREFO RE, COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY (SUPRA) BECAUSE THERE I S NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE O F SEARCH SO AS TO MAKE THE ABOVE ADDITION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 16. IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE, FINDI NG NO ILLEGALITY OR PERVERSITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASS ED BY LD. CIT (A), PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 22 ND DAY OF JUNE, 2018. SD/- SD/- (N.K. SAINI) (KULDIP SINGH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 22 ND DAY OF JUNE, 2018 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-XII, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.