Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 3, Guwahati V. Shri Sanjay Goswami, Guwahati

ITA 80/GTY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6073 (ITAT-GUWAHATI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RABINDRO SINGH J
• Assessee Lawyers: R P AGARWALLA SR SHRI RAMESH
• Keywords: Document seized; Fair market value; Valuation report; Documents seized
• Section: 131; 144

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. A.L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 80 / GAU / 2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2013-14 DCIT, CIRCLE-3 AAYAKAR BHAWAN, 7 TH FLOOR, G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATII-781005 V/S . SHRI SANJAY GOSWAMI SARUMATORIA, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781002 [ PAN NO.AELPG 5124 J ] /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI RABINDRO SINGH, JCIT-DR /BY RESPONDENT SHRI R.P. AGARWALLA, SR. ADVOCATE, SHRI RAMESH GOENKA, SR. ADVOCATE AND SHRI AMIT GOENKA, ADVOCATE /DATE OF HEARING 05-07-2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 02-08-2019 / O R D E R PER BENCH:- THIS REVENUES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ARISES AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, GUWAHATIS ORDER DATED 23.02.2017 PASSED IN CASE NO.GAUA-126/2015-16, INVOLVING PROCE EDINGS U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. 2. THE REVENUES TWO SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCES CHALLEN GE CORRECTNESS OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER REVERSING ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION ADDING THE ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT OF RS.1,23,29,300/- AND UNDI SCLOSED INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.85 LAC VIDE FOLLOWING DETAILED DISC USSION:- 7. GROUND NO.6 THIS GROUND PERTAINS TO ADDITION OF RS.1,23,29,300/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. ITA NO.80/GAU/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 DCIT, CIR-3, GUWA VS. SH. SANJAY GOSWAMI PAGE 2 IN COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER FOUND THAT AS PER SEIZED MATERIAL MARKED AS SG-11 & STG-13 WHICH CO NTAIN THE VALUATION REPORTS OF THE TWO PROPERTIES OF THE APPELLANT BOTH SITUATED I N GUWAHATI, THE VALUATION OF THE ABOVE PROPERTIES CAME TO RS.1,53,57,000/-, WHEREAS IN THE BALANCE SHEET, THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN THE INVESTMENT AT RS.30,27,700/ -. THE APPELLANT, IN COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD STATED THAT THE DOCU MENTS CONTAINED IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL MARKED AS SG-11 & SG-13 RELATED TO THE V ALUATION OF THE ABOVE PROPERTIES AND THAT THE SAME HAD NO RELATION WITH THE ACTUAL I NVESTMENT MADE IN THE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER, HELD THAT THE APPELL ANT HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS/DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS EXPLANATION. HE , THEREFORE, TREATED THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.1,23,29,300/- BETWEEN THE VALUE SHOWN IN THE VALUATION REPORT AND THE COST SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMEN T OF THE APPELLANT AND ADDED THE SAME IN HIS TOTAL INCOME. 7.1 BEFORE ME THE APPELLANT VIDE ITS WRITTEN SUBMIS SION DATED 25.01.2016 HAS SUBMITTED AS FOLLOWS: 5. GROUND NO.6: (ADDITION OF RS.1,23,29,300/- ON A CCOUNT OF ALLEGED UN- DISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ) (I) THIS GROUND PERTAINS TO THE ADDITION OF RS.1,2 3,29,300/- IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. (II) THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT IN COURSE OF SEARC H IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT ON 06.12.2012, DOCUMENTS MARKED AS SG-11 TO SG-18 WERE SEIZED. THE SEIZED MATERIAL MARKED SG-11 AND SG-13 CONTAINED TH E VALUATION REPORT OF THE TWO PROPERTIES I.E. ASSAM TYPE HOUSE AT TRIPURA ROAD, JAYA NAGAR CHARIALI, KHANAPARA, GUWAHATI AND BUILDING AT B.R.R OAD, JHANAKPUR BYE LANE, BELTOLA, GUWAHATI. IN PARA 7.2 OF THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WORKED OUT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUE OF THE ABOVE PROPERTIES AS SHOWN IN THE VALUATION REPORTS AND THE COST OF THES E PROPERTIES AS SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS BALANCE SHEET AS FOLLOWS: BOOKS MARKED AS PAGE NO. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY COST OF BUILDING BY THE REGISTER VALUER (LAKHS) AMOUNT SHOWN IN BALANCE SHEET DIFFERENCE SG-11 2 & 1 ASSAM TYPE BUILDING INCLUDING BOUNDARY WALL AT TRIPURA ROAD, JAYA NAGAR CHARIALI, KHANAPARA 11.66 [9.6+1.80+0.25] RS.30,27,700 1,23,29,300 SG-13 1 TO 3 THREE STORIES RCC BUILDING WALL & SECURITY9ROOM ETC. H.NO.15, B.R. ROAD, JHANAKPUR BYELANE, BELTOLA TINIALI, GUWAHATI 141.91 [128.16 + 6.5 +0.45+ 4.25+ 2.55] IN COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLA NT EXPLAINED THAT THE DOCUMENTS MARKED AS SG-11 AND SG-13 RELATED TO THE VALUATION OF ABOVE PROPERTIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING LOAN AND SUBMITTING OF TENDER AND THAT THIS VALUATION HAS NO RELATION WITH THE ACTUAL INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ABOVE PROPER TIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SUPPRESSED THE VALUE FOR THE ABOVE PROPERTIES BY RS.1,23,29,300/- AND TREATED THIS AMOUNT AS UNDI SCLOSED INVESTMENT OF THE APPELLANT. (III) IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIO N MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: (A) THE FIRST PROPERTY I.E., THE ASSAM TYPE BUILDIN G SITUATED AT TRIPURA ROAD, JAYANAGAR CHARIALI, KHANAPARA WAS ACQUIRED BY THE A PPELLANT IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 31.03.2009 AT A TOTAL COST OF RS.90,505/-. THI S WAS DULY DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. A COPY OF THE PU RCHASE DEED OF THE ABOVE PROPERTY IS ENCLOSED HEREBY FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL. ITA NO.80/GAU/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 DCIT, CIR-3, GUWA VS. SH. SANJAY GOSWAMI PAGE 3 THE LAND ON WHICH THE SECOND PROPERTY I.E., HOUSE P ROPERTY AT B.R. ROAD, JHANAKPUR BYELANE, BELTDOLA TINIALAI, GUWAHATI, ASS AM WAS SITUATED WAS ACQUIRED BY THE APPELLANT ON 29.10.2004 FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION FOR RS.2,35,000/-. AFTER ACQUISITION OF THE LAND, THE A PPELLANT STARTED CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE ON THE SAID LAND AND UP TO 31.03.2006 THE APP ELLANT MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.15,45,000/- IN CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE. THEREA FTER THE APPELLANT MADE FURTHER INVESTMENT OF RS.5,50,00/- IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 AND RS.9,32,700/- IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09. THUS T HE TOTAL COST OF THIS PROPERTY CAME TO RS.32,62,700/- AS FOLLOWS: COST OF LAND RS.2,35,000/- COST OF CONSTRUCTION RS.30,27,700/- TOTAL RS.32,62,700/- THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROPERTY WAS ALSO DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILE FOR RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THIS HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS SUCH. (IV) AS STATED ABOVE THE VALUATION REPORTS AS MENTI ONED IN SEIZED MATERIALS MARKED SG-11 & SG-13 WERE OBTAINED ONLY FOR THE PUR POSE OF OBTAINING LOANS AND/OR SUBMITTING TENDERS. THERE IS NO MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT INVESTED MORE THAN WHAT WAS DISCLOSED BY HIS IN HIS RETURN FOR ACQUIRING THESE PROPERTIES. NO INCRIMINATING MATERI AL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH RELATING TO INVESTMENT IN THE AFOR ESAID PROPERTIES. (V) IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE D IFFERENCE IN THE VALUATION AS SHOWN IN THE VALUATION REPORTS AND THE COST OF THE PROPERTIES AS SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTME NT MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE VALUATION MADE BY VALUER IS MERELY AN ESTIMATE OF THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT THE DETERMINATION OF COST. THERE I S NO MATERIAL EITHER ON RECORD OR OTHERWISE TO SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT INVESTED MO RE THAN WHAT WAS SHOWN BY HIM IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. IN SUPPORT OF OUR ABOVE CONTENTION, RELIANCE IS PLA CED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAW: - CIT VS. ROSHAN LAL SETH 178 ITR 660 (P&H) 7.2 I HAVES CONSIDERED THE SUB MISSIONS MADE BEFORE ME. IO HAVES ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE REMAND REPORT SENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN HIS REMAND REPORT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REITERATED WHAT HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE HAS HOWEVER, STATED THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE ADMISSION OF FRESH OR ADDITIONAL E VIDENCE IF IT WAS CONSIDERED TO BE RELEVANT FOR DISPOSAL OF THIS ISSUE. 7.3 I FIND THAT THE FIRST PROPERTY I.E. ASSAM TYPE BUILDING SITUATED AT TRIPURA ROAD, JAYA NAGAR CHARIALI, KHANAPARA, GUWAHATI WAS ACQUIR ED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 AT A TOTAL COST OF RS.90,505 /-. THIS PROPERTY WAS DULY DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. THE LAND ON WHICH THE SECOND HOUSE PROPERTY AT B.R. ROAD, JHANAKPUR BYELANE, BELTOLA TINIALI, GUWAHATI WAS SITUAT4ED, WAS ACQUIR ED BY THE APPELLANT ON 29.10.2004 FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,35,000 /-. AFTER ACQUISITION OF THE LAND, THE APPELLANT STARTED CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE O N THE SAID LAND AND UPTO 31.03.2006 THE APPELLANT MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.15,4 5,000/- IN CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE. THEREAFTER THE APPELLANT MADE FURTHER IN VESTMENT OF RS.5,50,000/- IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 AND RS.9,32,700/- IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09. THUS, THE TOTAL COST OF THIS PROPERTY INCLUDING THE COST OF LAND CAME TO RS.32,62,700/-. THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROPERTY HAS ALSO BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED FOR RELEVA NT ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THIS HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS SUCH BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE VALUATI ON REPORTS COMPRISED IN THE SEIZED MATERIALS MARKED AS SG-11 & SG-13 WERE OBT AINED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING LOANS AND/OR SUBMITTING TENDER S. THESE ARE NOT THE REPORTS DETERMINING THE COST OF THESE PROPERTIES. I FIND TH AT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS ITA NO.80/GAU/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 DCIT, CIR-3, GUWA VS. SH. SANJAY GOSWAMI PAGE 4 FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH RELATING TO THE I NVESTMENT IN THE AFORESAID PROPERTIES TO SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT INVESTED MORE THAN WHAT WAS DISCLOSED BY HIM IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. THAT BEING THE CASE, T HE DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUE SHOWN IN THE VALUATION REPORT AND COST SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME CANNOT BE TREATED AS THE UN-DISCLOSED INVEST MENT OF THE APPELLANT. THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES AS DETERMINED B Y THE VALUER WAS NOT DETERMINATIVE OF INVESTMENT MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ROSHANLA L SETH (SUPRA) SUPPORTS THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT. IN VIEW OF MY ABOVE DISCUSSION THE ADDITION OF RS.1 ,23,29,300/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECTS OF UN-DISCLOSED INVES TMENT IS HEREBY DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, ALLOWED. 8. GROUND NO.2 THIS GROUND PERTAINS TO ADDITION OF RS.85,00,000/-- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT IN CURSE OF SEA RCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS A BUNCH OF LOOSE SHEETS MARKED AS SAN-1 WAS SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE APPELLANT. PAGES NO.41 & 42 OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL MARKED AS SAN-1 REVEALED TOTAL TRANSACTIONS OF RS.85,00,000/- (65 + 10 + 10) . THE APPELLANT EXPLAINED THAT THIS WAS A MESSAGE RECEIVED FROM SAIDULLAHA NONGRUM FOR SALE OF FLAT AT GITANAGAR, NEAR PETROL PUMP AT RS.65,00,00,000/- A ND ON RECEIPT OF SALE PROCEEDS TO PAY RS.10,00,000/- EACH TO TWO OTHER PE RSONS MENTIONED IN THE SAME MESSAGES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, ADDE D THIS AMOUNT OF RS.85,00,000/- IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT TREATING IT AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENC E. 8.1 BEFORE ME THE APPELLANT VIDE ITS WRITTEN SUBMIS SION DATED 25.01.2016 HAS SUBMITTED AS FOLLOWS: 6. GROUND NO.7 (ADDITION OF RS.85,00,000/- ON ACCO UNT OF ALLEGED UN- DISCLOSED INCOME) (I) WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT, TD HE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS ADDED RS.85,,00,000/- IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLAN T ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED INCOME. (II) THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT IN COURSE OF SEARC H A BUNCH OF LOOSE SHEETS MARKED AS SAN-1 WAS SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE APPELLANT. IN REPLY TO Q. NO.3 OF HIS STATEMENT DATED 30.01.2013 RECORDED U/S. 132(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THE APPELLANT H AD STATED AS FOLLOWS: Q.NO.3 : PLEASE GO THROUGH THE BUNCH OF LOOSE SHEET MARKED SAN-1 FOUND AND SEIZED TODAY DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND EXPLAIN THE SAME. ANS: SAN-1 FROM PAGE NO 1 TO 117 ARE THE COPIES OF SANPSHOTS OF INCOMING AND OUTGOING SMSS OF MY MOBILE PHONE.: THEN AGAIN ON 03.04.2013, THE APPELLANT WAS QUESTIO NED ABOUT SEIZED MATERIAL MARKED SAN-1 AT THE TIME OF RECORDING OF H IS STATEMENT U/S. 131 OF THE ACT. IN REPLY TO Q. NO.12 OF THE AFORESA ID STATEMENT THE APPELLANT HAD STATED AS FOLLOWS: Q.NO.12 PLEASE GO THROUGH THE FOLLOWING PAGES OF TH E BUNCH OF LOOSE SHEET MARKED AS SAN-1 SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH IN YOUR RESIDENTIAL PREMISES ON 30.01.2013 AND EXPLAIN THE SAME. PAGE DATE MESSAGE FROM AMOUNT REMARKS 41 25.5.12 SAIDULLAH 65 LAKHS SOURABH BARUA 42 NON 10 LAKH DULAL HIRA 10 LAKH RAHMAN ITA NO.80/GAU/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 DCIT, CIR-3, GUWA VS. SH. SANJAY GOSWAMI PAGE 5 ANS: THIS MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM SAIDULLAH NONGR UM FOR SALE OF A FLAT AT GITANAGAR, NEAR PETROL PUMP @ 65 LAKHS. AN D ON RECEIPT OF SALE PROCEEDS TO PAY RS.10 LAKH EACH TO OTHER TWO P ERSONS. (III) IN COURSE OF THE HEARING, THE APPELLANT EXPL AINED THAT THE ABOVE SMS WAS RECEIVED FROM ONE SAIDULLA NORGRUM FOR SALE OF A FLAT AT GITA NAGAR AND ON RECEIPT OF SALE PROCEEDS TO PAY RS.10 LAKHS EACH TO TWO OTHER PERSONS. THE APPELLANT ALSO STATED THAT HE WA S ENGAGED IN THE PURCHASE/SALE OF LAND ON COMMISSION BASIS AND THAT THE COMMISSION INCOME HAS DULY BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER ADDED THE TOTAL AMOUN T OF RS.85,00,00/- IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT TREATING IT AS HIS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPOR TING EVIDENCE. (IV) IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.85,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY INCO RRECT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: (A) ADMITTEDLY, THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS ON THE BASIS O F WHICH THE ADDITION IS MADE ARE COPIES OF THE SNAPSHOTS OF THE INCOMING./OUTGOING SMS OF THE APPELLANTS MOBILE PH ONE. OBVIOUSLY, THESE SNAP SHORTS WOULD REVEAL THE PHONE NOS. FROM WHERE THESE SMS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED. (B) DESPITE THE APPELLANT HAVING DISCLOSED THE IDEN TITY OF THE PERSON FROM WHOM THE SMS WAS RECEIVED NO ENQUIRY WHAT-SO-E VER WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE NATURE OF T HE TRANSACTION APPEARING IN THE SMS. (C) IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ENQUIRY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ADDITION MADE BY HIM STANDS VITIATED AND IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. THE ONUS LAY ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THAT RS.85,00,000/- WAS THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT OF THE APPELLANT, TH E APPELLANT HAVING DISCHARGED THE ONUS WHICH LAY ON HIM. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ADDITIO N OF RS.85,00,000/- MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 8.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE M E. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT WELL AS THE REMAND REPORT O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT HAS REITERAT ED WHAT HAS BEEN MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE H AS HOWEVER, STATED THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE ADMISSION ANY FRESH OR ADDITION AL EVIDENCE IF IT IS CONSIDERED NECESSARY FOR DISPOSAL OF THIS ISSUE. 8.3 THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT PAGES N O.41 & 42 OF THE S\SEIZED MATERIAL MARKED AS SAN-1 ARE THE SNAP SHOTS OF THE INCOMIN G/OUTGOING SMS OF THE APPELLANTS MOBILE PHONE WHICH WERE TAKEN BY THE OF FICIALS OF THE DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. OBVIOUSLY THE SNAP SHOTS WOULD REVE AL THE PHONE NUMBERS OF THE PERSON FROM WHOM THESE MESSAGES WERE RECEIVED. A PE RUSAL OF THE SNAP SHORT I.E. PAGE NO.41 & 42 OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL MARKED AS S AN-1 SHOW THAT IT CONTAINS THE NAMES OF THREE PERSONS, SOURAV BARUAH, GUWAHATI (RS .65 LACS), DULAL HIRA, MANGALDOI (RS.10 LACS) AND RAHMAN, ULUBARI (RS.10 LAC). IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO.12 OF HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S. 131 OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961 ON 03.04.2013 THE APPELLANT HAD STATED THAT THIS MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM SAIDULLAH NONGRUM FOR SALE OF A FLAT AT GITANAGAR NEAR PETROL PUMP AT RS. 65,00,000/- AND ON RECEIPT OF SALE PROCEEDS TO PAY RS.10,00,00/- EACH TO TWO OTHER PE RSONS WHOSE NAME ALSO APPEAR IN THE SMS. DESPITE THE APPELLANT HAVING DISCLOSED THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON FROM WHOM THE SMS WAS RECEIVED, NO ENQUIRY WHAT-SO-EVER WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION APPEARING T HE SMS. IT WAS STATED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE APPELLANT WAS INVOLVED I N THE AFORESAID TRANSACTION AS A COMMISSION AGENT, AS HE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SALE/PURCHASE OF LAND. IT ITA NO.80/GAU/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 DCIT, CIR-3, GUWA VS. SH. SANJAY GOSWAMI PAGE 6 WAS ALSO STATED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT H E HAS SHOWN INCOME EARNED FROM SUCH COMMISSION IN HIS RETURNS OF INCOME. I FIND TH AT THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN COMMISSION ON SALE OF LAND AT RS.4,00,000/- IN HIS RETURNS OF INCOME WHICH HAS BEEN ASSESSED AS SUCH BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS STATED BY ME ABOVE, NO ENQUIRY WAS MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION DESPITE THE IDENTITY OF THE P ERSON FROM WHOM THE SMS WAS RECEIVED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ENQUIRY BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER, THE ADDITION MADE BY HIM STANDS VITIATED AND IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. TH E ONUS LAY ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THAT RS.85,00,000/- WAS THE UNDISCLOSED IN VESTMENT OF THE APPELLANT, THE APPELLANT HAVING DISCHARGED THE ONUS THAT LAY ON HI M. IN VIEW OF MY ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE ADDITION OF RS.85,00,00/- IS HEREBY DELETED. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY SUBM ITS DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RIGHTLY MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION BASED ON INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN ISSUE DATED 06.12.2012. HE REFERS TO SG-11 AND SG-13 TO THIS EFFECT SUGGESTING SUPPRESSION OF THE ACTUAL VALUE OF INVESTMENTS. ALL THESE REVENUES ARGUMENTS FAIL TO EVOKE OUR CONCURRENCE. WE MAKE IT CLEAR FIRST OF ALL THAT THIS IS AN INSTANCE OF ADDITION IN THE NATURE OF VALUE O F ASSESSEES INVESTMENTS. THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY PLACED ON RECORD ALL THE RELE VANT DETAILS OF ACQUISITION OF HIS BOTH PROPERTIES (SUPRA). HE THEN GOT PREPARE DLY VALUATION REPORT(S) IN ISSUE. EVEN IF IT IS ACCEPTED THAT THESE REPORTS DE PICT CORRECT VALUATION OF THE TWO PROPERTIES, WE OBSERVE THAT THERE IS NO MATERIA L ON RECORD WHICH COULD ACT AS FOUNDATION OF THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IN ORDER TO CONCLUDE THAT THE DIFFERENTIAL SUMS HAD BEEN PAID OVER AND ABOVE THE ACTUAL COST OF THE TWO ACQUISITION(S) AND COST OF CONSTRUCTION OR IMPROVEM ENT; IF ANY. COUPLED WITH THIS, THE TAXPAYER YET ANOTHER ARGUMENT THOUGH LEAR NED SENIOR COUNSEL THAT THESE VALUATION DOCUMENT(S) WERE SUBSEQUENTLY PREPA RED FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE OF SECURING BANK LOAN HAS ALSO NOT BEEN REB UTTED FROM REVENUES SIDE BEFORE US. WE CONCLUDE IN THESE FACT THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF 1,23,29,300/-. 3. NEXT COMES THE LATTER ISSUE OF THE ASSESSEES AL LEGED UNDISCLOSED INCOME ADDITION OF 85,00,000/- BASED ON MOBILE SNAPSHOTS (SUPRA). MR. SINGH VEHEMENTLY ARGUES THAT THE SAME COMPRISES OF THREE SUM(S) OF 65 AND 10 LAC EACH (IN LAKHS) IN CASE OF S/SH SOURABH BARU A, DULAL HIRA AND REHMAN RESPECTIVELY. THERE IS HARDLY ANY DISPUTE THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS MADE THE ITA NO.80/GAU/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 DCIT, CIR-3, GUWA VS. SH. SANJAY GOSWAMI PAGE 7 IMPUGNED ADDITION BASED ON MOBILE SNAPSHOTS. WE SEE NO MERIT IN REVENUES INSTANT LATTER GRIEVANCE AS WELL. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE CASE FILE NOWHERE SUGGESTS AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED ON TRANSFERRED ANY OF HIS ASSETS. OR THAT HE HAD HELD ANY STAKE THEREIN. IT H AS RATHER CAME ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN CARRYING OUT BROKERAGE/C OMMISSION ACTIVITIES IN IMMOVABLE PROPRIETIES GIVING RISE TO 4 LAC INCOME (SUPRA). THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEVER SUMMONED THE CONCERNED PARTIES AT ANY STAGE TO REBUT ALL THESE DETAILS. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGH TLY DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF 85 LAKH IN THESE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. 4. THIS REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 02 /08/2019 SD/- SD/- ( #) (%& #) ( A.L.SAINI) (S.S.GODARA) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) GUWAHATI, *DKP '- 02 / 08 /201 9 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-DCIT, CIR-3, R.NO.714, 7 TH FL, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI-781005 2. /RESPONDENT-SHRI SANJAY GOSWAMI, SARUMATORIA, DISP UR, GUWAHATI-781002 3. 2 3 8 / CONCERNED CIT GUWAHATI 4. 3- / CIT (A) GUWAHATI 5. ; &&2, 2, 8 / DR, ITAT, GUWAHATI 6. A / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY (ON TOUR) 2,