| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 1765 (Del-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 143(3)
Addition on the ground of suppression of receipt from sale of space on the basis of mention of name of party having purchased commercial space from assessee in the documents seized in case of certain person could not be sustained when name of assessee was not mentioned in the seized document and there was no corroborative evidence or any statement that payment had been received by assessee other than cheque amount as entered in sale agreement and on bare perusal of document it could not be inferred or concluded that seized document belonged to to or had any nexus with assessee.
|
Assessment - Addition to income - Alleged suppression of receipt from sale of space on the basis of mention of name of party having purchased commercial space from assessee in the documents seized in case of certain person -
Assessee-company was enaged of real estate development AO received a letter along with related seized document from the office of Asstt. CIT, Central Circle-21, New Delhi along with satisfaction note for issuance of notice under section 153C. Further, on examination of the seized documents found from the premises of Shri Lalit Modi, AO of assessee was satisfied that seized Annexure was related to assessee-company. AO noticed that as per the seized document, commercial space sold by assessee to Mrs. Vinita Chaurasia and on the basis of such noting AO inferred that made addition. Held: Entire addition of Rs. 16 crores was based on some computer generated loose sheets which was seized and found from computer of Mr. Lalit Modi who had categorically denied of any such transaction. It is also an admitted fact that name of assessee nowhere appeared in said document albeit name of Smt. Vineeta Chaurasia that she had entered into an agreement for sale of commercial property had been mentioned. Apart from that, addition could not be made in the hands of assessee for the reason that, firstly, name of assessee was not mentioned in the seized document; secondly, there was no corroborative evidence or any statement that payment had been received by assessee other than cheque amount as entered in sale agreement; and lastly, on bare perusal of document it could not be inferred or concluded that seized document belonged to to or had any nexus with assessee. Moreover, on exactly same seized document High Court had decided that document did not belong to Mrs. Vineet Chaurasia nor any adverse inference could be drawn, therefore, in case of assessee whose name was not even was mentioned in seized documents, no addition could be made. Accordingly, addition was deleted.
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. :
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|