THE ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE, Vinkonda V. Sri Musunuru Ananda Kishore, Vijayawada

ITA 68/VIZ/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6786 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PMN
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Search and seizure; Document seized; Opportunity of cross examination; Third party statement; Block assessment
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 133A; 132; 2

Judgement Text

ITA NO.68/VIZAG/2013 M. ANANDA KISHORE, VIJAYAWADA 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . , . . ' , % BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A.NO.68/VIZAG/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA M. ANANDA KISHORE, VIJAYAWADA [P AN NO. ABYPM1623N ] ( ' / APPELLANT) ( ()' / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI R. GOVINDA RAJAN, DR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI C. SUBRAHMANYAM, AR / DATE OF HEARING : 26.07.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.08.2017 / O R D E R PER D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) {CIT(A)}, VIJAYAWADA DATED 14.12.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL FILED THE RETURN O F INCOME ON 30.7.2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 1,20,620/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS ITA NO.68/VIZAG/2013 M. ANANDA KISHORE, VIJAYAWADA 2 COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS 'THE ACT') BY AN ORDER DATED 31.12.2008 ON TOTAL INCOME OF ` 1,06,75,300/-. A SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CA RRIED OUT IN THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI K. KOTESWARA RA O AND GOWTHAM RESIDENTIAL JUNIOR COLLEGES GROUP ON 24.7.2006. DU RING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, A LOOSE SHEET MARKED AS A/KKR/GCS/10 WAS FO UND AND SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI K. KOTESWARA RAO. AS PER THE LOOSE SHEET FOUND, THERE WAS A NOTING INDICATING MR. KOTE SWARA RAO AND B. VENKATADRI, SON-IN-LAW OF SHRI KOTESWARA RAO HAVE P URCHASED 2.41 ACRES OF LAND FOR A CONSIDERATION OF ` 1,45,61,300/- AND REGISTERED FOR A SUM OF ` 38,86,000/- AS PER THE DETAILS GIVEN BELOW: S.NO. PROPERTY & THE NAME OF THE BUYER DT. OF THE TRANSACTION AMOUNT OF REGISTERED CONSIDERATION CONSIDERATION AS PER SEIZED MATERIAL 1. AC.0.45 K.K.R. 22.10.2005 720000 2128500 2. AC.1.96 B. VENKATADRI 22.10.2005 3166000 12432800 3. TOTAL 3888000 14561300 3. THE A.O. ASSESSED THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF ` 1,06,75,300/- REPRESENTING THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF ( ` 1,45,61,300 (-) ` 38,86,000/-) AS ON MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR SALE OF TH E PROPERTY UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. AGGRIEVED BY THE O RDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE WENT ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. HOLDIN G THAT THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.68/VIZAG/2013 M. ANANDA KISHORE, VIJAYAWADA 3 HAS NOT RECEIVED THE ON MONEY. FOR READY REFERENCE , WE EXTRACT RELEVANT PARAGRAPH OF CIT(A)S ORDER IN PAGE NO.7 P ARA-7 AS UNDER: 7. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHA LF OF THE APPELLANT AND GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. BE FORE PROCEEDING FURTHER, IT MAY BE NOTED HERE THAT VIRTUALLY PURCHA SER WAS SHRI K. KOTESWARA RAO, WHO HAS IN COMPANY OF HIS SON IN LAW HAS PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FROM THE APPELLANT. BASED ON A PAPER S EIZED IN COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS IN THE PREMISES OF K. KOTESWARA RAO, ON MONEY PAYMENT BY K. KOTESWARA RAO TO THE AP PELLANT AT RS. 1,06,73,014 WAS ALLEGED AND MADE ADDITION UNDER SEC TION 69B, WHICH WAS DELETED BY THE UNDERSIGNED VIDE APPELLATE ORDER IN APPEAL NO. 7011R./CIT(A)NJAI2009-10, DATED 01.11.2012. SIN CE THE AO HAS MADE AN ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, WH O IS THE ALLEGED RECIPIENT OF THE IMPUGNED ON MONEY IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1530, FROM THE PURCHASER K. KOTESWARA RAO, AS MENTIONED HEREIN ABOVE, BLOCK ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED, BY BRINGING TO TAX THE ALLEGED CAPITAL GAINS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE R ECEIPT OF THE ON MONEY. SINCE, THE UNDERSIGNED HAS ADJUDICATED THE SAME ISSUE IN THE CASE OF THE ALLEGED PAYMENT OF ON MONEY BY NOT SUSTAINING SUCH ADDITION, AS STATED ABOVE; THE SAME ANALOGY APPLIES HERE. THAT IS, SINCE THE PAYMENT IN THE HANDS OF SHRI K. KOTESWARA RAO AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON THAT COUNT WAS DELETED B Y THE UNDERSIGNED, THE SAME HOLDS GOOD IN THE HANDS OF TH E RECIPIENT ALSO. THUS, IT HAS TO BE HELD THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT IN RECEIPT OF THE SO CALLED ON MONEY. IF THAT IS THE CASE THERE IS NO QU ESTION OF SUPPRESSION OF CAPITAL GAINS AND THE ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT IS INFRUCTUOUS AND AS SUCH THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE SAME. 4. AGGRIEVED BY ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE REVENU E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE, THE L D. D.R. ARGUED THAT THERE WAS A DOCUMENT FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF K. KOTESWARA RAO INDICATING THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE ON MONEY FOR SALE OF THE LANDS. I T WAS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE LOOSE SHEET THAT THE COST OF LAND WAS ` 1,24,32,800/- FOR 1.96 ACRES OF LAND RELATING TO B. VENKATADRI AND ITA NO.68/VIZAG/2013 M. ANANDA KISHORE, VIJAYAWADA 4 ` 21,28,500/- IN RESPECT OF 0.45 ACRES PURCHASED BY SHRI K. KOTESWARA RAO. SINCE THE DOCUMENT FOUND AT THE TIM E OF SEARCH WAS A VALID PIECE OF EVIDENCE, THE A.O. HAS RIGHTLY BROUGHT TO TAX THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS AND THEREFORE THE LD. D.R. ARGUED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) REQUIRED TO BE SET ASIDE AND THE ORDER OF THE A.O. TO BE RESTORED. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. A.R. APPEARING FOR TH E ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THERE WAS NO SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATI ON CONDUCTED IN THE ASSESSEES PREMISES. THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE INDICATING THE ON MONEY WA S RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER RECEIVED A NY ON MONEY FOR SALE OF THE LANDED PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD FOR A CONSIDERATION OF ` 7,20,000/- TO MR. KOTESWARA RAO AND FOR A SUM OF ` 31,66,000/- TO MR. B. VENKATADRI AND GOT REGISTERE D THE DOCUMENT FOR THE SAME CONSIDERATION. THE REGISTERE D DOCUMENT IS VALID PIECE OF EVIDENCE WHICH CANNOT BE IGNORED. NO OTHER EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE TO HO LD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE ON MONEY. EVEN THE PURCH ASER MR. K. KOTESWARA RAO HAS DENIED HAVING MADE THE PAYMENT OF ANY ON MONEY. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. A.R. ARGUED TH AT THERE IS ITA NO.68/VIZAG/2013 M. ANANDA KISHORE, VIJAYAWADA 5 NO CASE FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF THE L D. CIT(A). THE LD. A.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL ON A SIMILAR FACTS IN THE CASE OF SHRI P. KOTESWARA RAO, IN ITA NO.251/VIZAG/ 2012. THE HONBLE COORDINATE BENCH ON THE SIMILAR FACTS DECID ED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF SHRI VENKATA RAMA SAI DEVELOPERS VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.453/VIZAG/2012 DA TED 6.11.2015 AS UNDER: 24. CONSIDERING THE TOTAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO APPLYING THE RATIOS OF THE JUDGEMENTS CITED AB OVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE A.O. IS NOT CORRECT IN COMING TO T HE CONCLUSION THAT THE ON MONEY IS EXCHANGED BETWEEN THE PARTIES BASED ON A LOOSE SHEET FOUND IN THE PREMISES OF A THIRD PERSON AND ALSO AD MISSION BY A THIRD PERSON. TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION, THE A.O. SHOULD HA VE CONDUCTED AN INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY ABOUT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND ASCERTAIN WHETHER ANY UNDER VALUATION IS DONE, IF SO WHAT IS THE CORRECT VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. FURTHER, THE A.O. DID NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION TO SAY THAT THER E IS ON MONEY EXCHANGED BETWEEN THE PARTIES. IN THE ABSENCE OF PR OPER ENQUIRY AND SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES, WE FIND NO REASON TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. THEREFORE, WE REVERSE THE CIT(A) ORDER AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 9. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF ITAT HY DERABAD A BENCH, IN THE CASE OF K.V. LAKSHMI SAVITRI DEVI VS. ACIT (2012) 148 TTJ 157. THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, UNDER S IMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES HELD AS UNDER: ADMITTEDLY THERE WAS NO SEARCH ACTION IN THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE. IT IS A LOOSE SLIP CONTAINING CERTAIN ENTRIES RECOR DING THE PAYMENT WHICH WAS FOUND AT THE PREMISES OF CRK. IT DOES NOT CONTAIN EITHER DATE OF PAYMENT OR NAME OF THE PERSON WHO HAS MADE THE PAYMENT. ACCORDING TO THE DEPARTMENT, CRK DENOTES C . RADHA KRISHNA KUMAR AND KRK DENOTES K. RAJANI KUMARI. HOW EVER, NO NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND IN THE LOUSE SHEET. THE P ROPERTY WAS PURCHASED FROM P W/C CRK FOR A DISCLOSED CONSIDERAT ION OF PS. 65 LAKHS BY THE ASSESSEE. THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN REGIST ERED AND THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 65 LAK HS ON 21ST AUG., ITA NO.68/VIZAG/2013 M. ANANDA KISHORE, VIJAYAWADA 6 2006 WHICH CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE S TATE REGISTRATION AUTHORITIES. FURTHER NOTHING WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS ANY INVOKING OF S. 50C WHILE COMPLETING THE ASS ESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE SELLER. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OTHER THAN THE SEIZED MATERIAL MARKED AS 'A/CRK104' WHERE RELEVANT ENTRIES ARE MAD E AT RS. 1,65,00,000. THE SEIZED MATERIAL WAS NOT FOUND AT T HE PREMISES O THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS NO CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY PAID RS. 1.65 RORES TOWARDS PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE AND HER BROTHER CATEGORICALLY DENIED THE PAYMENT OF ANY MONEY OVER AND ABOVE RS. 65 LAKHS. THE AO PLACED HI RELIANCE ON THE STATEMENT O F 5, WHO IS A THIRD PARTY. THE EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT ENOUGH TO FASTEN ADDITIONAL TAX LIABILITY ON TH E ASSESSEE. AS SEEN FROM THE ABOVE DOCUMENT THIS IS JUST A HANDWRITTEN LOOSE DOCUMENT AND THE HANDWRITING IS ALSO NOT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE LOOSE DOCUMENT WAS FOUND AT THE PREMISES OF A THIRD PARTY . THE BURDEN IS ON THE DEPARTMENT TO PROVE CONCLUSIVELY T HAT THE LOOSE DOCUMENT BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO PRESU MPTION IN LAW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY PAID RS. 165 LAKHS T OWARDS PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY. THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THIS CAS E IS TO BE COMPUTED BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF THE AVAILABLE MA TERIAL ON RECORD. IT SHOULD NOT BE BASED ON CONJECTURES AND SURMISES. AS OF NOW, THE MATERIAL CONSIDERED BY THE AO FOR MAKING THE ADDITI ON OF PS. 1 CRORE IS SEIZED MATERIAL MARKED A 'A/CRK104' AND THE STATEME NT OF S. THIS LOOSE SHEET FOUND AT THE PREMISES OF CRK IS NOT ENO UGH MATERIAL TO SUSTAIN THIS ADDITION. THE SEIZED MATERIAL FOUND DU RING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND THE STATEMENT RECORDED ARE SOME PIECE OF EVIDENCE TO MAKE THE ADDITION. THE AO HAS TO ESTABLISH THE LINK BETWEEN THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND OTHER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT TO THE A SSESSEE. THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND STATEMENT OF CRK CANNOT BE CONC LUSIVE EVIDENCE TO MAKE THIS ADDITION. THE ENTIRE CASE HEREIN IS DE PENDING UPON THE RULE OF EVIDENCE. THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIO N TO SAY THAT ACTUAL CONSIDERATION PASSED ON BETWEEN THE PARTIES IS ACTU ALLY RS. 165 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS HER BROTHER STATED IN THEIR RESPECTIVE STATEMENTS THAT THE CONSIDERATION PASSED BETWEEN TH E PARTIES IS ONLY RS. 65 LAKHS. IN SPITE OF THIS THE AO PROCEEDED TO CONCLUDE THAT THE SEIZED MATERIAL IS CONCLUSIVELY REFLECTING THE PAYMENT OF CONSIDERATION AT RS. 165 LAKHS. THE DEPARTMENT HERE IN I REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH THE NEXUS OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL TO THE A SSESSEE. AS STATED EARLIER THERE IS NO DATE AND NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ALLEGATION OF THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT THE SEIZED MATERIAL DENOTES THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE PURCHASER FOR PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY. HOWEVER, NO SUCH NARRATION OR NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL. THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT ABLE TO UNEARTH ANY DOCUMENT OR MATERIAL OR ANY CORROBORATI VE MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HEREIN ACTUALLY PAID PS. 165 LAKHS FOR PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY. THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD THE DATE ON WHICH THE PAYMENT WAS MADE AND THE SOURCE FROM W HICH II IS PAID ITA NO.68/VIZAG/2013 M. ANANDA KISHORE, VIJAYAWADA 7 AND/OR ANY DETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNT FROM WHERE THE C ASH WAS WITHDRAWN. WITHOUT ANY OF THESE DETAILS, THE DEPART MENT HAS TAKEN A VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID PS. 165 LAK HS FOR PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY. THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT DRA W INFERENCE ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICION, CONJECTURES AND SURMISES . SUSPICION, HOWEVER STRONG CANNOT TAKE PLACE OF MATERIAL IN SUP PORT OF THE FINDING FROM THE AO. THE AO SHOULD ACT IN A JUDICIAL MANNER , PROCEED WITH JUDICIAL SPIRIT AND COME TO A JUDICIAL CONCLUSION. THE AO IS REQUIRED TO ACT FAIRLY AS A REASONABLE PERSON AND NOT ARBITRARI LY AND CAPRICIOUSLY. THE ASSESSMENT MADE SHOULD HAVE ENOUGH MATERIAL AND IT SHOULD STAND ON ITS OWN LEGS. THE BASIS FOR ADDITION CANNO T BE ONLY THE LOOSE SHEET OR A THIRD PARTY STATEMENT. IN THE ABSE NCE OF CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL, AND/OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDE NCE, THE ADDITION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THUS, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON A DUMB DOCUMENT AND NOTING ON LOOSE SHEET. IT SHOULD BE SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND THE EVIDENCE ON RECOR D IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE REVENUE'S ACTION. IN A BL OCK ASSESSMENT UNDISCLOSED INCOME HAS TO BE DETERMINED OR THE . BASIS OF THE MATERIAL AND EVIDENCE DETECTED IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH ACTION. THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE CASE ARE NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THE ADDITION MADE BY THE DEPARTME NT. THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION IN THE P URCHASE OF PROPERTY IS ON THE REVENUE. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE REVENUE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS DUTY, INSTEAD MADE UP A CASE ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES WHICH CANNOT BE ALLOWED. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS NO REA SON TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS. 100 LAKHS TOWARDS ON-MO NEY PAYMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS. 100 LAKHS IS DELETED. CIT VS. P.V. KALYANASUNDARAM (2006) 203 CTR (MAD) 4 49: (2006) 282 ITR 259 (MAD) RELIED ON 10. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBL E A.P. HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF K. LAKSHMI SAVITRI DEVI IN ITA NO.56 3 OF 2011. THE HONBLE A.P. HIGH COURT, WHILE UPHELD THE ORDER OF ITAT A BENCH, IN THE CASE OF K. LAKSHMI SAVITRI DEVI, OBSERVED AS UNDER. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS RIGHTLY HE LD THAT THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT DT. 21.8.2006 UNDER WHICH THE RESPONDENT P URCHASED THE ABOVE PROPERTY SHOWED THAT ONLY RS.65.00 LAKHS WAS PAID TO THE VENDOR BY THE RESPONDENT; THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SH OW THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD PAID RS.1.00 CRORE IN CASH ALSO TO T HE VENDOR; THAT NO PRESUMPTION OF SUCH PAYMENT OF RS.1.00 CRORE IN CAS H CAN BE DRAWN ON THE BASIS OF AN ENTRY FOUND IN A DIARY/LOOSE SHEET IN THE PREMISES OF C. RADHA KRISHNA KUMAR WHICH IS NOT IN THE RESPONDENT S HANDWRITING AND WHICH DID NOT CONTAIN THE NAME OF THE RESPONDENT OR ANY DATE OF PAYMENT OR THE NAME OF THE PERSON WHO MADE THE PAYM ENT. IT RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE REVENUE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE NEXUS OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL TO THE RESPONDENT AND HAD DRAWN INFERENCES BASED ON ITA NO.68/VIZAG/2013 M. ANANDA KISHORE, VIJAYAWADA 8 SUSPICION, CONJECTURES AND SURMISES WHICH CANNOT TA KE THE PLACE OF PROOF. WE ALSO AGREE WITH THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER DID NOT CONDUCT ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY RELATING TO THE VAL UE OF THE PROPERTY PURCHASED AND THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE ACTUAL CONS IDERATION IN THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY IS ON THE REVENUE AND IT H AD FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE SAID BURDEN. 11. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. P.V. KALYANA SUNDARAM (2007) 294 ITR 49, UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTA NCES HELD IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE HELD AS UNDER: WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES AND H AVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD. IT IS TRUE THAT THE DIVISION BENCH OF T HE HIGH COURT HAS BORROWED EXTENSIVELY FROM THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNA L AND THE COMMISSIONER AND PASSED THEM OFF AS IF THEY WERE TH EMSELVES THE AUTHOR(S). WE FEEL THAT QUOTING FROM AN ORDER OF S OME AUTHORITY PARTICULARLY A SPECIALIZED ONE CANNOT PER SE BE FAU LTED AS THIS PROCEDURE CAN OFTEN HELP IN MAKING FOR BREVITY AND PRECISION, BUT WE AGREE WITH MR. VAHANVATI TO THE EXTENT THAT ANY BORROWED WORD S USED IN A JUDGEMENT MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED AS SUCH IN ANY APPRO PRIATE MANNER AS A COURTESY TO THE TRUE AUTHOR(S). BE THAT AS IT MA Y, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE THREE QUESTIONS REPRODUCED ABOVE C AN, IN NO WAY, BE CALLED SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW. THE FACT AS T O THE ACTUAL SALE PRICE OF THE PROPERTY, THE IMPLICATION OF THE CONTRADICTO RY STATEMENTS MADE BY RAJARATHINAM OR WHETHER RELIANCE COULD BE PLACED ON THE LOOSE SHEETS RECOVERED IN THE COURSE OF THE RAID ARE ALL QUESTIO N OF FACT. WE THEREFORE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL. 12. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CAS E AND ALSO APPLYING THE RATIOS OF THE JUDGEMENTS CITED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE A.O. IS NOT CORRECT IN COMING TO THE CONCL USION THAT ON MONEY EXCHANGED BETWEEN THE PARTIES, BASED ON A LOOSE SHE ET FOUND IN THE PREMISES OF A THIRD PARTY AND ALSO STATEMENT GIVEN BY A THIRD PERSON. TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION, THE A.O. SHOULD HAVE TAKEN AN INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY ABOUT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND ASCERTAIN WHETH ER ANY UNDER VALUATION IS DONE, IF SO WHAT IS THE CORRECT VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. FURTHER, THE A.O. FAILED TO BRING ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HI S FINDINGS THAT THERE IS ON-MONEY PAYMENT OVER AND ABOVE WHAT IS STATED IN T HE SALE DEED. IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER ENQUIRY AND SUFFICIENT EVIDEN CES, WE FIND NO REASONS TO CONFIRM THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. THE CIT(A) WITHOUT APPRECIATING FACTS, SIMPLY UPHELD ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE A.O. TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS MADE TOWARDS ALLEGED ON MONEY FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 & 2008-09. ITA NO.68/VIZAG/2013 M. ANANDA KISHORE, VIJAYAWADA 9 6. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON DECISION IN THE CASE OF DCIT, GUNTUR VS. M/S. BOMMIDALA REALTY LTD., GUNTUR IN IT A NO.241/VIZAG/2012 DATED 7.3.2017, WHEREIN HONBLE I TAT HELD AS UNDER: 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE - M/S. BOMMIDALA REALTY LTD. HAD SOLD THE PROPERTY TO SRI V. SAMPATH THROUGH A REGISTERED SALE DEED ON 19/02/200 7 FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF 2.75 CRORES. SUBSEQUENTLY, A SURVE Y WAS CONDUCTED IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF SRI V. SAMPATH UNDER SECTI ON 132 ON 06/06/2007, WHERE A DIARY OF SRI V. SAMPATH WAS FOU ND, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN NOTED AS UNDER:- C-2.85 D-2.75 DATED 15/12/ - RS. 1 (C)(ADV.) 20/12 - RS. 10 LAKHS (D) AND 20/12 - RS.2,84,00,000 (C) 16/2 - RS. 2,65,00,000(DD) RS. 5,60,00,000 16/2 - SUB-REGISTRAR - RS. 2 LAKHS (DD NO.461966) (CASH RS. 2 LAKHS FOR STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION) REGISTRAR - RS. 3 LAKHS SOMU - RS. 5,50,000 TOTAL RS. 3,36,70,000 FROM THE ABOVE NOTINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT 'C-2.85' AND 'D-2.75' REFERS TO THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE ASSESSEE M/S. BOMMIDALA REALTY LTD. IN CASH AND DEMAND DRAFT RESPECTIVELY. THUS, OPINED THAT THE AC TUAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS 5.60 CRO RES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER BY CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY SRI V. SAMPATH, PARTICULAR LY TO QUESTION NO.8 WHEREIN SRI V. SAMPATH HAS OFFERED AN ADDITIONAL AM OUNT AS PER THE NOTINGS IN THE DIARY AS UNACCOUNTABLE EXPENSES, CAM E TO A CONCLUSION THAT AN ADDITIONAL INCOME OF 2.85 CRORES HAS RECEIV ED BY THE ASSESSEE M/S. BOMMIDALA REALTY LTD, IN THIS CONTEXT . THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD THAT SRI V. SAMPATH HAS GIVEN A STATEMENT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH THAT HE PAID 2.85 CRORES OVER AND ABOVE THE SALE PRICE TO THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS ALSO NO EVIDENCE TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF 2.85 CRORES FROM SRI V.SAMPAT H. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, NO MATERIAL WAS FOUND TO SHOW THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED 2.85 CRORES FROM SRI V. SAMPATH. THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT MADE ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY IN RESPEC T OF ON MONEY PAYMENT. SIMPLY BASED ON THE NOTINGS OF THE DIARY A ND THE STATEMENTS RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE CASE OF SRI V. ITA NO.68/VIZAG/2013 M. ANANDA KISHORE, VIJAYAWADA 10 SAMPATH, THOUGH HE REFERRED NOTHING RELATING TO THE ASSESSEE, CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED 2.85 CRORES ON MONEY OVER AND ABOVE THE REGISTERED CONSIDERATION OF 2.75 CRORES. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT BROUGHT ANY CORROBORA TIVE EVIDENCE AND ALSO NOT MADE ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY AND ONLY BASED ON LOOSE SHEET NOTINGS, HE CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT A SSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ON MONEY. IN OUR OPINION, THE CONCLUSION R EACHED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE AND BASIS AND NO CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, BUT IT IS ONLY A ME RE SURMISES. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION MA DE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND DESERVES TO BE DEL ETED. THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THE EVID ENTIARY VALUE OF THE LOOSE SHEET FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE CA SE P KOTESWARA RAO (SUPRA) AND HELD THAT ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE BASED ON THE LOOSE SHEETS FOUND IN THE PREMISES OF THE THIRD PARTY, UNLESS TH ERE IS A SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT ON MONEY IS MADE. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. A SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE ACT W AS CARRIED OUT IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF K. KOTESWARA RAO AND A LOOSE SHEET WAS FOUND AND SEIZED CONTAINING THE DETAILS OF THE LAND COST. THE A.O. MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF THE LOOSE SHEET FOUND IN THE PREMISES OF MR. KOTESWARA RAO CONCLUDING THAT THAT THE PURCHASER HAS MADE THE PAYMENT OF ON MONEY TO THE V ENDOR AMOUNTING TO ` 1,06,75,300/- AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. NO OTHER EVIDENCE WAS FOUND AND NO OTHER DOCUMENT WAS PLACED BEFORE US EVIDENCI NG THE RECEIPT OF ON MONEY. IT IS A SETTLED ISSUE THAT THE REVENUE HAS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE AMOUNT OVER AND ABOVE THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT PRICE. THE LOOSE SHE ET FOUND IN ITA NO.68/VIZAG/2013 M. ANANDA KISHORE, VIJAYAWADA 11 THE PREMISES OF A SEARCHED PERSON IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT THE VENDOR HAS RECEIVED THE CONSIDERATION OVER AND ABOVE THE DOCUMENT PRICE, AT BEST IT CAN LEAD TO SUSPICION A ND THE ADDITION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE ON SURMISES . THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS TO MAKE INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES TO HOLD THE ADDITIONAL A MOUNT SAID TO BE PAID TO VENDOR. THE REVENUE HAS NOT MADE OUT A CASE THAT THE DOCUMENT WAS UNDER STAMPED AND THE LAND VALUATI ON WAS UNDER STATED. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE FOR TRANSFER OF ON MONEY. IN FACT THE THE PURCHASER HAS DENIED HAVING PAID AN Y ON MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE WE ARE UNSABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE REGARDING THE ON MONEY PA YMENT. THE APPEAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI K. KOTESWARA RAO HAS CAME UP BEFORE US AND WE HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION OF ON MONEY PAYMENT AS PER THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSIONS: 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. A SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE ACT W AS CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 24.7.2006 AND ON SUBSEQUENT DATES. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE INVESTIGATION WING FOUND A LO OSE SHEET CONTAINING THE LAND COST OF 2.41 ACRES. AS PER THE LOOSE SHEET , THE PAYMENT WAS OF ` 1,24,32,800/- WAS PAID TOWARDS THE COST OF 1.96 ACR ES OF LAND PURCHASED FOR SHRI B. VENKATADRI AND A SUM OF ` 21,28,500/- WAS PAID FOR PURCHASE OF 0.45 ACRES OF LAND PURCHASED FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE LANDS WERE REGISTERED FOR A SUM OF ` 31,66,000/- AND ` 7,20,000/- RESPECTIVELY. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE HAS DENIE D THE PAYMENT AND ALSO CONTENTS OF THE LOOSE SHEET. THE ASSESSEE ALS O DENIED THAT THE NOTE WAS NOT MADE IN HIS HAND WRITING AND ALSO HE COULD NOT EXPLAIN IN WHOSE HAND WRITING THE NOTING WAS MADE. THE REVENUE HAS EXAMINED THE VENDORS MR. M. ANAND KISHORE. MR. ANAND KISHORE HA S ALSO DENIED HAVING RECEIVED THE PAYMENT OF ON MONEY FOR SALE OF LANDS. THE QUESTIONS AND ITA NO.68/VIZAG/2013 M. ANANDA KISHORE, VIJAYAWADA 12 ANSWERS AND THE CONTENTS OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM MR. ANAND KISHORE ARE AS UNDER: Q9. PLEASE EXAMINE THE SEIZED MATERIAL NUMBER ANNE XURE- KKR/GCSIR-1O, PAGE-2 AND TELL THE DETAILS AND WHAT WAS THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY YOU FROM BUYERS. PLEASE GIVE THE DETAILS? A) THE FIGURES MENTIONED IN THAT PAPER DO NOT RELAT E TO ME I RECEIVED FROM SRI KOTESWARA RAO RS.16 LAKHS PER ACRE. HE HAS NOT PAID ME ANY EXTRA MONEY. Q10. DID YOU RECEIVE ANY ADVANCE FOR THE ABOVE TRAN SACTION FROM SRI KOTESWARA RAO? A) I DID NOT RECEIVE ANY ADVANCE FROM SRI KOTEWARA RAO. THIS IS TRUE. Q11. PLEASE REMEMBER ONCE AGAIN AND CONFIRM WHETHER YOU RECEIVED ANY ADVANCE? A) IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE TRANSACTION I DID NOT RECE IVE ANY ADVANCE FROM SRI KOTESWARA RAO. EXCEPT THE TWO CHEQUES REFERRED TO ABOVE I DID NOT RECEIVE ANY ADVANCE. Q12. PLEASE EXAMINE ONCE AGAIN ANNEXURE-A/KKR/GCS/R 10, PAGE-2 AND GIVE THE DETAILS? A) I DO NOT KNOW. Q13. IN THE ABOVE PAGE K.K.R, AC.0.45 RS.47.30 LAK HS WAS MENTIONED. PLEASE GO THROUGH THE SAME AND TELL WHAT WAS THE A MOUNT YOU PAID TO SRI KOTESWARA RAO? A) I DO NOT HAVE ANY CONNECTION TO THE ABOVE PAPER. I SOLD LAND TO SRI KOTESWARA RAO @RS.16 LAKHS PER ACRE. Q14. IN ANNEXURE-KKR/GCS/R10, PAGE-1, IT WAS MARKED AC.0-45. PLEASE TELL WHETHER THAT LAND IS YOURS OR NOT AND WHETHER YOU SOLD THE SAME TO SRI KOTESWARA RAO OR NOT? A) THAT LAND AC 0-45 IS MINE. I SOLD IT TO SRI KOTESWA RA RAO. THIS IS TRUE BUT I DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THE MARK IN THE MAP. Q.15. WHEN DID YOU PURCHASE THE LAND SITUATED IN GOODAVALLI WHICH WAS SOLD TO KOTESWARA RAO AND HIS SON-IN-LAW? A) I PURCHASED THE SAME IN THE YEAR 2001 FROM SRI P OSANI PATTABHI RAMA RAO OF VIJAYAWADA @ RS.4,25,000/- PER ACRE. Q16. IN ANNEXURE-KKR/GCS/R-10, PAGE-2, IT WAS MENTI ONED AS UNDER: 'B. VENKAT AC 0.60 @RS.100 LAKHS - 60,00,000 AC 1.36 @RS. 47.30 LAKHS - 64,32,800 1,24,32,800 ITA NO.68/VIZAG/2013 M. ANANDA KISHORE, VIJAYAWADA 13 PLEASE EXAMINE THE ABOVE DETAILS AND TELL WHETHER YOU SOLD OR NOT TO B.VENKAT THE ABOVE LAND FOR THE VALUE MENTIONED ABOVE? A) THE ABOW DETAILS DO NOT BELONG TO ME. IT IS TRU E THAT I SOLD THE LAND TO B.VENKAT BUT @RS.16 LAKHS PER ACRE. THIS IS TRUE. Q17. DO YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING? A) NO 15. BOTH ASSESSEE AND THE VENDOR HAVE DENIED THAT O N MONEY WAS EXCHANGED FOR TRANSFER OF LAND OF 2.41 ACRES. NO O THER EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT BY THE A.O. TO ESTABLISH THAT ON MONEY WAS EXCHANGED BETWEEN THE PARTIES. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION A S PER PAGE 6 PARA 5C, WHICH IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: 5C. REGARDING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS.106,73, 014/- ADDED UNDER SECTION 69B BY THE AO, THE BRIEF FACTS ARE TH AT THE APPELLANT AND HIS SON IN LAW HAVE PURCHASED LANDED PROPERTY F ROM ONE SHRI MUSUNURI ANANDA KISHORE FOR AN AGREED PRICE AND REG ISTRATION ALSO TOOK PLACE ON 22.10.2005. SUBSEQUENT TO THIS DATE, SEARCH ACTION UNDER SECTION 132(1) TOOK PLACE ON 24.07.2006 IN TH E RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE APPELLANT, WHEREIN BUNDLE OF LOOSE SHEETS WERE SEIZED UNDER IDENTIFICATION MARK A/KKR/GCS/10, IN W HICH ONE OF THE PAPERS WAS REGARDING WORKINGS OF THE ALLEGED PURCHA SE AND DEVELOPMENT OF IMPUGNED PROPERTY. THIS PAPER CONTAI NED NO NAMES, BUT WORKINGS OF THE PRICE OF THE PROPERTY, STAMP DU TY, REGISTRATION CHARGES ETC MATCHED PERFECTLY, BUT THERE WAS A DIFF ERENCE IN THE PURCHASE PRICE OF RS. 1,06,73,014, WHICH WAS ADDED UNDER SECTION 69B, WHICH WAS DISPUTED IN TOTO. IN THIS BACKGROUND , I HAVE AGAIN AND AGAIN PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER; COPY OF IMP UGNED DOCUMENT, WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS MADE BY AR. I FIND TH AT AO HAS MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENT SEIZED FROM THE P REMISES OF THE APPELLANT. SINCE THE IMPUGNED DOCUMENT WAS SEIZED F ROM THE PREMISES OF THE APPELLANT, THE AG SOLELY DEPENDED O N IT FOR THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. IT MAY BE NOTED HERE THAT THE AD I HAS CONDUCTED SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A IN THE PREMISES OF THE SE LLER OF THE PROPERTY SHRI MUSUNURI ANANDA KISHORE PRESUMABLY TO FIND EVIDENCE TO STRENGTHEN THE CASE THAT THE SELLER OF THE PROPE RTY MUST HAVE RECEIVED ON MONEY FROM THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERT Y BY K. KOTESWARA RAO, I.E., THE APPELLANT. THE RESULTS OF SURVEY HAS NOT YIELDED DESIRED RESULTS OF THE ADI, AS NO MATERIAL WAS FOUND TO CLINCH THE EVIDENCE THAT THE SELLER RECEIVED ON MON EY OR THAT IN COURSE OF RECORDING THE SWORN STATEMENT, THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTY DENIED RECEIVING ON MONEY. IT MAY HOWEVER BE NOTED HERE THAT NO INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY WAS MADE BY THE AO NOR ANY EVID ENCE TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD. THE D OCUMENT SEIZED ITA NO.68/VIZAG/2013 M. ANANDA KISHORE, VIJAYAWADA 14 HAD NO RELEVANCE IN ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORTING EVIDE NCE REGARDING PAYMENTS MADE. NO AGREEMENT, RECEIPT ETC. WAS RECOV ERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH/SURVEY. THE REVENUE HAS ALSO N OT MADE ANY ENQUIRIES FROM THE PROPERTY DEALERS, VENDORS, ETC. TO ESTABLISH THAT THE APPELLANT PAID ANY AMOUNT, OVER AND ABOVE THE A PPARENT CONSIDERATION IN PURCHASE OF THE SAID PROPERTY. I H AVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTS OF THE PAPER SEIZED. ADMITTEDL Y THIS PAPER DATED NIL IS A VAGUE ONE TALLYING IN ALL RESPECTS E XCEPT THE PURCHASE PRICE. ANY DOCUMENT SEIZED HAS TO BE CORROBORATED B Y BRINGING EVIDENCE TO CLINCH THE ISSUE OF PAYMENTS OF ON MONE Y. IT MAY HOWEVER BE NOTED HERE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE IN DIAN EVIDENCE ACT ARE NOT STRICTLY APPLICABLE TO THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE INCOME- TAX ACT, BUT THE BROAD PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND EVIDEN CE DO APPLY TO SUCH PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER AN ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS IS REL EVANT FOR PURPOSES OF CONSIDERING THE NATURE AND IMPACT OF A TRANSACTION, BUT NOTING ON SLIPS OF PAPER OR LOOSE SHEETS OF PAPER C ANNOT FALL IN THIS CATEGORY. NOTING ON LOOSE SHEET OF PAPERS ARE REQUI RED TO BE SUPPORTED/ CORROBORATED BY OTHER EVIDENCE AND WHICH MAY INCLUDE THE STATEMENT OF A PERSON, WHO ADMITTEDLY IS A PART Y TO THE NOTING. IN THIS CASE, NO SUCH EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT ON RECOR D BY AO. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE HERE THAT IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED T HAT THE BURDEN TO ESTABLISH THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF A SUM IN EXCEEDING TO THE DECLARED CONSIDERATION, RESTS ON T HE REVENUE. THE MERE ROUGH WORKING SHEETS SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ALLEGED CONSIDERATION WAS PAID BY APPELLANT. IN THIS CONNEC TION THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF K.P. V ERGHESE (1981) 131 ITR 597 IS RELIED. THUS, AFTER CONSIDERING TOTA LITY OF THE CASE AND DOCUMENTS, I FIND THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SU CH EVIDENCE, AND THE INVESTMENT HAVING BEEN PROVED, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE UNDER SECTION 69B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 06,73,014/-ON ACCOUNT O F UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT BY WAY OF PAYMENT OF ON-MONEY IN EXCESS OF MONEY MENTIONED IN SALE DEED OF THIS PROPERTY. HENCE, I D IRECT HIM TO DELETE THIS ADDITION OF RS.1 06,73,014/-. 16. THE LD. A.R. RELIED ON THE DECISIONS OF THIS TR IBUNAL CITED (SUPRA). RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THIS COORDI NATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF CITED (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT MADE O UT A CASE FOR ON MONEY PAYMENT AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. 8. SINCE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE TO ESTABLISH THAT THERE WAS ON MONEY PAYMENT RECEIVED BY THE VENDOR, WE ITA NO.68/VIZAG/2013 M. ANANDA KISHORE, VIJAYAWADA 15 DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS UPHELD. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH AUG17. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . . ' ) (V. DURGA RAO) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /VISAKHAPATNAM: ' /DATED : 18.08.2017 VG/SPS )# *# /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / THE APPELLANT THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYA WADA 2. / THE RESPONDENT SRI MUSUNURU ANANDA KISHORE, D. NO.54-16/9/2, SRI NAGAR COLONY, VENKATESWARAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA. 3. + / THE CIT, VIJAYAWADA 4. + ( ) / THE CIT (A), VIJAYAWADA 5. # . , . , # / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM