ACIT CIRCLE-30(1), NEW DELHI vs. BEENA AGGARWAL, NEW DELHI

Brief facts of the case as culled out from the material on record are as under :-

Assessee is an individual who had originally filed her return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 on 31.07.2010 declaring total income at Rs.7,90,930/- which was initially processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act which was served on the assessee. Consequently, assessment was framed

Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide order dated 24.01.2019 in Appeal No.186/2017-18 granted substantial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal and has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “That, in facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of Rs.10,52,00,000/- made on account of undisclosed capital gain.

Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). Before CIT(A), assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment and also the addition made on merits. CIT(A) for the reasons noted in the order upheld the reopening of the assessment but on the merits of the addition, he deleted the addition. The reasoning of CIT(A) for deleting the addition was that AO had made the addition on the basis of an undated and unsigned sale agreement found in hard disk seized from the residential premises of Shri Naresh Gupta during the course of search and seizure operation without any corroborative evidence. He held that unsigned, undated and unregistered document seized from 3rd party’s place has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law more so when finally the property was not transferred on the basis of any such agreement to sell but was transferred on the basis of registered sale deeds which was executed on 28.01.2010 or 03.02.2010 respectively. He has further noted that the sale price of immovable property as per the registered sale deeds have been accepted by the Department and there have been no further proceedings in the case of buyers of the property. He has further noted that AO was asked by CIT(A) to verify whether any action taken by Department in the case of the buyer of the property and AO was also telephonically reminded but there was no response from the AO. He accordingly held that no addition could be made on the basis of unregistered, undated and unsigned alleged draft agreement. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now before Tribunal.

Learned AR on the other hand reiterated the submissions made before lower authorities and supported the orders of CIT(A).

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue in the present grounds is with respect to the addition of Rs.10.52 crore made by AO but deleted by CIT(A). We find that CIT(A) while deleting the addition has given a finding that addition has been made by AO on the basis of undated, unsigned and unregistered draft agreement that was seized from the hard disk of Shri Naresh Gupta during the course of search and seizure operation and without any contrary evidence. He had further given a finding that the property has not been transferred on the basis of the unsigned sale agreement found from the hard disk of Naresh Gupta but was transferred on the basis of registered sale deeds which was executed on 28.01.2010 or 03.02.2010. He has further noted that during the appellate proceedings before him, the AO was asked to verify as to whether the addition have been made in the case of buyers of the property or any other proceedings being initiated in the case of buyers. He has noted that no response was received from AO meaning thereby that value of purchase of property in the case of buyer have been accepted by Revenue. Before us, Revenue has not pointed to any fallacy in the finding or reasoning of CIT(A). We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed.