JUDGMENT

1. Following questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Revenue:

1) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the amount of Rs.42 crore was taken by the assessee as security and the same cannot be termed as undisclosed income and as such outside the purview of block assessment under Chapter XIV-B of Income Tax Act, 1961?

2) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in confirming the order of CIT(A) and thereby deleting the addition of Rs.30 crore made by the. Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash payment made by the assessee to Sh. S.K. Jatia to acquire land in village Tigra?

3) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in confirming the order of CIT(A) in reducing the addition of Rs.45,08,971/- to Rs.6,35,525/, made by the Assessing Officer, on account of unaccounted cash recorded in seized cash slips ignoring the statement recorded during the proceedings which revealed that this cash was over and above the amount recorded in the books of accounts?

4) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in confirming the order of. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.92 lacs made by the Assessing Officer on account of commission paid to M/s Televista Electronics Limited on sale of plot in Sushant Lok to M/s Vatika Green Field Limited ignoring the relevant provisions of section 158B(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

5) Whether order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse in law as well as on facts in respect of the items referred to in the questions hereinabove?"

Re: Question No.1

2. The facts in brief in respect of this question are as narrated below; the Assessing Officer (AO) brought to tax an amount of Rs.42 crores for the alleged suppressed sale proceeds of property at 27, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi (the "property" or "the premises"). The assessee [hereafter "APIL"] had entered into an agreement with the owner of (the property) Late Dr. Raghunath for development of the property on 18.03.1971. A further agreement was entered into between the legal heirs of Late Dr. Raghunath, tenants/other parties and the assessee under which property was assigned for consideration to the assessee for construction of a commercial complex. The assessee, in 1980 filed a suit for specific performance before this court. During the pendency of the suit, the owners of the property sold the property to M/s. Mahajan Industries (P) Ltd. (as presently known-called hereafter as "Mahajan"). The suit for specific performance of agreement dated 06.07.1977 was decreed in favour of the assessee on 17.09.1991 against which Mahajan preferred an appeal. An out of court settlement was arrived between the assessee and Mahajan, the terms of which were set out in MOU dated 27.08.1994; under that the asseessee's share in multistoreyed complex to be built (with its funds) was to be 40%. On 01.04.1995, the assessee entered into an agreement with M/s Verka Investments Pvt. Ltd. ["VIPL" hereafter] whereby the latter acquired (from the assessee) the right of 40% in built up area along-with the obligation to develop and constitute multistoreyed complex for a total consideration of Rs.42 Crores. Thereafter, a confirmatory agreement was entered into amongst the assessee, VIPL and Mahajan, whereby the latter (Mahajan) accepted that the assessee's obligation to construct and complete the commercial complex shall be carried out by M/s VIPL and that after deposit of Rs.40 Crores with the assessee under the agreement dated 01.04.1995, M/s VIPL shall be entitled to book and sell 40% of total built up area in its own name.

3. On 10.02.2000, a search was carried out on Ansal Group of companies and its Directors (including APIL and its directors). During the course of search, a 'Note" (Annexure A-3) was found and seized from the residence of Shri Deepak Ansal, Managing Director, Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. The 'Note' related to tax provision in respect of the property a