NAVNEET JHAMB Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common order, three appeals bearing ITA Nos. 496, 497 and 3508 of 2018 are being disposed of as similar issue is involved. The assessment years involved are 2001-02 to 2003-04. For the sake of convenience, facts from ITA No. 497 of 2018 are taken. Following substantial questions of law have been claimed:

(2.) Though number of substantial questions have been claimed, yet the pin-pointed controversy is:

(3.) The facts of the case are that on 4.8.2005, search and seizure was conducted at the premises of the appellant, he is partner of the real estate broker concern, namely, Reliance Estate Agency. Certain documents and loose papers were seized from his residential premises. Notice under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') was issued, return was filed declaring income of Rs.4,13,720/-. Apart from other additions, the Assessing Officer made addition on account of undisclosed earned profit on sale of industrial plots at village Jharsentli, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. The land was owned by M/s Indo American Electricals Limited (hereinafter described as 'the seller'). Manmohan Singh was the Managing Director of the company. It was noted that M/s Reliance Estate Agency was appointed by the seller to advertise and procure bids for sale of the land. M/s TML Investments (P) Ltd. showed interest but the deal did not mature, thereafter plots were subsequently sold. The Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that actual sale consideration of 16 plots tabulated in the assessment order was much more than the figures shown in the registered sale-deeds. The Assessing Officer relying upon the loose sheet seized, mentioning the amount received in cash and cheques calculated the profit and divided the same in half vis-a-vis the assessee and Manmohan Singh, Managing Director of the seller-company. The assessment was finalised on 24.12.2007. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 28.1.2011 partly allowed the appeal, however, sustained the additions of profit. Further appeal was filed before the Tribunal which was dismissed on 25.6.2018, hence the present appeal.