ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD V. JIVIBEN RAMBHAI BHARWAD, AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 68/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which had deleted an addition of Rs. 12.36 crores made by the Assessing Officer under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The addition was based on the alleged receipt of unaccounted cash from a land transaction. The primary evidence against the assessee, Jiviben Rambhai Bharwad, was a digital image found on the mobile phone of a land broker, Suresh R. Thakkar, and his subsequent statements. However, these were contested and retracted, and no corroborative evidence was found to substantiate the claims of unaccounted income. The Tribunal, referencing various judicial precedents, concluded that mere statements and uncorroborated documents could not substantiate the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 772253 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. S.M. Aggarwal, Surendra M. Khandhar v. ACIT, P.R Metrani v. CIT, Common Cause v. Union of India, ACIT v. Gyan Chand Batra, CIT v. Durga Prasad More, Sumati Dayal v. CIT, K. Mehta & Co. -Vs- ACIT, ACIT vs. Shanker Nebhumal Uttamchandani
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Fair market value; Period of limitation; Retraction; Principle of natural justice; Search and seizure; Time period of passing order
• Section: 143(3); 132; 153A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member The ACIT Central Circle-2(3), Ahmedabad (Appellant) Vs Jiviben Rambhai Bharwad Parishram, Makarba Gam, Bharwad Vas, Ahmedabad-380051 Gujarat PAN: ABXPB1574A (Respondent) Revenue Represented: Shri R. P. Rastogi, CIT-DR Assessee Represented: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA & Ms. Sneha M Padhiar, CA Date of hearing : 05-08-2025 Date of pronouncement : 27-08-2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the Revenue as against the appellate order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad arising out of the assessment order passed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2019-20 2. Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Act carried out in the group of cases known as “Land IT(SS)A No. 68/Ahd/2025 Asst. Year: 2019-20 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.(SS)A No. 68/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No ACIT Vs. Jiviben Rambhai Bharwad 2 Broker and Financer Group” on 15-10-2019. The assessee case was covered u/s.132 of the Act since she is the wife of Shri Dhiren R Bharwad. Search action was also carried out simultaneously at the residential premises of the land broker namely Shri Suresh R Thakkar. In the course of search, Cell Phone Images found and seized from Mobile Phone of Shri Suresh R Thakkar at Page No. 122 to 124. Based on the images and statement of Shri Suresh R Thakkar, the AO concluded that the assessee had received alleged cash of Rs.12.36 crores over and above land transaction bearing Survey No. 341. This amount represents 25% of the total on-money involved in the deal which proportionate to assessee’s share in the property. Thus, the AO completed the assessment u/s. 153A of the Act by making addition of Rs.12.36 crores as undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee for the Asst. Year 2019-20. 3. Aggrieved against the assessment order, assessee filed appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who considered the issue in detail, the submissions on record and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing as follows: “… 7.3. I have carefully perused the submission furnished by the appellant and assessment order passed by the AO. On perusal of the assessment order, it is observed that during the course of search action at the residential premises of Shri Suresh R Thakkar, digital images in the form of page no. 122 and 124 were retrieved from the mobile phone of Shri Suresh R Thakkar. Shri Suresh Thakkar statement dated 30/11/2019 & 02/12/2019 inter-alia deposed that the deal of the land was earned out through him and the owners of the land including assessee has received on-money over and above the documented value. The relevant part of the statement of Shri Suresh Thakkar has been reproduced on page No.3 & 4 of the assessment order. On the basis of the statement and evidence found in the mobile phone of Shri Suresh Thakkar, the AO made addition of on- money Rs.12.36,70,125/- (being 25% of Rs.49,46,80,500/-) received by the Printed from counselvise.com I.T.(SS)A No. 68/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No ACIT Vs. Jiviben Rambhai Bharwad 3 appellant on sale of land bearing survey No.341 located at Makarba from M/s. Stone Touch Infraspace LLP. 7.4 The appellant has stated that Sh. Suresh Thakkar had retracted statement by filing an affidavit dated 31.03.2021 before the A.O. of the appellant. In fact, he had addressed to the A.O. a letter dated 12.03.2021 clarifying the correct facts. The A.O. has not examined him subsequent to retraction made by him. Further, it has been stated that the appellant was not given an opportunity of cross-examination of Sh. Suresh Thakkar. The appellant also submitted that he brought to the notice of the AO that Sh. Suresh Thakkar has given various incorrect statements. …………………… From the discussion held above, the facts merges as under: It is undisputed fact that neither Sh. Suresh Thakkar has received any brokerage nor appellant has paid any brokerage to him. The A.O. has also accepted these facts as no addition of brokerage has been made in the assessment of Sh. Suresh Thakkar towards the land deal bearing survey no. 340/1 and 341 situated at Makarba, Ahmedabad. Therefore, statement of Sh. Suresh R. Thakkar (reproduced in the asstt. order on pg.3) that this deal has been done through him is not found correct. It is also an irrefutable fact that the seized material did not have the name of the parties, their signature, nature of transaction or details of terms and conditions of the transactions. However, in absence of such details, the AO has not conducted any independent enquiries. On confronting the alleged image to Sh. Suresh Thakkar, he has stated that the lands bearing survey no 340/1 and 341 have been sold to Dhiren Ramanlal Shah whereas the actual fact is the said land was never sold to him. The land bearing no 340/1 and 341 are sold Vinod Shah, Sonal Shah, Stone Touch Infraspace LLP. Adibunally, in the statement of Shri Suresh Thakka: dated 02.12.2019 in answer to question no 6, he has referred to MOU and as per the MOU, the otal sale consideration is Rs. 87,48,26,160/- however, no such MGU was found from the premises of Shri Suresh Thakkar or the appellant's premises. It is also pertinent to mention here that no independent inquiries were made by the AO to verify the correctness of contents of the alleged image and truthfulness of the statement of Sh. Suresh Thakkar. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.(SS)A No. 68/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No ACIT Vs. Jiviben Rambhai Bharwad 4 iv. The name of the buyer mentioned by Sh. Suresh Thakkar ie., Sh. Dhiren Ramanlal Shah is not the actual buyer to whom the land has been sold. The AO has imposed rate of the land and others terms and conditions decided with Sh. Dhirenbhai Ramanlal Shah (in respect of both the land) on the actual purchasers i.e. Sh. Vinod Shah, Ms. Sonal Shah, M/s Stone Touch Infraspace LLP. v. The appellant has submitted that the AO has failed to examine Shri Suresh Thakkar again, particularly after the retraction made by him. There is no evidence brought by the AO that such huge cash has been received by the appellant in fact the appellant has filed an affidavit of the purchaser stating the correct facts and also confirmed that no on-money is paid in the impugned transactions. vi. The AO has merely relied on the statement of Shri Suresh Thakkar based on assumption or presumption since no independent inquiry was made by the A.O. in respect of the seized document and statement recorded during the search. The AO has failed to establish the link between the contents of the image with the actual transactions. If there were different buyers then the notings of each buyer would have been different and terms and conditions of it. 7.6 In addition to the above facts, it is important to mention here that the assessment orders have been passed in the case of purchasers, namely Ms. Sonal Rajiv Shah, Sh Vinod Mangaldas Shah and M/s. Stone Touch Infraspace LLP in which no adverse view has been taken by the A.O. in the assessments completed u/s. 153C of the Act. The said assessment orders have been passed by the very same A.O.,i.e, ACIT-CC. 2(3), who has passed the impugned order. The assessment orders have been passed much after the datement urges the of the appellant. The A while issuing show cause notice to the appellant has determined, and cumulated (he assessment in making addition in the hands of the appellant for the year under consideration on the ground that M/s. Stone Touch Infraspace LLP has paid on-money of Rs. 49,46,80,500/- to Shri Dhiren R. Bharwad & Others for purchasing of land bearing survey No. 341. However, the assessment proceedings in the case of M/s Stone Touch Infraspace LLP were initiated on the issue of alleged on-money payment to Shri Dhiren Bhanwad & Others towards the purchase of land bearing survey no 341 but completed without taking any adverse view in the case of M/s. Stone Touch Infraspace LLP in the assessment orders u/s 153C of the Act. The AO in the assessment order himself admitted the fact that Shri Dhiren Printed from counselvise.com I.T.(SS)A No. 68/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No ACIT Vs. Jiviben Rambhai Bharwad 5 Ramanlal Shah has not purchased the land under reference as the deal could not be materialized with Shri Dhiren Ramanlal Shah meaning thereby alleged payment of on-money has not been made by Shri Dhiren Ramanlal Shah. Thereafter, on the basis of information available on public domain (copy of 7/12 abstract of land bearing survey no.340/1 and 341) and statement of Shri Suresh R. Thakkar, the AO concluded that payment of on-money towards the purchase of land under reference has been made by actual purchasers le Ms Sonal Rajiv Shah, Sh. Vinod Mangaldas Shah and M/s. Stone Touch Infraspace LLP Based on the said statement, assessment proceedings u/s 153C of the Act were initiated in the case of Ms. Sonal Rajiv Shah, Sh. Vinod Mangaldas Shah and M/s Stone Touch infraspace LLP, however, no addition of purported payment of on-money was made by the same AO in these cases for the AYs under the assessment u/s 153C of the Act. The AO's decision not to make any additions in the cases of Ms. Sonal Rajiv Shah, Shri Vinod Mangaldas Shah, and M/s. Stone Touch Infraspace LLP, clearly establishes that the purchasers, including M/s. Stone Touch Infraspace LLP, did not make any payment of on-money for the purchase of land bearing Survey No. 341 to Shri Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad & Others, including the appellant, who is a co-owner of the land. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the said image having some handwritten notings cannot be the basis for addition made as there is no specific evidence brought by the AO that the appellant has received the amount of Rs. 12.36,70,125/- in cash against the land under reference. The said image cannot be a basis for the conclusion reached by the AO and on the basis of said image, a presumption cannot be raised about receipt of cash of Rs.12.36 crore. The AO has not brought any corroborative material to suggest that cash amount of Rs.12 36 crore has been received by the appellant. Moreover, the AO has not conducted any further enquiry to substantiate the addition. More importantly, no addition has been made in the hands of the purchasers.” 3.1. The Ld. CIT(A) considered various judgments passed by High Courts and Tribunals and deleted the addition of Rs. 12.36 crores made by the assessing officer. 4. Aggrieved against the appellate order, Revenue is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: Printed from counselvise.com I.T.(SS)A No. 68/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No ACIT Vs. Jiviben Rambhai Bharwad 6 1. Deletion of Addition Based on Corroborative Evidence: That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of 212,36,70,125/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 1534 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on account of unaccounted cash consideration received from the sale of immovable property, without appreciating that the addition was based on specific, credible, and corroborated evidence recovered in the course of a valid search action conducted under section 132 of the Act. 2. Mischaracterization of Seized Evidence as \"Dumb Document\": The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in characterizing the seized image file \"IMG-20191002-WA0020.jpg\", containing detailed handwritten particulars of land area, consideration, rates, and payment schedule, as a mere \"dumb document\", while ignoring its corroboration with the registered sale deed, sworn statements recorded under section 131, and public domain records and rejection of such evidence is contrary to the ratio laid down in CIT v. S.M. Aggarwal [(2007) 293 ITR 43 (Del)] and Surendra M. Khandhar v. ACIT [(2010) 321 ITR 254 (Bom)]. 3. Failure to Invoke Presumption under Section 292C: The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in not invoking the statutory presumption under section 292C of the Act in respect of documents found during the search, which are deemed to be true and belonging to the assessee as the assessee has failed to discharge the burden of rebuttal with any cogent or contemporaneous evidence as has been held in the case of P.R Metrani v. CIT [(2006) 287 ITR 209 (SC)). 4. Erroneous Jurisdictional Finding Regarding Section 153C: The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in holding that the assessment ought to have been completed under section 153C instead of section 153A, overlooking the fact that the assessee was a person searched under section 132 and the seized materials specifically pertained to her. The reliance on decisions relating to third-party searches is misplaced and correct legal position is settled by CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears [(2014) 362 ITR 673 (SC)). 5. Unwarranted Disregard of Statement under Section 131: The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in disregarding the sworn statement of Shri Suresh Thakkar recorded under section 131, which directly implicated the assessee in receipt of 212.75 crore in cash and that the belated and unsubstantiated retraction of this statement lacks evidentiary value as no complaint of coercion or duress was made contemporaneously and the Printed from counselvise.com I.T.(SS)A No. 68/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No ACIT Vs. Jiviben Rambhai Bharwad 7 settled position of law, as held in Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India ((1997) 1 SCC 508], is that such retractions, when not supported by proof, do not diminish the probative value of the original sworn statement. 6. Acceptance of Self-Serving Affidavits Without Verification: The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in accepting post-facto, self-serving affidavits of the purchasers without subjecting the same to cross- examination or independent verification, despite inconsistencies vis-à-vis the seized material. This amounts to a breach of principles of natural justice and renders the order unsustainable. 7. Reliance on Inapplicable Judicial Precedents: The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in placing reliance on judicial pronouncements such as CIT v. Girish Chaudhary ((2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del)), PCIT v. Anand Kumar Jain, and Atul Kumar Gupta v. ACIT, which are distinguishable on facts and inapplicable to the present case, where the incriminating document was found during search of the assessee and was directly linked to her transaction. 8. Non-Application of the Test of Human Probabilities: The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in not applying the judicial test of human probabilities, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Durga Prasad More [(1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC)] and Sumati Dayal v. CIT ((1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC)], in the face of gross undervaluation in the registered sale deed as compared to the fair market value, clearly indicating receipt of unaccounted consideration. 9. Misplaced Procedural Objections under Indian Evidence Act and DIN Requirements: The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in accepting procedural objections relating to the absence of a certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and non-mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) on the approval under section 153D as Income-tax proceedings are not strictly governed by the Indian Evidence Act, and electronic records are admissible if otherwise reliable as has been held in the case of ACIT v. Gyan Chand Batra ((2010) 133 TTJ 482 (ITAT Jaipur)) and further, the CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019 clearly stipulates that absence of DIN does not invalidate a proceeding unless prejudice is shown-which is absent in this case. 10. Irrelevance of Absence of Action Against Purchasers: The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in holding that absence of addition in the hands of the purchasers undermines the case against the assessee ignoring Printed from counselvise.com I.T.(SS)A No. 68/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No ACIT Vs. Jiviben Rambhai Bharwad 8 that what is material is the fact of actual receipt of income by the assessee, irrespective of whether the payer is taxed, as has been held in the case of Ajay Traders v. ITO ((2013) 38 taxmann.com 382 (Guj)). 11. Perverse and Legally Unsustainable Appellate Order: The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in passing an order that is perverse, ignores material evidence on record, and is contrary to the legal framework under sections 132(44), 153A, and 292C of the Act and the order fails to consider the totality of facts, surrounding circumstances, and corroborative material, and thus warrants reversal in its entirety. 12. General Ground: The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 5. The assessee invoking Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules raised the following Grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the addition of Rs. 12,36,70,125/- made by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment u/s. 153A of the Act is bad in law as no incriminating material supporting the above addition has been found from the premises of the assessee during the course of search. 2. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend or alter, the foregoing grounds. 6. At the outset, Ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue submitted that he is not pressing Ground Nos. 3, 4 & 9. Recording the same, Ground Nos. 3, 4 & 9 are dismissed. Ld. CIT-DR appearing for the Revenue in support of his grounds submitted that the order passed by the assessing officer is to be sustained. 7. Per contra, Ld. Counsel Shri Vijay Mehta appearing for the assessee supported the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and also filed before us copies of the statement, retraction statement of Printed from counselvise.com I.T.(SS)A No. 68/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No ACIT Vs. Jiviben Rambhai Bharwad 9 Suresh R Thakkar and other Partners of M/s. Stone Touch Infra Space LLP, Affidavit and clarification explanation filed by Shri Dhiren R. Shah before the assessing officer and various case laws in support of its claim in the paper book running to 197 pages. After concluding of the hearing, the assessee counsel also filed Co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal decision in the case of K. Mehta & Co. -Vs- ACIT in IT(SS)A No.74/Ahd/2024 dated 03-03-2025 wherein similar additions made based on the statement of land broker Shri Suresh R Thakkar. Thus, Ld Counsel pleaded that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) does not require any interference. 8. We have heard rival submissions at length and perused the materials available on record including the paper book and case laws filed by the assessee. The Ld AO based on the digital images found from the mobile phone of Suresh R Thakkar more particularly Page Nos.122 to 124 held that the assessee received on-money of Rs.12,36,70,125/- being her 1/4th share in land Survey No.341 which is reproduced at Page No.11 of the assessment order. Whereas the very same assessing officer in the case of the purchaser of land namely M/s. Stone Touch Infra Space LLP in which no adverse view has been taken by the A.O. in the assessment completed u/s.153C of the Act which was also passed by the very same Assessing Officer ACIT-CC 2(3). The AO in the assessment order himself admitted the fact that Shri Dhiren Ramanlal Shah has not purchased the land under reference as the deal could not be materialized with Shri Dhiren Ramanlal Shah meaning thereby alleged payment of on-money has not been made by Shri Dhiren R Shah. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.(SS)A No. 68/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No ACIT Vs. Jiviben Rambhai Bharwad 10 8.1. Thereafter, on the basis of information available on public domain (copy of 7/12 abstract of land bearing survey no. 340/1 and 341) and statement of Shri Suresh R. Thakkar, the AO concluded that payment of on-money towards the purchase of land under reference has been made by actual purchasers namely Ms Sonal Rajiv Shah, Sh. Vinod Mangaldas Shah and M/s. Stone Touch Infraspace LLP. Based on the said statement, assessment proceedings u/s.153C of the Act were initiated in the case of Ms. Sonal Rajiv Shah, Sh. Vinod Mangaldas Shah and M/s Stone Touch infraspace LLP, however, no addition of purported payment of on-money was made by the same AO in these cases for the Asst. Year made under section 153C of the Act. Thus, the assessing officer is not justified in making addition on the very same mobile phone images for making addition of Rs.12.36 crores in the hands of the seller of the land. 8.2. Further Statement of the land broker Shri Suresh R Thakkar is considered by this Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of K. Mehta & Co. (cited supra) by observing as follows: “… 7.2. It is undisputed fact that Shri Suresh R. Thakkar is only a land–mediator and not owner of the land. Based on the statements recorded of Shri Suresh R. Thakkar, the above addition is made by the Assessing Officer. This digital images are not related to the assessee firm and there is no signature and there is no hand writing of the assessee in the above images. Correspondingly, the A.O. is not found any Agreement or Banakhat or any piece of evidences for payment of cash found during the course of search. 7.3. Further Shri Suresh R. Thakkar in his statement recorded clearly submitted that he has not received his commission (Dalali) which will be at 1% on the quantum of the deal amount. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.(SS)A No. 68/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No ACIT Vs. Jiviben Rambhai Bharwad 11 Thus the Assessing Officer without any seized material but only with this piece of digital image recovered from the search premises. Merely based on the ground that the survey no. and name of Shri Mahesh Mehta reflecting in that piece of loose paper the Ld. A.O. came to the conclusion that ‘on-money’ of Rs. 2.69 crores paid by the assessee. Further the assessee was not given any opportunity of cross-examining the so called Shri Suresh R. Thakkar based on which addition was made by the A.O. It is well settled principle of law mere admission in statement without any corroborative evidence or materials cannot be the basis for making additions in the hands of the assessee. Further the Assessing Officer is totally silent about the retraction (Notarized) statement dated 11-09- 2019 made by Shri Suresh R. Thakkar, which is placed at Page Nos. 196 to 211 of the Paper Book (with the duly English translation). The relevant portion of retraction statements are as follows: “5 During the proceedings of search, many here and there papers which cannot be said any proper record, such papers were seized by the Income Tax officers. 6. From my mobile and other digital data also, such here and there papers which mast probably were not in my handwriting, those were collected by the Income Tax officers. 7. During the proceedings of search, I have made aware with that talk to all the officers that I am doing the work of brokerage of land and in its connection, true false proposals related to so many lands are coming. 8. I also had informed that talk that in the era of present social media, small big brokers and other people are sending false and true proposals to me on whatsapp. Such many proposals are not transferring in the true transactions and if might have done, then also not doing according to the relevant rate or terms and conditions. 9. I also have informed that talk to the Income Officers that Kachi Bana Chitthi wherein so many times, any signature, rate are not being written, in such Kachi Bana Chitthi are exchanged by the brokers, there is no its any true meaning or trueness. So many times due to legal complications and family quarrels, such deal actually being Printed from counselvise.com I.T.(SS)A No. 68/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No ACIT Vs. Jiviben Rambhai Bharwad 12 not made final and if may be final, then also, it being done at very less rate. 10. So many times, where, signature of the relevant parties being made, in Banakhat or Bana chitthi also, the dealings are standing due to so many changes in the family and legal or government procedures or are being final in the insignificant value. …………………….. 23. So many here and there papers in which there may not be any survey number or any proper description, then also, by joining with some survey number, my statement was taken. As per example, some here and there papers which were received from my office which was not the part of any diary or regular record, on which, there was no date, time, description of the land, name of the party or any signature, even though also, such papers were joined with Survey No. 194 situated at Okaf, Sarkhej, Ahmedabad. I have clearly stated such that any sale deed for Sarkhej Okaf 194 was not executed and even on this date also, it is not executed, I have told forcefully that the inquiry and the here and there proposals of the so many lands are being come to me from Ahmedabad and surrounding rural area through whatsapp and it is not proper to join Kachi entry or proposal of any such land with Sarkhej Okaf survey No. 194. 24. In such manner also, one paper of rough proposal of some lands situated at Kachariya village Survey Nos. 270, 270/1, 271, 285, 283, 289 was received, for which actually there was any concern with any sale deed. 25. The details of any cheque written therein is not tallied with my book also. Suspending all these talks and the facts, joining the paper with that survey number, statement is written, therefore, the statement taken in such manner is not binding to me or any other person. 26. As per the above situation, whatsoever some promissory notes and blank cheque related to any friend obtained from my house in the search proceedings, in its reply, I had stated that true fact that I, as a friend only, Printed from counselvise.com I.T.(SS)A No. 68/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No ACIT Vs. Jiviben Rambhai Bharwad 13 these cheque which are of very old dates, those are saved, which are not approved in the bank on this date because its limitation period is completed, but as per my knowledge, the Income Tax officer have noted whatsoever words of my statement against the fact, the any liability of Income Tax to be arisen due to it, is not binding to me or any other person.” 7.4. In his retraction statement Shri Suresh R. Thakkar made it very clear in the present social media era, small big brokers and other people are sending false and true proposals to him on whatsapp. Such proposals are not transformed in the true transactions and the prices are not certain. Further due to legal complications and family disputes many deals does not get through. Thus the Assessing Officer has not given any weightage to the retraction (Notarized) statement dated 11-09-2019 made by Shri Suresh R. Thakkar. Further the Assessing Officer do not even have in possession, the so called Cancellation Deed with Smt. Tarini Johri as well as the piece of paper jottings said to be seized from the premises of Shri Suresh R. Thakkar. However only the digital images are reproduced at Page Nos. 131, 140, 155 and 208 and came to the conclusion that the assessee has received ‘on-money’ payment of Rs.2,69,65,440/-, which are liable to be deleted. 7.5. Further the Assessing Officer though noted that the Sale Deed value as per Document No. 7670/2019 registered as Sale Deed on 19-06-2019 for a value of Rs. 96,00,000/- which is as per the Jantri Value approved by the State Government. In the above circumstances, the Assessing Officer has not verified the value land by referring to the DVO before making such addition of ‘on-money’ in the hands of the assessee. Further more when the assessee sold the above property on 07-06-2021 for a sale consideration of Rs. 2.5 crores and declared is 50% share of profit as Rs. 74,16,500/- which is in the profit and loss account, the same was accepted by the very same Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order u/s. 143(3) dated 15-12-2022. 8. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Shanker Nebhumal Uttamchandani reported in [2024] 161 taxmann.com 536 (Surat-Trib.) held as follows: Printed from counselvise.com I.T.(SS)A No. 68/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No ACIT Vs. Jiviben Rambhai Bharwad 14 “…..6 We find that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 20,43,500/- as unexplained money and unexplained interest income of Rs. 4,27,237/- on the basis of image found in I-Phone of assessee by taking view that on such amount, the assessee earned interest. We find that before the Assessing Officer as well as Id. CIT(A), the assessee explained that there is no corroborative material to prove that the assessee made advance of such amount or earned interest. Neither it contained the name and signature of assessee nor it is mentioned whether this amount was received or paid. We find that the ld. CIT(A) on considering the submission of assessee held that the Assessing officer is silent as to whom these advances were made and from whom such interest was received. The Assessing Officer while making addition, simply relied on the image of lose paper (image in the mobile phone of assessee). The Assessing officer has not brought any direct evidence on record that assessee has lent this amount to any person. There is no incriminating paper found from the WhatsApp image to specify whether it is loan taken or given as no name of person is mentioned on the said paper. The paper/image is not signed by assessee nor in his handwriting, thus, in absence of incriminating evidence, it cannot be held that the assessee has given the said loan out of his unexplained source. The ld. CIT(A) noted that there is no likelihood that some estimate of interest has been worked out taking a particular amount and particular rate of interest, such working does not prove that transaction of advance has been materialized unless there is further evidence to prove that such amount of loan has been taken or given on a particular date. No such evidence was found in the search. The assessee is not engaged in the business of money lending, therefore, working found on paper cannot be treated as sacrosanct evidence. On the basis of such findings, the ld. CIT(A) deleted both the additions. 7. We have independently examined the facts of the case. We find that the Assessing Officer has not recorded in the assessment order whether such image/photo was received by assessee in WhatsApp image or it was sent. The source of image was not investigated by Assessing Officer. Assessing Officer nowhere mentioned whether such image Printed from counselvise.com I.T.(SS)A No. 68/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No ACIT Vs. Jiviben Rambhai Bharwad 15 was confronted to the assessee during the search action or his statement was recorded for such image. Thus, in absence of any corroborative evidence, we do not find any justification for making such addition. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause v. Union of India (2017) 394 ITR 220 SC also held that loose sheets of papers are wholly irrelevant as evidence being not admissible under section 34, so as to constitute evidence with respect to transaction mentioned therein being of no evidentiary value. Thus, we affirm the order of ld. CIT(A) on our aforesaid additional observation.” 8.1. Respectfully following the above judicial precedent, we do not find any merit in the additions made by the Assessing Officer which are liable to be deleted. Thus the Grounds raised by the assessee are hereby allowed.” 9. Respectfully following the above decision of the Co-ordinate Bench, we have no hesitation in confirming the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition made in the hands of the assessee. Thus, the grounds raised by the Revenue are devoid of merits and liable to be deleted. Since the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, we are not adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee invoking Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27-08-2025 Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 27/08/2025 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.(SS)A No. 68/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No ACIT Vs. Jiviben Rambhai Bharwad 16 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, अहमदाबाद Printed from counselvise.com "