PADAM DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, ALWAR

PER BHAGCHAND, AM

The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the ld.

CIT(A), Alwar dated 09-03-2017 for the Assessment Year 2013-14

raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. That the AO has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case in adding an amount of Rs. 67,50,000/- on substantive basis into the income of the assessee on account of unexplained investment in properties within the meaning of sec 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961 just on the basis of statement recorded during the course of survey, which were retracted later on by the assessee with cogent material and evidences and ld. CIT(A) has erred sustaining the same without considering the remand report of the AO and the statement/ affidavit of the persons named in the loose papers recorded during the remand proceedings.

ITA No.297/JP/2017 Shri Padam Data vs DCIT, Circle – 1,Alwar

2.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 and Ground No. 2 of the assessee, the facts

as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:-

Ground No. 1 of the assessee

‘’5.5 I have perused the assessment order as well as remand report of the AO, submissions and cross reply of the appellant including judicial citations given therein. Following facts have emerged.

ITA No.297/JP/2017 Shri Padam Data vs DCIT, Circle – 1,Alwar

Prithvi 30,00,000.00 Aabhav 5,00,000.00 DSP 10,00,000.00 Rohitash 22,50,000.00 Total 67,50,000.00

3.0 that besides partner’s of the firm Shailja Grits Udyog, Khairthal and M/s. Shailja Associates, Khairthal. I am also looking after day to day of these concerns.

5.5.2 I have considered the above mentioned fact of the case. There is no doubt about the papers found from the premises of the firm whose affairs is managed by the appellant. There is also no doubt the said paper had recorded some transaction 3

ITA No.297/JP/2017 Shri Padam Data vs DCIT, Circle – 1,Alwar

indicating the name of the persons also involved in the transaction and also mention the date of transaction as 05-11-2012. The content of the paper was sown to the appellant and the appellant had confessed that the transactions did indicate investment made by him and his brother Shri Girish Data. The appellant has also offered the value of investment for taxation. Later on, the appellant had retracted from his earlier statement and submitted that the statement was not given under pressure.

5.5.3 The A.R. has cited various judicial pronouncements in support of the claim for transaction of the statement. In all the judicial citations relied upon by the A.R. it is seen that the additions were made merely on the basis of a confessional statement without any evidences or on the basis of a statement given by a third party. However, in this case, a document was found from the premise during the course of survey operation and the document so found was brought to the notice of the appellant. The appellant after verifying the document found during the course of survey operation made a confessional statement. Therefore, the assessment, in the present case, was not made, merely on the basis of a confessional statement but on the basis of a document found during the course of survey and the document indicated certain transactions and also name of persons were also written with whom such transactions were made and also date of the transaction. Therefore, the judicial citations shown by the appellant in support of his claim is no tenable on the basis of factual matrix of the present case. When a document was found during the course of search/ survey, it is incumbent upon the assessee to disprove its genuineness/ or otherwise. When a document is found during the course of survey, it is presumed that the transaction mentioned in the document is real unless proved otherwise by the assessee during the course of assessment proceeding. In this case, the appellant has not been able to disprove the contents of the document. Merely filing an affidavit and statement given by the persons is not enough on the fact of an irrefutable piece of evidence found during a survey operation. The whole exercise by the appellant during assessment proceeding seems to be an afterthought to evade the due taxes on an unexplained investment 4

ITA No.297/JP/2017 Shri Padam Data vs DCIT, Circle – 1,Alwar

which has been accepted by the appellant at the first place. I have particularly noted the fact that the name of persons mentioned in the document are real persons and the appellant had regular business dealing with them. I have also taken into account the fact that the appellant is engaged in sale/purchase of land/plots. In this line of business it is very common that money changes hand even before the actual sale purchase of land/plot. Therefore, the appellant’s contention that no actual sale/purchase of land/plot had taken place involving the amount of transaction indicated in the documents against the name so mentioned, does not carry any weight in view of the normal business practices in real estate. The moot point in this case is whether the money had changed hands at that particular moment of time or not? If the answer is affirmative then the source of such investment has to be explained by the assessee irrespective of the fact whether the land was actually transacted or not.

However, during the course of assessment proceeding in respect of Shri Girish Data, Shri Girish Data has categorically denied about any transaction confessed about the recorded transaction as investment and his further affidavit dated 30-05- 2014 that he manages the affairs of Firm Shailja Grits Udyog, Khairthal and M/s. Shailja Associates, Khairthal from whose premises the documents have been found, the AO has justifiably added the entire undisclosed investment in his hand on substantive basis.

Therefore, taking factual matrix of the case, it is my considered view that there is no credible reason to negate the statements of facts given by the appellant during the course of survey operation while explaining the contents of the transaction mentioned in page no. 12 of Annexure A-1. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 67,50,000/- as confessed by the appellant is sustained as unexplained investment in the hand of the appellant on substantive basis. Accordingly, appellant’s ground of appellant on this issue is dismissed.’’

ITA No.297/JP/2017 Shri Padam Data vs DCIT, Circle – 1,Alwar

Ground No. 2 of the assessee

‘’6.5 I have perused the assessment order as well as remand report of the AO, submissions and cross reply of the appellant including judicial citations given therein. Following facts have emerged. 1. That the appellant is engaged in the business of sale/purchase of lands and plots. He is partner in M/s. V.K. Suppliers and M/s. R.B. Sons.

Accordingly, he has also agreed that this amount will be surrendered by him and his brother Shri Girish Data (i.e. 50% of each) in their respective returns.

ITA No.297/JP/2017 Shri Padam Data vs DCIT, Circle – 1,Alwar

6.5.2 I have considered the above mentioned fact of the case. There is no doubt about the papers found from the premises of the firm where the appellant is a partner/ manages the affairs. There is also no doubt the said paper records some transaction indicating the name of the persons also involved in the transaction. The content of the paper were shown to the appellant and the appellant had confessed that he had earned unrecorded commission on such land deals alongwith his brother Shri Girish Data. The appellant has also offered the undeclared commission of Rs. 1 lakh for taxation to be surrendered 50% each in his hand and in the hand of Shri brother Shri Girish Data. Later on, the appellant had retracted from his earlier statement and submitted that the statement was not given under pressure.

6.5.3 The A.R. has cited various judicial pronouncements in support of the claim for retraction of the statement. In all the judicial citations relied upon by the appellant, it is seen that the additions were made merely on the basis of a confessional statement without any evidences or on the basis of a statement given by a third party. However, in this case, a document was found from the premise during the course of survey operation and the document so found was brought to the notice of the appellant. The appellant after verifying the document found during the course of survey operation made a confessional statement. Therefore, the assessment, in the present case, was not made, merely on the basis of a confessional statement but on the basis of a document found during the course of survey and the document indicated certain transactions and also name of persons were also written with whom such transactions were made. Therefore, the judicial citations shown by the appellant in support of his claim is no tenable on the basis of factual matrix of the present case. When a document was found during the course of search/ survey, it is incumbent upon the assessee to disprove its genuineness/ or otherwise. When a 7

ITA No.297/JP/2017 Shri Padam Data vs DCIT, Circle – 1,Alwar

document is found during the course of survey, it is presumed that the transaction mentioned in the document is real unless proved otherwise by the assessee during the course of assessment proceeding. In this case, the appellant has not been able to disprove the contents of the document. I have also taken into account the fact that the appellant is engaged in sale/purchase of land/plots. In this line of business, it is very common that money changes hand even before the actual sale purchase of land/plot. However, during the course of assessment proceeding in respect of Shri Girish Data, Shri Girish Data has categorically denied about any transaction confessed by Shri Padam Chand. Shri Padam Chand had confessed about the unrecorded transaction as commission and his further affidavit dated 30-05-2014 that he manages the affairs of Firm Shailja Grits Udyog, Khairthal and M/s. Shailja Associates, Khairthal from whose premises the documents have been found, the AO has justifiably added the entire undisclosed commission in his hand on substantive basis.

Therefore, taking factual matrix of the case, it is my considered view that there is no credible reason to negate the statements of facts given by the appellant during the course of survey operation while explaining the contents of the transaction mentioned Annexure A-1. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as confessed by the appellant is sustained as undeclared commission in the hand of the appellant on substantive basis. Accordingly, appellant’s ground of appellant on this issue is dismissed.

2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee prayed for

deletion of both the disallowances i.e. Rs. 67,50,000/- and Rs. 1.00 lac for

which the ld.AR of the assessee filed the following written submission.

‘’1. It is submitted that the main reason of the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is the statement of the assessee recorded in survey u/s 133A. A statement recorded in survey has no evidentiary value as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son 8

ITA No.297/JP/2017 Shri Padam Data vs DCIT, Circle – 1,Alwar

(2013) 352 ITR 480. Hence, such statement more particularly when the same stood retracted cannot be a basis for making the addition. Here it is pertinent to mention that the assessee in his affidavit filed on 30.05.2014 has explained the circumstances under which he made the surrender (PB 45-50). Further, in the statement recorded in survey, the assessee also surrendered cash of Rs. 8,96,610/- in his hands and Rs. 7,37,035/- in the hands of Shri Girish Data (PB 40-41). This surrender was also retracted by the assessee in his affidavit by explaining that such cash is verifiable from the books of accounts of various family concerns. The AO in the assessment proceedings has accepted this explanation as per the discussion made at pages 12-14 of the order. Thus, when the explanation in respect of cash has been accepted, there is no reason to hold that the explanation given in respect of the surrender of Rs. 67,50,000/- is an afterthought just to escape from the tax liability and that such admission construed the best piece of evidence for making the addition. 2. On the merit of the addition of Rs. 67,50,000/- confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), in the remand proceedings, the assessee has filed detailed explanation along with the supporting evidences. Statement of Shri Prithvi Singh was recorded. Further the AO accepted that purchase of land for Rs. 15,75,000/- from Shri Rohitash is duly recorded by the assessee in his books of accounts. However, the Ld. CIT(A) without giving any finding on the evidence produced has erroneously confirmed the addition only for the reason that the alleged investment is confessed by the assessee as his unexplained investment in the statement recorded in course of survey. The explanation with respect to each of the amount noted on the paper is as under: (a) Shri Privthi – Rs. 30 lakhs: It is submitted that the assessee in his affidavit in Para No. 19 (PB 48- 49) has explained that Shri Prithvi Raj Yadav was asking Rs. 30 lakhs for sale of his agricultural land which was found to be excessive and therefore, he declined to buy his agricultural land. Thereafter, Shri Prithvi Raj Yadav sold his land on 14.03.2013 to Shri Charan Singh and Shri Suraj Singh for Rs. 11,71,000/- lakhs through registered sale deed (PB 51-55). Statement of Shri Prithvi Singh was recorded in the remand proceedings. The extract of his statement is reproduced by the AO in his remand report (PB 3-4). In the statement, he has stated that he has not done any transaction of Rs. 30 lakhs. He has sold 0.700 hectare of agricultural land to Shri Charan Singh and Shri Suraj Singh for Rs. 11.71 lakhs in FY 2012-13 and that he has never met talked about sale of his agricultural land to Shri Padam Chand Data for Rs. 30 lakhs. All these evidences prove that the assessee has not made any payment of Rs. 30 lakhs to Shri Prithvi Raj Yadav and therefore, no addition in respect of this amount is called for. (b) Shri Abhay – Rs. 5 lakhs: 9

ITA No.297/JP/2017 Shri Padam Data vs DCIT, Circle – 1,Alwar

It is submitted that the assessee in his affidavit in Para No. 17 (PB 49) has explained that Shri Abhay was the occupier on the land belonging to Shri Prithvi Raj Yadav which he was proposing to buy and for that he proposed to give Rs. 5 lakh to him for vacating the land. However, since the deal with Shri Prithvi Raj Yadav did not materialize, no amount was given to him. This issue was raised by the AO in course of the statement of Shri Prithvi Raj Singh where he said that he does not know Shri Abhay Singh. From these facts it evident that the assessee has not made any payment to Shri Abhay Singh and therefore, no addition in respect of this amount is called for.

© DSP urf Shri Sishram Saharawat – Rs. 10 lakhs It is submitted that the assessee in his affidavit in Para No. 18 (PB 49) has stated that he was planning to buy agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 250, measuring 0.32 hectare Smt. Sunita w/o Shri Sishram Saharawat for Rs. 10 lakhs. Shri Sishram Saharawat is known as DSP. However, the seller refused the sell the land and it was ultimately sold by them to Shri Ajay Mishra and other for Rs. 20 lakhs on 11.02.2013 (PB 56-59). In the remand proceedings, the summons issued to him is returned unserved. Therefore, the AO took an adverse view ignoring that when the land under consideration was sold to some other person through registered deed and there is no evidence of any payment made by the assessee to DSP, no adverse should be taken. Hence, the addition of Rs. 10lakhs on this account is unjustified and uncalled for.

(d)Shri Rohitash – Rs. 22.5 lakhs It is submitted that the assessee in his affidavit in Para No. 19 (PB 49) has stated that Smt. Chandra Devi w/o Shri Rohitash was having the agricultural land bearing Khasra Nos. 245 & 266. Initially he planned to buy both the Khasras but subsequently, he bought only one Khasra No. 245 for Rs. 15,75,000/- through registered sale deed dated 16.05.2013 (PB 65-69) and Khasra No. 266 was sold by them to Shri Deepak Sharma for Rs. 8,55,000/- through sale deed dated 16.05.2013 (PB 60-64). The investment of Rs. 15,75,000/- is duly recorded by the assessee in the books of accounts. The AO in the remand proceedings, observed that the summons issued u/s 131 to Shri Rohitash was received back unserved for want of full address. However, considering that Rs. 15,75,000/- is duly recorded in the books of the assessee the AO accepted the explanation of the assessee to this extent.

In above connection, it may be noted that the assessee could not produce Shri Rohitash on 30.11.2016 due to a death in his family. Thereafter, he was produced on 05.12.2016 but as the AO was on leave, his affidavit was filed (PB 70-71). In the affidavit, Shri Rohitash has explained the entire facts relating to the negotiation of the sale of land belonging to his wife for Rs. 10

ITA No.297/JP/2017 Shri Padam Data vs DCIT, Circle – 1,Alwar

22,50,000/- and has admitted that he has not received any amount from the assessee during the FY 2012-13. The Ld. CIT(A) however, without considering the remand report of the AO and the affidavit of Shri Rohitash has confirmed the addition of the entire amount of Rs. 22,50,000/- which is unjustified and uncalled for. In respect of commission income of Rs. 1 lakh, the assessee in his statement has stated that he and his brother have earned commission income of Rs. 1 lakh during the year. However, no evidence of any commission income was found in survey. In any case, assessee has filed the return declaring income of Rs. 55,21,450/- therefore, in the absence of any evidence of commission income no separate addition is called for keeping in view the income declared by the assessee. In view of above, the addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) be directed to be deleted.’’

2.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the lower

authorities.

2.4 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials

available on record. We find that assessee surrendered Rs.67,50,000/- on

the basis of Pg No.12 of Annexure A-1 (PB Page 19) on account of

investment in properties. The entries on this paper are reproduced as

under:-

3000000 Prithvi Nov 500000 Abhay 05.11.2012 1000000 DSP 2250000 Rohitash 6750000

ITA No.297/JP/2017 Shri Padam Data vs DCIT, Circle – 1,Alwar

The assessee had retracted the statement recorded by filing an affidavit.

The relevant para’s of affidavit placed at page 47 & 48 are reproduced

hereunder:-

‘’6.0 The recording of the above statements were began at 12.50 afternoon on 03-01-2013 and were continued till 3.30 midnight of 04-01-2013.

7.0 That on account of long and tiring exercise of recording of statement, I got exhausted and was not in a sound state of mind and replied to the various questions against the fats and without verifying from the books of accounts.

8.0 That during the course of recording of statement, I was not allowed by the survey party to verify the facts from the books of accounts.

9.0 to 12.0......

13.0 During the course of survey a loose paper number 12 of Annexure A-1 was found, wherein the following nottings/ jottings were mentioned.

13.1 Prithvi 30,00,000.00 13.2 Abhay 5,00,000.00 13.3 DSP 10,00,000.00 13.4 Rohitash 22,50,000.00 Total 67,50,000.00

14.0 While replying the question number 9, I have erroneously offered on account of the reason as mentioned in para number 6 & 7 supra, as my undisclosed income of 50% of 67,50,000/- i.e. Rupees 33,75,000.00 for the current 12

ITA No.297/JP/2017 Shri Padam Data vs DCIT, Circle – 1,Alwar

financial year and the remaining 50% of 67,50,000.00 i.e. Rupees 33,75,000.00 as undisclosed income of my brother Shri Girish Data. 15.0 I hereby retract from the offering the undisclosed income as made while replying to the question number 9 on page number 5 & 6 of the statement dated 03-01-2013 being 50% of 67,50,000.00 i.e. Rupees 33,75,000.00 in my hands and remaining of Rupees 67,50,000.00 i.e. Rupees 33,75,000.00 in the hands of my brother Shri Girish Data on account of the reason and explanation given hereunder.

16.0 The notings and jottings given in the loose paper number 12 of Annexure A-1 is the asking rate or amount of the property of the reasons mentioned in para number 13.0 which except the transaction with wife of Shri Rohitash Kumar of Rupees 15,75,000.00 ultimately could not materialize on account of one reason or other as mentioned hereunder.

17.0 That except the transaction with the wife of Shri Rohitash Kumar of Rupees15,75,000.00 on other transaction was effected nor made any investment, therefore, I have made the retraction as mentioned in para number 15.0 hereof.

18.0 That I have recorded the transaction entered into with the wife of Shri Rohitash Kumar in my regular books of account.

19.0 Rupees 30,00,000.00 or Prathvi:- That Shri Prathvi Raj Yadav was asking a sum of Rupees 30,00,000.00 for the sale of his total holding of agriculture land. He was having the total agriculture land dof0.700 hectare. The asking amount of agriculture land holding by Shri Prathvi Raj was found to be very much on excessive side, therefore, I declined to buy this agriculture holding. Shri Prathvi Raj Yadav then sold part of his agriculture land on 14-03-2013 through registered sale deed for a sum of Rupees 13

ITA No.297/JP/2017 Shri Padam Data vs DCIT, Circle – 1,Alwar

11,71,000.00 to Shri Charan Singh S/o Shri Balbir Singh Choudhary r/o Village: Jatka, Tehsil-Kishangarh (Mobile number 9214456254) and Shri Surat Singh S/o Shri Pokhar Ram Yadav r/o Kultajpur, Tehsil-Kishangarh (Mobile Number 978537476). Since no transaction was effected with Shri Prithvi Raj Yadav, therefore no amount of Rupees 30,00,000.00 can be considered as undisclosed investment either in my hands nor in the hands of my brother Shri Girish Data.

17.0 Rupees 50,00,000.00 of Abhay:-Shri Abhya was the occupier of the land belonging to Shri Prithvi Raj Yadav which I was proposing to buy and Rupees 5,00,000.00 was proposed to be given to him in consideration of vacating the land. Since the deal with Shri Prithvi Raj Yadav could not be materialzed, therefore, no amount was given to him. In view thereof, no amount of Rupees 5,00,000.00 can be considered as undisclosed investment either in my hands nor in the hands of my brother Shri Girish Data.

18.0 Rupees 10,00,000.00 of DSP:- I was planning to buy the agriculture land bearing Khasra Number 250 measuring 0.32 hectare in Village Dantla Tehsil Mundawar, Distt.Alwar of Smt.Sunitaw/o Shri Sishram Sahrawat r/o Nangal Choudhary Tehsil Narnaul for a sum of Rupees 10,00,000.00. Shri Sishram Saharawat is kown as DSP, therefore, there is a reference of DSP in the loose paper number 12, but subsequently the seller refused to sale the said agriculture land on account of lower sale consideration. The seller ultimately sold the Khasra Number 250 to three persons namely Shri Ajay Misra, Shri Charan Singh, Shri Deep Chand and Shri Deepak Sharma through registered sale deed dated 11-02-2013. Since no sale transaction was effected with Smt. Sunita W/o Shri Sishram Saharawat (DSP), therefore, no amount of Rupees 10,00,000.00 can be considered as undisclosed investment either in my hands nor in the hands of my brother Shri Girish Data.

ITA No.297/JP/2017 Shri Padam Data vs DCIT, Circle – 1,Alwar

19.0 Rupees 22,50,000.00 of Rohitash:- Smt. Chandra Devi W/o Shri Rohitash r/o Bilaspur Tehsil Gurgaon was having the agriculture land bearing Khasra No. 245 and 266 in Village Datla, Tehsisl Mundawar, Distt. Alwar. Initially I planned to buy both the Khasra Number 245 and 266 in Village Datla,Tehsil Mundawar, Distt. Alwar. Initially I planned to buy both the Khasra Number but subsequently due to non-availability of funds, bought only Khasra Number 245 for a sum of Rupeess 15,75,000.00 through Registered Sale Deed dated 16-05-2013 and Smt. Chandra Devi W/o Shri Rohitash sold another Khasra Number 266 for a sum of Rupees 8,55,000.00 to Shri Deepak Sharma age 22 years S/o Shri Krishana Kumar Sharma r/o D-110, D Block, Yadav Nagar, Samaypur, Delhi (Mobile Number 09211845588) again through registered sale deed dated 16-05-2013. I have shown the investment of Rupees 15,75,000.00 in the purchase of agriculture land vide Khasra Number 245 in my regular books of account, therefore, no amount of 22,50,000.00 can be considered as undisclosed investment either in my hands no in the hands of my brother Shri Girish Data.’’

From perusal of content of this paper, we hold that there is no clear

indication of any payment made to these persons particularly on the date

mentioned therein. The paper itself is not sufficient to arrive at a finding

that it was an investment in any property. It is also noted that the persons

mentioned in this sheet have sold their agriculture land to various other

persons rather than assessee which are evidenced from the various

registered sale deed placed in PB pages 51-64. The assessee had only

purchased Khasra No. 245 of agricultural land from Sh. Rohitash on 15

ITA No.297/JP/2017 Shri Padam Data vs DCIT, Circle – 1,Alwar

16.05.2013 for Rs.15,75,000/- which is duly recorded in the books of

accounts. The another land of Khasra No.266 had been sold by Shri

Rohitash to Shri Deepak Sharma for Rs.8,55,000/-. Sh. Prithvi Raj

Yadav has stated that he has neither received any amount of Rs.30 lacs

from the assessee nor sold any agricultural land to the assessee. Sh.

Prithvi Raj Yadav had sold his land on 14-03-2013 to Shri Charan Singh

and Surat Singh for Rs. 11,71,000/-. The relevant sale deed is placed at

pages 51 to 55 of paper book. Sh. Prithvi Raj Yadav had also denied any

transaction of Rs. 30.00 lacs with assessee in his statement. Thus the

allegation of investment of Rs. 30.00 lacs with Prithvi is not established.

The payment to Shri Abhay for vacating the land is also not established as

there is no purchase of land from Sh. Prithvi Raj . The fact regarding

purchase of land for DSP ( Shishram Saharawat) is also not established as

land by wife of Saharawat, Sunita had sold to Shri Ajay Mishra. The fact

about purchase of land of Khasra No. 245 is recorded in books of

account of assessee. In the remand report, the AO had also accepted that

purchase of land of Rs.15,75,000/- from Sh. Rohitash is recorded in the

books of assessee. The lower authorities have not brought any material on

record against the registered sale deed to establish that the assessee has

ITA No.297/JP/2017 Shri Padam Data vs DCIT, Circle – 1,Alwar

purchased any land from these persons except for the land purchased

from Sh. Rohitash nor any material that cash has been paid by the

assessee to these persons. Therefore, the addition of Rs.67,50,000/- made

on the basis of Page 12 of Annexure A-1 and on the basis of the

statement recorded during survey which was duly retracted by filing an

affidavit dated 16-05-2014 had no evidentiary value as held by Supreme

Court in case of CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Sons 352 ITR 480. It is also

pertinent to note that the assessee had also filed documentary evidences

that the persons mentioned in the paper have sold their land to some other

persons by registered sale deed placed at PB Pages 51-64 rather than

assessee as alleged by authorities below. In such factual matrix no

addition could be sustained for the investment made in such properties

in the hands of assessee. Thus the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A)

amounting to Rs. 67,50,000/- is deleted. Thus Ground No. 1 of the

assessee is allowed.

2.4(1) As regards Ground No.2 of the assessee, we find that

addition of Rs.1 lacs is also made simply on the basis of the statement

without referring to any paper impounded in survey to suggest that

assessee has earned any commission income not disclosed in the return 17

ITA No.297/JP/2017 Shri Padam Data vs DCIT, Circle – 1,Alwar

particularly when assessee has filed the return declaring income of Rs.55.21 lacs and his brother Girish Data has filed the return declaring income of Rs.49.99 lacs. The order of the lower authorities do not indicate the proper basis of confirming the addition of Rs. 1.00 lac in the hands of the assessee except for his statement which do not have evidentiary value as discussed in Ground No. 1 above. Hence, the addition of Rs. 1.00 lac is deleted by allowing the ground of assessee. Thus Ground No. 2 of the assessee is allowed. 3.0 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed Order pronounced in the open Court on 25-01-2018. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ fot; iky jko ½ ¼HkkxpUn½ (Vijay Pal Rao) (Bhagchand) U;kf;d lnL; /Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member

Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 25 /01/ 2018 *Mishra आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Padam Data, Alwar izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The DCIT, Circle – 1, Alwar 2. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@ CIT(A). 3. 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT, विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 297/JP/2017) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत 18