itxa 1737 2016.odt IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1737 OF 2016 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) 4 .. Appellant. v/s. M/s. Phoenix Mills Ltd., .. Respondent. Mr. Tejveer Singh, for Appellant. Mr. Madhur Agrawal i/b. Mr. A. K. Jasani, for Respondent. CORAM: AKIL KURESHI & M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : 26th FEBRUARY, 2019. P.C: Revenue is in Appeal against Judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short Tribunal ), following question was pressed at time of arguments: Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in deleting addition of Rs.4 Crores u/s. 69C of I.T. Act, based on notings in seized documents information in respect of finalizing transaction by payment of Rs.8 Crores to tenants as against Rs.4 Crores shown in books, without appreciating that as per provisions of section 132(4A) presumption are that (a) seized document found in premises of assessee belong to assessee and (b) contents seized documents are true and that assessee had failed to rebut above presumptions? S.R.JOSHI 1 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2019 13:41:28 ::: itxa 1737 2016.odt 2 Brief facts are as under: (a) Respondent Assessee is public limited company. In search and seizure operation, various documents were collected, one of them being e mail sent by one Mr. Siva, communicating to Assessee that Maharajji had asked for sum of Rs.8 Crores plus 300 feet shop for vacating premises. Finally, he has, however agreed to accept sum of Rs.8 Crores but that entire payment should be made through cheque. assessee's books of account showed that, said Maharajji received payment of Rs. 4 Crores through banking transactions. Assessing Officer was of opinion that, assessee had paid further sum of Rs.4 Crores in cash and, therefore, added same in hands of assessee under Section 69C of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). (b) This issue eventually reached Tribunal. Tribunal held that, addition could not have been made. Tribunal referred to contents of e mail and observed that, other than e mail, there was no further evidence on record, suggesting any payment in addition to Rs.4 Crores made through banking channels. Tribunal also noted assessee's contention that, after negotiation, tenant had agreed to accept compensation of Rs.4 Crores which assessee had paid. (c) Tribunal also compared rate of compensation per square feet of area in possession of different tenants and held that, if factum of payments of Rs.8 Crores to Maharajji is believed, same would give distorted picture. Inter alia, on such grounds, Tribunal deleted addition. S.R.JOSHI 2 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2019 13:41:28 ::: itxa 1737 2016.odt 3 Having heard learned Counsel for parties and having perused documents on record, we do not find that Tribunal had committed any error. Essentially, entire issue is factual in nature. Tribunal noted that, other than contents of e mail, there was no further evidence of cash payment of Rs.4 Crores. As correctly pointed out by Counsel for Assesssee, e mail communication was more in nature of offer or demand by tenant,which was not confirmed by assessee and further that, such demand also contained clause that, entire payment be made through cheque. Surely, Revenue cannot rely on one portion of document and discard other that too without any other evidence in this regard, being available on record. 4 In result, no question of law arises. Appeal dismissed. (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) (AKIL KURESHI,J.) Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-4 v. Phoenix Mills Ltd