Held that\u00a0 with respect to the addition on account of capital gains the Assessing Officer had not brought anything on record to show that the transaction actually happened for the amount as mentioned in the entry nor recorded any adverse finding with regard to the transaction during the course of survey conducted under section\u00a0133A. The Assessing Officer did not establish the nexus that the entry found during the course of search with the assessee and how the amount mentioned therein as received by T was indeed received on behalf of the assessee and not someone else. The assessee was not given proper opportunity to confront the allegations as the Assessing Officer did not furnish the actual details of material seized. The assessee had substantiated by producing the sale deed which was registered much before the date of the entry found during the course of search that the actual transaction happened for an amount of Rs. 90 lakhs only, which according to the registered sale deed had already been paid to the assessee. Given this, the burden was on the Assessing Officer to prove that the assessee received some additional \u201con-money\u201d payments and the Assessing Officer had not brought sufficient material on record against the assessee warranting the addition. The Commissioner (Appeals) had given a clear finding while deleting the additions and there was no reason to interfere with his order on this issue. (AY. 2008-09)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 69A : Unexplained money-Search and Seizure-Capital gains-On money \u2013Burden of proof-Sale of land-Entry found in software of company whose premises search showing sale of land by assessee-Sale deed was registered much before date of entry found during search-Burden on Assessing Officer to prove assessee received additional \u201cOn-Money\u201d Not Discharged-Addition on basis of entry is not sustainable. [S.45,68, 132(4A), 133A] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-41181","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-aId","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41181","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=41181"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41181\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":41182,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41181\/revisions\/41182"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41181"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41181"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41181"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}