IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                        DELHI BENCHES : "H" NEW DELHI

                  BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT
             AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

                                  ITA No: 3622/Del/2012
                                   Asstt. Year : - 2005-06

              Vaneet Arora                 vs.          ACIT
                             st
              Unit No. 134, 1 Floor                     Central Circle ­ 19,
              Rectangle -1, Saket District Centre       New Delhi.
              New Delhi ­ 110 017
              (PAN AENPA1133P)

               (Appellant)                               (Respondent)

                       Appellant by       : Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
                       Respondent by      :Shri J.P. Chandrekar, Sr. DR

                     Date of Hearing       : 29.7.2015
               Date of pronouncement       : 11/08/2015

                             ORDER

PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT



     This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2005-06 is directed

against the order of the CIT(A). The assessee has filed an application for

adjournment of the case. No reasonable cause for adjournment has been shown by

the assessee and accordingly the application of the assessee for adjournment of the

case was rejected by the bench. The grounds of the appeal No. 2 & 3 of the

assessee are as under :-


      2.     "That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred on
             facts and law in upholding the addition of Rs. 2,67,500/- on account of
             alleged cash payment made for purchase of property.
      3.     That without prejudice the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the
             purchase price has been accepted by the Revenue in the hands of the other
             co-owner."
                                                        ITA No.3622/Del/2012
                                                     Vaneet Arora vs. ACIT







2.   Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate

that the purchase price of the property in question has been accepted by the

revenue in the hand of the other co owner of the property. He submitted that the

addition was made on the basis that the cash payment was made by the assessee in

accordance with the agreement to sell seized during the search operation. However

the said agreement to sell was never signed by the assessee or by the other co

purchaser of the property in question and therefore the document could not be

used against the assessee. He submitted that only one witness has signed one

receipt but the witness was never called for examination by the revenue. He

submitted that no other evidence could be produced by the revenue to assess the

amount of Rs. 2,67,500/- in the hands of the assessee.

3.    Ld. DR has opposed the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. He

submitted that the document of agreement to sell was found from the premises of

the assessee during the course of search operation. He submitted that merely

because the assessee or the other co-owner of the property has not signed the

document, it could not be said that same could not be relied by the AO who make

the impugned addition. He referred the relevant portion of the order of the AO and

the CIT(A) in support of the case of the revenue. He relied on the order of the AO

and CIT(A).

4.     We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the order of the

CIT(A). We find that the revenue could not controvert the submission of the Ld.

Counsel for the assessee that the purchase price of the property in question has

been accepted by the AO in the hands of the other co purchaser of the property.

Moreover the revenue authorities have accepted that the agreement to sell was not


                                                                                       2
                                                           ITA No.3622/Del/2012
                                                        Vaneet Arora vs. ACIT

signed by the purchaser or the other co-owner of the property. Likewise the

"receipt" was also not signed by any of the buyers and only one witness has signed

thereon. We find that the AO did not make any further investigation in this matter

and has not called the seller of the property or the witness who has signed the

document for examination and recording of the statement. We find that no other

incriminating material was recovered from the possession of the assessee or the

other co purchaser of the property to sustain the addition on preponderance of

human probabilities . In these facts of the case and in view of the facts that the

document relied upon by the AO was not signed by the assessee or the other co

purchaser of the property and that the AO did not make any further inquiries by

recording statements of the sellers or any of the witness, we are of view that the

addition of Rs. 2.67 lacs for payment made over and above the consideration

mentioned in the sale deed could not be sustained and is accordingly deleted and

the grounds of the appeal No. 2 and 3 are allowed. In view of our deciding the issue

on merits in favour of the assessee, we are not adjudicating the legal issues raised

by the assessee in ground No. 1 of the appeal regarding validity of notice u/s 153A

of the Act.







5.     In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as above.


      Order pronounced in the open court on 11/8/2015.

               sd/-                                     sd/-

      (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY)                         (G.C. GUPTA)
     ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                           VICE PRESIDENT
Dated: the 11/8/ 2015
`veena'




                                                                                       3
                                                                    ITA No.3622/Del/2012
                                                                 Vaneet Arora vs. ACIT

Copy of the Order forwarded to:

1.    Appellant
2.    Respondent
3.    CIT
4.    CIT(A)
5.    DR
6.    Guard File                              By order
                                                         Dy. Registrar

Sl.                    Description                        Date
No.

 1.   Date of dictation by the Author                29.7.2015

 2.   Draft placed before the Dictating Member       30.7.2015

 3.   Draft placed before the Second Member

 4.   Draft approved by the Second Member

 5.   Date of approved order comes to the Sr. PS

 6.   Date of pronouncement of order

 7.   Date of file sent to the Bench Clerk

 8.   Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk

 9.   Date of dispatch of order




                                                                                           4