Itxa/1682/2016 Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-19 v. Ashok Mehta

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1682 OF 2016 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-19 .. Appellant v/s. Ashok Mehta .. Respondent Mr. Ashok Kotangle I/b Padma Divakar for the appellant Mr. Sashi Tulsiyan I/b P.C. Tripathi for the respondent CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & M.S. SANKLECHA, J.J. P.C. DATED : 4[th] FEBRUARY, 2019 1.This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(the Act) challenges the order dated 9[th] December, 2015 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). This appeal relates toAssessment Year 2007-08. 2.The Revenue urges the following substantial question of law forour consideration :- (i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the caseand in law, the Tribunal erred in deleting the addition ofRs.6,84,60,000/- made as undisclosed investment u/s 69 of theAct ? 3.The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment for A.Y. 2007-08.This consequent to information obtained during the course of searchoperation conducted in the case of Bharat Shah Group, which wasengaged in real estate business. In the course of raid, certain loosepapers were found which related to the sale transactions of flats. Therespondent assessee is an individual who declared a total income ofRs.29,920/- in its return of income for Assessment Year 2007-08. TheAssessing Officer during the course of reassessment proceedings on thebasis of loose papers obtained from Bharat Shah Group, inferred thatthe assessee had paid cash of Rs.6.84 crores to purchase flats. Thisinvestment was concluded from undisclosed income. Thus, adding thesame as undisclosed income under Section 69 of the Act in theassessment order dated 20[th] March, 2013 passed under Section 143(3)r/w Section 147 of the Act. 4.Being aggrieved, the respondent assessee filed an appeal to theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. By order dated 28[th]February, 2014 the CIT(A) on the factual examination of the evidencebefore him came to the conclusion that loose sheet of papers reliedupon by the Assessing Officer did not have any signature nor contain name of the assessee nor did it mention the rate at which the flat wassold. Further, the builder as well as the respondent assessee haddenied that any payments were made and / or received in cash inpurchase of the flat. Thus, it held that no reliance can be placed onsuch documents to conclude that the respondent had made payments incash and to tax the same as his undisclosed income. Therefore,allowing the appeal of the respondent. 5.On further appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal on examinationof the record inter alia came to the same figure as recorded by theCIT(A). Thus, dismissed the Revenue's appeal. 6.We find that the two authorities have concurrently come to afinding of fact that loose papers does not have any signature of anyperson nor did it contain name of the respondent. We note that theloose document is a dumb document as it does not give any particularsof the persons involved in the alleged transaction. Thus, it is not opento the Assessing Officer to draw inferences from the document byinterpreting the words “Sh” to mean cash payment and “Q” to meancheque payment without any evidence on record. The CIT(A) as well asthe Tribunal have concurrently rendered a finding of fact, which is not shown to be perverse in any manner. In the above view, the questionas proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 7.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.)