Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged an order sustaining an addition of Rs. 54,11,666/- under section 69A as unexplained money. The addition was based on a seized agreement to sell, which the assessee claimed was not duly signed, was a photocopy, and that a sum of Rs. 14,85,000/- was returned.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the agreement was a photocopy seized from a third party, not signed by the assessee, and lacked corroborative evidence. Previous decisions, including from the Supreme Court and coordinate benches, emphasized that photocopies have little evidentiary value and that additions cannot be made on conjectures without sufficient evidence. The AO also violated principles of natural justice by not confronting the assessee with the evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of Rs. 54,11,666/- as unexplained money under section 69A is justified based on a photocopy of an agreement to sell, lacking corroborative evidence and violating principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER
Date of Hearing – 16/06/2025 Date of Order – 16/06/2025
O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M.
By this appeal, the assessee has challenged the impugned order dated 22/12/2022, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [for short, “learned CIT(A)”].
2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:– “1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in law and fact in sustaining addition to the tune of Rs. 54,11,666/- u/s 69A as unexplained money.
2 Shailesh Champaklal Vakharia ITA no.344/Nag./2023
2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in law and fact in sustaining addition to the tune of Rs. 54,11,666/- u/s 69A without appreciating the fact that the agreement to sale is not duly signed and executed and further a sum of Rs. 14,85,000/- was returned back by the appellant.
3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in law and fact in sustaining additions without doing any independent enquiry or bringing any corroborative evidences on the record.
4. Whether Ld. AO is justified in passing an order in breach of principle of natural justice. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify and withdraw any grounds before or during the course of appellate proceedings.”
3. Facts in Brief:– For the year under consideration, on 27/03/2018, the assessee filed his return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") disclosing total income at ` 4,47,650. A gist of written submissions filed by the learned departmental representative are as under:– “The assessee has filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 u/s 139(1) of The Income Tax Act, 1961 on 27-03-2018 declaring total income of Rs. 4,47,650/-. In present case Assessee is not actually searched person. A search and seizure action u/s 132 the Income Tax Act 1961 was conducted on 01-07-2019 in the case of Parag Vakharia in connection with the Swami Fuels Pvt. Ltd Group. Document Annexure A/3 Page 1to 143 was seized from residence of Parag Vakharia son of Suresh Vakharia. It is seen that page number 4 to 7 of document is an agreement to sale of immovable property of Suresh Vakharia, Shailesh Vakharia And Mahavir Vakharia where sellers have agreed to sell their immovable property at Property is plot. no. 51, NIT Municipal house no. 1366, MausaHivari, Wardhaman Nagar to Brindesh Agrawal for consideration of 5.21 Cr on October 2016. Govardhan Das
3 Shailesh Champaklal Vakharia ITA no.344/Nag./2023 V. As regards to Shri Mahavir Vakharia, the power of attorney is held by our assessee, Shri Shailesh Vakharia. vi. Since the document is sale agreement and one of the seller is our assesse and the document also bears signature of assesse, assessee's case was taken for scrutiny u/s. 153C. vii. Notice u/s 153C of the IT act, 1961 dated 21-12-2020 was issued and served to the assessee. viii. In response to the notice issued U/s 153C of the act the assessee has filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 29-04-2021 declaring total income as Rs. 4,47,650/-. ix. The AO observed that the total sales consideration as per this Agreement is Rs. 5.21cr. It is further seen that in the said agreement, Suresh Vakharia And Shailesh Vakhharia have received an amount of 4,95,000 and 14,85,000 respectively through check number 275603 and number 275604 of Wardhaman Urban Cooperative Bank Limited. Examination of bank account of Shailesh Vakharia it was also seen that the same was encashed by him. X. The sellers have also received cash of 1,62,35,000 and further agreed to receive cash of 78,15,000 on 15/01/2017 and 2,60,50,000 on or before 15/04/2017. xi. The payment schedule shows that two cheques no. 275603 (Rs. 4.95 lakhs) and cheques no. 275604, (Rs.14.85 lakhs), were already issued in the name of Shri Suresh Vakharia and they were also in encashed. xii. The agreement, also, mentions in handwriting that cash of Rs. 1.62cr has been given. There is also mention of TDS of Rs. 20,000/-. xiii. There is also mention of the amount payable before 15th January, 2017 (Rs. 78.15 lakhs) and at the time of sale deed or before 15 April, 2017 (Rs. 2.60cr). xiv. AO completed the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act on 27-09-2021 determining total assessed income at Rs. 58,59,3 10/- after making addition of Rs. 54, 11,666/- u/s 69A of the Act. xv. Aggrieved by the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act passed by the AO, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). xvi. CIT(A) dismissed appeal of the asseseee and confirmed the addition made by AO.
4 Shailesh Champaklal Vakharia ITA no.344/Nag./2023
QUESTION RELATING TO AUTHENTICITY OF DOCUMENT i. It is to be noted that the document is signed by all the sellers i.e. Shri Parag Vakharia, Shri Shailesh Vakharia and on the behalf of Shri Mahaveer Vakhari - Shri Shailesh Vakharia. ii. Though Shri Brindesh Agrawal, the purchaser had not specifically signed the document. It bears the signature of this person on the stamp paper and this is actually signed by Shri Brindesh Agrawal Further it has been proved beyond doubt that the stamp paper was purchased by Shri Brindesh Agrawal- purchaser. This has been verified by the AO by calling for information from the stamp vendor u/s. 133(6) and also verifying the register stamp paper sale maintained by the stamp vendor. iv. Ultimately, the final sale deed was registered on 29th September, 2017. v. It is pertinent to note that, in the agreement the land is the same, Purchaser is same and sellers are also same. vi. The difference between the agreement value and sale deed value is Rs. 3.80 crores (5.21cr 1.41cr). The AO has added Rs. 54.11 lakhs as one-third of the share of cash of Rs. 1.62 lakhs because there were three sellers.
NEED FOR ENHANCEMENT i. The AO has taken only 1/3rd of the cash which appeared in the Agreement as cash already given. ii. It is important to note that this agreement is made well before the sale deed, and it also mentions the amounts of Rs. 78.15, lakhs and Rs. 2,60,50,000/-to be payable and it has to be presumed that it has been paid. One-third of the sum of these two amounts should also have been added.
REBUTTAL TO ASSESSEE’s CONTENTIONS:– iii. The contention of the assessee that there is no date specified on the agreement, cannot be sole reason to question the evidentiary value of the agreement, having said so, date of the agreement can be very well inferred to be October, 2016 as the stamp paper is purchased on 15th Oct., 2016. This important aspect is further corroborated by the fact that in the letter by stamp vendor, it is mentioned that Stamp paper was purchased on 15th, October 2016. iv. Assessee further contended that addition cannot be based upon the agreement as it is nothing but a draft agreement. However it is to 5 Shailesh Champaklal Vakharia ITA no.344/Nag./2023 be noted that the draft agreements are normally not signed and if draft agreements are signed, it clearly indicates that the contents therein are final, and are agreed by the parties having binding effect on them. v. Without prejudice to the above, more importantly, it is to be noted that the impugned agreement is on stamp paper, which indicates the intention of the parties to give it evidentiary value. Otherwise draft agreement could also be made on Plain paper. It is further pertinent to mention that said stamp paper was purchased by Brindish Agarwal himself only. Also in response to information called under section 133(6), stamp vendor confirmed that the stamp paper was purchased by Brindesh Agarwal by giving his signature on the stamp paper register. vi. Assessee further contended that there were many co-owners who were not mentioned in the agreement. With respect to same, it is to be noted that, the co-owners mentioned by the assessee are sisters who have inherited the property from their mother. It is well known fact that sisters forego their right in the property in Hindu families and they are normally only consenters so they are included only in the final sale deed. vii. The contention of the assessee, that as the draft agreement is not notarized there is no legal enforceability cannot be accepted. With regard to the same, it is to be noted that, the nature of agreement to sale in property dealings is more of informal nature and has certain societal sanctions, which is well known fact in our society. In any case, it is done on the stamp paper and not on the plain paper. viii. It is further worthwhile to mention that, had there been intention to just draft the agreement, it could have been done on Normal plain paper also, however in present case assessee choose to do it on the stamp paper to give it the evidentiary value. ix. The assessee has contended, that the sale deed was supposed to be executed on or before 15th April 2017, but it was actually Executed on 29th September 2017, which shows that the final sale deed is different. It is to be noted that the final sale deed date indicated on any agreement is always indicative and there can be many exigencies, which can postpone or pre-pone the date. The fact that the buyers, sellers and the land remain the same indicates that the agreement and sale deed are intrinsically connected to each other. X. Assessee took plea that the two cheques, which were encashed, were eventually returned before the final sale deed. Here the department submits that there can be some internal arrangement for fund flow and many times, it is deliberately done to erase all the preceding events of the agreement that was done earlier for higher
6 Shailesh Champaklal Vakharia ITA no.344/Nag./2023 value. This infact indicates the intention on the part of the assessee to erase the evidences to project that the sale deed is totally afresh transaction without any audit trail. xi. Reliance is further placed upon decision of Hon'ble Gujarat HC in case of Bhanuvijaysingh M. Vaghela vs. Income-tax Officer which laid down the following:- "Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investment Where loose paper seized from residence of a third party was signed by assessee as well as third party which indicated that amount in question was given by assessee by way of loan, same was rightly taxed under section 69 in hand of assessee [In favour of revenue]" Thus, in light of above discussion and case laws, it can fairly be concluded that the assessee has received on money which was rightly treated as unexplained money under section 69A and added to the total income by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A).”
4. The learned Departmental Representative has made submissions vide Para–2 and 3, quoted above in the gist of submissions filed by the learned Departmental Representative.
Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted a Paper Book containing the following.
1. A copy of agreement to sale 2. A copy of bank statement of Shri Shailesh Vakharia in Axis Bank 3. A copy of bank statement of Shri. Suresh Vakharia in IDBI Bank 4. A copy of Sale Deed dated 29/09/2017 5. A copy of Order passed in the matter of DCIT v/s. Shri Brindesh Govardhandas Agrawal, ITA No. 258/NAG/2023.
Further, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted a synopsis of argument which is as follows:-
7 Shailesh Champaklal Vakharia ITA no.344/Nag./2023 “A search was carried out at residence of Shri Parag Vakharia on 11/07/2019 where a draft agreement to sale [“DAS”] of immovable property situated at Plot No. 15, NIT, Municipal House No. 1366, ward no. 23, City Survey No. 208, Mouza Hiwari, Wardhaman Nagar, Nagpur was Seized and annexed as page no. 4 to 7, Annexure A/3. The DAS is between late Shri Suresh Vakharia, late Shri Shailesh Vakharia (assessee) and Shri Mahaveer Vakharia as sellers and Shri Brindesh Goverdhandas Agrawal as purchaser for a consideration of Rs. 5,21,00,000/-. A relevant portion of DAS is annexed as Annexure- B). Whereas, the sale deed dated 29/09/2017 is executed at Rs. 1,41,00,000/-. A relevant portion of sale deed showing sale consideration of Rs. 1,41,00,000/-, where the assessee was one of the member of the seller society i.e. Wardhaman Sahkari Griha Nirman Samiti Ltd., Nagpur, is annexed as Annexure-C. The DAS contains details regarding receipt of Rs. 14,85,000/- (a relevant portion of bank statement is annexed as Annexure-D) by assessee through cheque No. 275604 of Wardhaman Urban Co-op Bank and cash of Rs. 1,62,35,000/-. The Ld. AO completed the assessment by holding that if the amount of Rs. 14,85,000/- has been encashed by the assessee then 1/3 of the amount of Rs. 1,62,35,000/- mentioned in DAS has also been received in cash by the assessee. Thus made an addition of Rs. 54,11,666/- being 1/3rd share as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Being aggrieved by the order of the AO, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble CIT(A) who confirmed the impugned addition stating in a single line that I find no reason to interfere with the order after reproducing the fact and being aggrieved by which the Assessee is in appeal before this Hon’ble Tribunal for appropriate relief. The assessee argued that there is no signature of the buyer, no signature of witnesses, no date on the draft agreement to sale and the same is not even notarised. The agreement to sale is a photocopy document. The figures on the Das are hand written (rest is typed), many places are left blank/incomplete. The amount of Rs. 24,75,000/- (A relevant portion of bank statement is annexed as Annexure-E) (Rs. 14,85,000/- + Rs. 9,90,00/-) was duly returned back by the assessee on 05/10/2017 to the purchaser of the property. Furthermore, TDS of Rs. 20,000/- as mentioned in the agreement to sale was never deposited by the buyer and is not reflecting in the 26AS of the assessee. (Annexure-F). Hence, the DAS has no legal sanctity. It is also submitted that the presumption under Sec 292C or 132(4A) in the instant case is not against the assessee but against the person
8 Shailesh Champaklal Vakharia ITA no.344/Nag./2023 from whose possession such document is found. It is submitted that the provision of section 69A of the Act cannot be invoked in a vacuum only on the standalone basis of an unsigned document found from the possession of the third party. The purchaser (Mr. Brindesh Agrawal) denied making payment in cash (refer to para 4.1, page 4 of ITAT order in case of Brindesh Agrawal). In the case of purchaser (Mr. Brindesh Agrawal), the Hon’ble ITAT has deleted the addition made by the department [emphasizing para 9 of the order] (An order in the case of Brindesh Agarwal is annexed as Annexure-G) The sale deed was carried out at the consideration of Rs. 1,41,00,000/-. The sale deed is a conclusive proof of a transaction. No corroborative evidences was brought on record. The unilateral signed agreement without any corroborative evidence is a dumb document and no reliance can be placed on such dumb document for making any addition [CBI vs. V. C. Shukla [1998] 3 SCC 410]. As far as reply filed by the Ld. DR is concerned it is stated that no corroborative evidence have been brought on record by the Ld. DR. Further, the DAS is just a photocopy and the actual sale deed was never executed on the basis of the DAS, hence the DAS does not have any legal sanctity. The DR is trying to improve the case of the AO by stating that enhancement of amount by Rs. 78.15 Lakhs and Rs. 2,60,50,000/- should be done. Further, the gist of written submission filed by the Ld. DR states that it can be presumed that the amount payable are is paid. No addition can be made on the basis of assumption and presumption without bringing any corroborative evidences. Whereas, the department has not filed any Cross Objection and hence this ground cannot be raised at this juncture. The assessee in light of the above facts and judicial precedents prays that the appeal of the Assessee be allowed and the addition as made by the AO and confirmed by the Hon’ble CIT(A) be deleted.”
We find that the very same agreement of sale was duly taken cognizance by the Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, in appeal being ITA no.258/Nag./2023, in DCIT v/s Shri Brindesh Groverdhandas Agrawal, vide order dated 10/02/2025, wherein the Bench held as under:– “9. We have heard the rival arguments, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the Assessing Officer made addition on the basis
9 Shailesh Champaklal Vakharia ITA no.344/Nag./2023 of photocopy of sale deed where there is no signature of the assessee which was found at the residential premise of Shri Parag Suresh Vakharia. Further we find that the case of the assessee before us is, the assessee purchased a property through a registered sale deed dated 15/04/2017, for a consideration of ` 1,41,00,000, from Shri Wardhman Sahakari Griha Nirman Samiti Ltd. The assessee submitted that the no addition can be made on the basis of photocopy of sale agreement in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Moosa S. Madha and Azam S. Madha v/s CIT, 89 ITR 65 (SC). It is the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee that once the property is acquired through a registered sale deed, it is a conclusive proof for the sale mentioned in the sale deed which is final unless contrary is proved. We also find that the unsigned photocopy of sale agreement found at the premises of third party which the Assessing Officer has not allowed the assessee to cross–examine, therefore, the addition cannot survive. The Assessing Officer has relied on the paper which was found at the premises of third party, the assessee ought to have been provided opportunity by the Assessing Officer to cross– examine and no such cross–examination was provided which is clear violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered inAndaman Timber Industries v/s CIT, (2015) 62 taxmann.com 003 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when statements of witnesses are made basis of demand, not allowing assessee to cross-examine witnesses, is a serious flaw which makes order nullity, as it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, we hold that no interference is warranted in the order passed by the learned CIT(A) which is hereby upheld by dismissing the grounds raised by the Revenue.”
During the course of hearing, the learned Departmental Representative failed to submit any averments as to how the said order is distinguishable. In fact, while deleting the addition of ` 1,62,35,000, in the hands of purchaser, the learned CIT(A) has held as under:– “The appellant has raised Nine grounds of appeal
out of which ground no.1, ground no. 2, ground no. 4, ground no. 5, ground no. 6, ground no. 7, ground no. 8 and ground no. 9 are general in nature and not adjudicated. Hence these grounds of appeal are hereby dismissed. Ground no.
3. This ground is regarding the addition of Rs. 1,62,35,000/-u/s
69. The appellant purchased a property bearing Plot
10 Shailesh Champaklal Vakharia ITA no.344/Nag./2023 No. 51 at Central Road Section III scheme of NIT, Hiwari, Nagpur vide sale deed dated 29.9.2017 (related to AY 2018-19) for a total consideration of Rs. 1,41,00,000/- from Shri Wardhman Sahakari Griha Nirman Samiti Ltd. In the transaction, Shri Suresh akharia, Shri Shailesh C. Vakharia and Shri Mahaveer C. Vakharia are Oasenters. During search proceedings a document regarding agreement to sale was seized from the residence of Shri Parag Suresh Vakharia. This document is a photocopy of some agreement purported to be executed between Shri Suresh C. Vakharia, Shri Shailesh C. Vakharia and Shri Mahaveer C. Vakharia as sellers and Shri Brindesh Agrawal as purchaser. The document mentioned cash payment of Rs. 1,62,35,000/- by purchaser to the seller. On the basis of this document AO passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153C on 29.09.2021 and made an addition of Rs. 1,62,35,000/- being unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act to the returned income, treating the contents of this document as true. There is no corroborative evidence in the case to fasten the liability on the appellant. Insofar as the presumption under section 292C of the Act, it is now a settled law that the section imposes a rebuttable presumption. Of course, the appellant has to bring out clearly the reasons why reliance cannot be placed on the document. On perusal and careful consideration of the appellant submission I find merit in the arguments advanced in this behalf. The document is actually a photocopy seized from the premises of a third party and contents of this document cannot be verified independently as no original document of this nature has been found. The appellant has pleaded that a number of such photocopies can be prepared with malicious intent by the persons from whose custody the document has been recovered. Since the document has not been seized from the custody of the appellant it cannot be said to be belonging to the appellant. The document has not been signed by the appellant, the same is an undated document and it does not bear any imprint of the appellant to infer that the appellant was indeed in know of the document. settled law that the section imposes a rebuttable presumption. Of course, the appellant has to bring out clearly the reasons why reliance cannot be placed on the document. On perusal and careful consideration of the appellant submission I find merit in the arguments advanced in this behalf. The document is actually a photocopy seized from the premises of a third party and contents of this document cannot be verified independently as no original document of this nature has been found. The appellant has pleaded that a number of such photocopies can be prepared with malicious intent by the persons from whose custody the document has been recovered. Since the document has not been seized from the custody of the appellant it cannot beThe appellant has 11 Shailesh Champaklal Vakharia ITA no.344/Nag./2023 also painstakingly brought out that material facts like the payment by cheques as mentioned in the document are not mentioned in the actual sale deed executed on 29.09.2017 and registered under law. Further, the amounts mentioned in the said document are handwritten which have not been countersigned by the appellant as is required under law to presume that the contents are true. I also find that no evidence linking the appellant to the handwriting on the document is available. It is noteworthy that the document does not bear signatures of all other parties to the transaction also. From the assessment order it is seen that the AO made some inquiry from stamp vendor and concluded that the stamp paper, on which alleged agreement to sale is executed, was purchased by appellant. The appellant has vehemently denied this assertion and has categorically stated that he has got nothing to do with it. The paper was not purchased by the appellant. No such register/paper was ever signed by the appellant. It has also very forcefully argued that the Id. AO did not inform the appellant of this enquiry conducted behind his back. Further, the AO also erred grievously in not confronting the appellant with the said 'evidence' collected behind his back and which has also been put to use against him. This also is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon. Jurisdictional H.C. in the case of TLG India (P.) Ltd. [2019] 109 taxmann.com 261 (Bombay) wherein it is held that principle of natural justice is violated if AO didn't put material before appellant based on which he passed the order. The Hon'ble HC set aside the order for this reason. In the case of Ram Chander, the Income Tax Tribunal relied on certain data supplied by the Income Tax Department behind the back of the appellant and without giving an opportunity to the appellant to rebut the same. The Apex Court in the said case of Ram Chandervs Union of India &Ors 1986 SCC (4) 12 held as under: "In principle, there ought to be an observance of natural justice called equally at both stages...... If natural justice is violated at the first stage, the right to appeal is not so much a true right of appeal as a corrected initial hearing, instead of fair trial followed by appeal, the procedure is reduced to unfair trial followed by fair trial". The appellant has also relied on Surinder Nath Kapoor v. Union of India [1988] 39 Taxman 374, Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 1955 AIR 65, KirtilalKalidas& Co. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income- tax.[1998] 67 ITD 573 (Mad), etc in support. From the assessment order it is clear that the material collected by the AO from the said enquiry with the stamp vendor was never put before the appellant for his rebuttal. The ratios of various decisions cited supra including the one of the Hon. Jurisdictional H.C. can lead
12 Shailesh Champaklal Vakharia ITA no.344/Nag./2023 to only one conclusion that this indeed is a fatal flaw and the assessment order suffers from the vice of serious violation of natural justice. The AO has not brought on record any evidence in support of his claim that the appellant did pay a sum of Rs. 1,62,35,000/- over and above the value and amount mentioned in the registered sale deed for the purchase of property. of the assessment order I find that there is no confession from any of the sellers that he/they actually received Rs. 1,62,35,000/- in addition to amount mentioned in the registered sale deed. There is no such evidence coming from the person from whose custody and premises the impugned document has been seized. I also find that no corroborative evidence has been mentioned in the assessment order by the assessing officer. It is clear from the assessment order that the only evidence which has been relied upon by the assessing officer is the seizure of the impugned document. On facts, a very heavy reliance has been placed by the appellant on the decision of the ITAT Hyderabad 'B' bench in the case of DCIT (Central Circle)-6 Vs. B. Vijay Kumar in & 931 of 2009. On perusal of this decision it is seen that in that case also the addition was made entirely on the basis of a photocopy of an agreement seized during search operation. That photocopy was also not signed by the appellant In that case also the assessing officer did not have any credible evidence to establish any payment over and above the registered document. In para-11 of the order the honourable ITAT has held that, "In the appeal before us, excepting the photocopy of sale agreement, there is no other evidence on record found as a result of search or brought on record on the basis of enquiry conducted by the AO which could establish the fact that the actual consideration passed between the parties is not as mentioned in the registered sale deed but as per the sale agreement found during search operation" In that case also there was no evidence coming from the second party to the transaction that amount over and above that mentioned in the registered document had changed hands. The honourable ITAT in para 11 of the order further held that "The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Moosa S. Madha and Azam S. Madha vs. CIT (89 ITR 65) has held that photo copies have little evidentiary value. Therefore, photocopies of any document cannot by itself be considered as evidence for purpose of making addition in assessment proceedings. The AO is required to bring further evidence on record to show that the sale agreement was actually acted upon by the parties. This is because of the fact when the AO is going to make an addition, there should be sufficient evidence brought on record to support such addition. No addition can be made on conjectures and surmises." Considering all the above facts and circumstances of the case and especially that there is no corroborative evidence to fasten a liability on the appellant. The impugned addition of Rs. 1,62,35,000/- made
13 Shailesh Champaklal Vakharia ITA no.344/Nag./2023 u/s. 69 of the Act is therefore ordered to be deleted. Hence this ground of appeal is hereby "allowed".”
9. We have perused the documents produced by the learned counsel for the assessee, gist of written submission filed by the learned Departmental representative and Synopsis and paper book filed by the Learned Counsel for the assessee. We are quite perplexed to note that how an absolute diametric opposite view can be taken by the CIT(A) on the same set of transactions in the hands of the seller and such a view will portray miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) is set aside by allowing the grounds raised by the assessee.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16/06/2025