AI Insights
The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the decision of the CIT(A) which had deleted an addition of Rs. 12.75 crore made by the Assessing Officer. The addition was based on a digital image file and a statement from Shri Suresh Thakkar, which the Assessing Officer interpreted as evidence of unaccounted cash received by the assessee, Zeel Deepakbhai Mevada, from a land sale. The CIT(A) found the evidence insufficient and unreliable, leading to the deletion of the addition. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), noting the lack of direct evidence linking the assessee to the alleged unaccounted income.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 787191 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
5 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date
17-11-2025
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
A
Assessment Year
2020-2021
Appeal Filed On
29-05-2025
Judgement Text
" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A No.67/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) ACIT, Central Circle 2(3), Ahmedabad Vs. Zeel Deepakbhai Mevada, 7, Rivera-20, Opp. Amrashirish Bunglow, Nr. Prahladnagar Garden, Prahladnagar, Ahmedabad-380015 [PAN : CSDPM 3855 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR Respondent by: Shri Vijay Mehta, AR Date of Hearing 25.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 17.11.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as \"CIT(A)\" for short) dated 06.03.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] has erred in facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.12,75,00,000/-, made by the Assessing Officer as undisclosed income, without properly appreciating that the receipt of unaccounted cash consideration in respect of the sale of immovable property stood established through credible and corroborative evidence recovered during a valid search conducted under section 132 of the Act. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in disregarding the evidentiary value of the digital file named \"IMG-20191002-WA0020.jpg\", Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No. 67/Ahd/2025 ACIT Vs. Zeel Deepakbhai Mevada Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 2– seized from the mobile phone of an employee of the assessee's uncle, which contained an affidavit and an indemnity bond directly pertaining to the impugned land transaction, and it clearly corroborated the registered sale deed as well as the sworn statements recorded under section 131 of the Act. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in characterizing the seized image file as a mere \"dumb document\", without duly considering that such a conclusion is contrary to binding judicial precedents including CIT n. S.M. Aggarwal [2007] 293 ITR 43 (Del) and Surendra M. Khandhar v. ACIT [2010] 321 ITR 254 (Bom), wherein additions based on corroborated documentary evidence recovered during search proceedings were upheld. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in failing to invoke the statutory presumption under section 292C of the Act, which deems documents found during a search to be true and to belong to the person from whose possession they are seized, unless rebutted and that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of rebutting this presumption through any credible or contemporaneous evidence as has been held in the case of P.R. Metrani v. CIT [2006] 287 ITR 209 (SC). 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in holding that the addition under section I53A was unsustainable for want of incriminating material found at the premises of the assessee, while failing to appreciate that incriminating material recovered during the search of a person connected to the assessee is admissible and can be validly relied upon in proceedings under section 153A, particularly when the assessee is covered under the search conducted under section 132 as has been held in the case of Ahir Salt and Allied Products Pvt. Ltd, v. ACIT [IT(SS)A Nos. 6 & 7/RJT/2022] and CIT v. Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar Sahson [2017] 86 taxmann.com 44 (All). 6. The learned CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in failing to appreciate the evidentiary value of the sworn statement recorded under section l3l of Shri Suresh Thakkar, wherein he unequivocally admitted that the assessee had received Rs.12.75 crore in cash as part of the same transaction and the statement under oath, is admissible as evidence and corroborates the seized material; however, the learned CIT(A) failed to give due weight to the same. 7. The learned CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in placing undue reliance on the decision in CIT v. Girish Chaudhary [2005] 296 ITR 619 (Del), which is factually distinguishable from the present case as in the instant matter, the addition is supported by multiple corroborative factors, including a registered sale deed, digital documentary evidence, sworn testimonies, and a structured transaction trail established through seized material. 8. The learned CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in failing to apply the judicial test of human probabilities, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No. 67/Ahd/2025 ACIT Vs. Zeel Deepakbhai Mevada Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 3– Court in CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC), and in accepting the assessee's explanation at face value despite the existence of strong direct and circumstantial evidence pointing towards suppression of income. 9. The learned CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in placing reliance on post-facto, self-serving affidavits filed by the assessee and the purchaser, without conducting any independent inquiry or cross-verification, and in disregarding the fact that the contents of such affidavits were inconsistent with the material seized during the search action conducted under section I32 of the Act. 10. The learned CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.12.75 crore, which was made on the basis of credible, corroborated, and legally admissible evidence collected during a valid search operation and the addition was legally sustainable under the framework of sections 132(4A), 153A, and 292C of the Act, and supported by consistent judicial precedents. 11. The learned CIT(A) has erred in facts and in low in passing an order that is perverse, contrary to the evidentiary record, and legally unsustainable in view of the settled legal principles governing search assessments and the evidentiary treatment of documents seized and statements recorded under oath during such proceedings.” 3. In this case, a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the group of cases known as \"Land Broker and Financer Group\" on 15.10.2019. The assessee is a family member of Sh. Dhiren R Bharwad who is a Land Broker and Financer. The assessee is the daughter of his elder brother Sh. Deepak Rambhai Mevada. The search action was also carried out simultaneously at the residential premises of the land broker, namely Sh. Suresh Thakkar. In the course of the search at the premises of Suresh Thakkar Image No. 31fecfd5-3c0c-4ac8 bab1-1a9d77233c15 (Page No. 146) was found and seized from the mobile phone of Sh. Suresh Thakkar. Statement of Sh. Suresh Thakkar in respect of the content of the said image was recorded. Based on this image and the statement of Sh. Suresh Thakkar, the Assessing Officer considered and concluded that the assessee had received alleged on- money in cash of Rs. 12.75 crore over and above the documented value for sale of plot in TP No. 204. Thereafter, assessment proceedings u/s 153A of Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No. 67/Ahd/2025 ACIT Vs. Zeel Deepakbhai Mevada Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 4– the Act were completed vide order dated 29.07.2021 by making an addition of Rs 12.75 crore as undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee for the year under consideration. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid addition of Rs.12.75 crores made by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed income, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who deleted the impugned addition, by observing as under:- “7. The grounds of appeal no. 2 and 3 are against the addition of Rs. 12,75,00,000/- on account of alleged on-money in cash, over and above documented consideration received for sale of plot in TP No. 204 at Makarba. 7.1 The AO observed that during the course of search action, the incriminating documents related to sale of plot in TP No. 204, admeasuring 3000 sq.yd. situated at Gurjari Society, B/h. Dhananjay Farm, Makarba, Ahmedabad was found in the digital data retrieved from the mobile phone of Suresh Ranchhodbhai Thakkar. For the sake of reference, the same is given as under:- During the course of post search inquiry, Shri Suresh R. Thakkar has confirmed on oath that the above image contains the details of sale of plot in TP No. 204, admeasuring 3000 Sq.Yd. situated at Gurjari Society, B/h. Dhananjay Farm, Makarba, Ahmedabad for a sale consideration of Rs. 17.23 Cr. which include profit of Rs. 90 lakh and cash component of Rs.12,75,00,000/-. For the sake of ready reference, the operative part of statement of Shri Suresh R. Thakkar is given hereunder: Page No. 146 is working of sale of plot of land in TP NO. 204, admeasuring No. 3000 Square yards situated in Gurjari Society, Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No. 67/Ahd/2025 ACIT Vs. Zeel Deepakbhai Mevada Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 5– Behind: Dhananjay Farm, Makarba, Ahmedabad. Sale consideration of the land is Rs. 17.23 crores. The land has been purchased by Shaileshbhai Mistry from Dhiren Rambhai Rharwad and family. Total payments include cash payment is Rs. 12.7S crores and balance amount of Rs. 4 48 Crores by cheque. I will furnish copy of 7/12 abstract for your kind reference with my page-wise explanation lobe submitted later on. As evident from the statement of Sh. Suresh Thakkar recorded u/s 131 of the Act on 02.12.2019 during the post search proceedings, wherein he explained the noting as under: i. The said noting is working of sale of Plot of land in TP 204, admeasuring 3000 square yards. ii. Sale consideration for the said plot of land is Rs. 17.23 Cr. iii. The land was purchased by Shaileshbhai Mistry from Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad and family. iv. Total consideration includes cash component of Rs. 12.75 Cr and balance amount of Rs. 4.48 Cr was paid by cheque. On the basis of the image and statement of Sh. Sh. Suresh Thakkar, the AO has considered and concluded the sale value of the subject plot at Rs. 17,23,00,000/- out of which an amount of Rs. 12,75,00,000/- is received by the appellant in cash and the balance amount of Rs. 4,48,00,000/- by cheque. The AO, relying on the evidence found from the mobile of Sh. Suresh Thakkar and his statement made addition of Rs.12,75,00,000/- in the hands of the appellant 7.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has filed written submissions. The appellant has contended that seized material relied by the AO doesn’t have the name of the parties or their signature and it does not contain survey no of land/plot, nature of transaction (outright sale/development agreement), details of terms and conditions of the transactions, date of transactions etc. In the absence of such specific details, the seized material cannot be legitimately relied upon, as it fails to corroborate the relevant facts; it has been specifically emphasized that the said image reflects a noting of a 'chq' element amounting to Rs. 4.48 crore, while the assessee has received total sale consideration of Rs. 6.00 crore, with Rs. 5.94 crore received through cheque (net of TDS of Rs. 6,00,000/-), thereby indicating that the purported evidence relied upon by the AO does not corroborate with the appellant’s books of accounts and, thus, cannot form the basis for any addition in the hands of the appellant. 7.3 I have perused the submission furnished by the appellant and assessment order passed by the AO. While making the addition in the appellant’s case, the AO has relied upon the image retrieved from the mobile phone of Shri Suresh Thakkar, along with his statement recorded during the post-search proceedings. The appellant has essentially Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No. 67/Ahd/2025 ACIT Vs. Zeel Deepakbhai Mevada Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 6– emphasized that Shri Suresh Thakkar provided several incorrect statements and has highlighted the following points in support of this contention:- a) In the given case, in the statement of Shri Suresh Thakkar recorded on 02.12.2019, in answer to question no 7 wherein he has stated that page no 146 is working of sale of plot of land (TP 204), admeasuring 3000 sq yards situated at Makarba, Ahmedabad and sale consideration of the said land is Rs. 17.23 Cr out which total payment of Rs. 4.48 Cr is through cheque. The said statement is incorrect as the assessee has received total payment of Rs. 5.94 Cr (net of TDS Rs. 6,00,000/-) through cheque for the subject land which does not match with the statement given by Shri Suresh Thakkar. b) As per the statement dated 30.11.2019 and 02.12.2019 of Shri Suresh Thakkar, in answer to question no 5 (refer page no 24-26 and 28-29 of the Paperbook) the land bearing survey no 340/1 and 341 situated at Makarba, Ahmedabad has been sold to Dhirenbhai Ramanlal Shah (Malubhai). However, in Q. no. 6 of statement dated 02.12.2019 (refer page no 29 of the Paperbook), Shri Suresh Thakkar was asked that the land has been sold to Vinodbhai Mangaldas Shah and Sonal Rajiv Shah vide agreement dated 11.04.2018 (survey no. 340/1) and Stone Touch Infraspace LLP (belonging to Deepak Vaswani, Rajesh Vaswani, Dilip Lalwani, Jitendra Lalwani and Kamal Lalwani as partners) vide agreement dated 17.04.2018 (survey no. 341). As per the registered agreement the buyer of the property is third party which is totally different as per Shri Suresh Thakkar’s statement. This shows that the statement of Shri Suresh Thakkar cannot be relied upon. c) Additionally, in the statement of Shri Suresh Thakkar dated 02.12.2019 in answer to question no 6 (refer page no 29 of the Paperbook), he has referred to MOU and as per the MOU, the total sale consideration is Rs. 87,48,26,160/-, however, no such MOU was found from the premises of Shri Suresh Thakkar or the assessee. This shows that the statement of Shri Suresh Thakkar is incredible and absurd. d) Also, in the statement recorded of Shri Suresh Thakkar u/s 132(4) of the Act on 15.10.2019, he has given incorrect answer on confronting seized material found from him and the same was retracted by him in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act on 26.11.2019. In the statement recorded on 15.10.2019 of Shri Suresh Thakkar, in answer to question no 20 and 28 (refer page no. 12, 14-15 and 17 of the Paperbook) he has initially stated page no 4 found from Suresh Thakkar is related to land purchased from Shri Dhirenbhai Rambhai Bharwad. The total price of the land is Rs. 20,47,32,000/- out of which amount of Rs. 17,26,32,000/- are cash payments. Later in the statement recorded on 26.11.2019, in answer to question no 7 (refer page no 20-21 of the Paperbook) he has clarified that page No. 3 & 4 found from his residence alongwith page No. 1 to 7 that the papers are actually related to the Okaf land Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No. 67/Ahd/2025 ACIT Vs. Zeel Deepakbhai Mevada Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 7– purchased by him and Rajnibhai Dhanjibhai Chunara from Noor Mohmmed and Sarvarbhai and in page no 4 is the proposal given by him alongwith Rajnibhai to Dhiren Ramanlal Shah (Malu) of sale of Okaf land. This, according to the appellant, proves beyond doubt that Shri Suresh Thakkar’s statement cannot be relied upon. The appellant has stated that statements made by Shri Suresh Thakker, which the AO has heavily depended upon cannot be relied upon as there are no basis of connecting the noting of the impugned seized material with the plot of land sold by the appellant. It has been submitted that the appellant has filed an affidavit from the actual buyer confirming the correct facts and the said party has confirmed that no on-money is paid by the buyer to the appellant. The appellant has stated that neither Sh. Suresh Thakkar has received any brokerage nor appellant has paid any brokerage to him. 7.4 The AO in the assessment order has made reference to jottings in incriminating material of Rs. 1.50 crores to be paid by cheque. On perusal of the digital image, it can be seen that it refers to payment of Rs. 2 crores by cheque and balance of ‘450’ to be paid by cheque. As per the jottings on seized paper, after adjustment of 12.75 crores, balance payable was 4,48,32,000. If it is believed that seized image contained true figures, only 4,48,32,000 would be payable in cheque. However, as per the ledger account of the appellant which forms part of the assessment order and is provided on page 14 thereof, the same is as under: Zeel Deepak Mevada S.K. Associates Ledger Account As evident from the ledger account of the appellant, total cheque payment is of Rs. 6 crores which does not match with the total balance payable of Rs.4,48,32,000/- reflected in the seized digital image. Merely because the area of the plot mentioned in the seized digital image matched with the area of plot owned by the appellant does not establish that contents mentioned in seized digital data related or pertained to the appellant. Had it been so, the total consideration payable by cheque as per the digital image seized bound to have matched with entries made in the books of account of the appellant. If the consideration of Rs. 6 crores received by cheque by the appellant and cash payment of Rs. 12.75 crores are taken together, total consideration would be Rs. 18.75 crores whereas as per digital seized data relied by the A.O. total consideration is mere Rs. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No. 67/Ahd/2025 ACIT Vs. Zeel Deepakbhai Mevada Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 8– 17,23,32,000/- which does not match or corroborate with material on record. This itself establishes that the explanation given by Shri Suresh Thakkar is not reliable. Therefore, the claim of the A.O. that “this jotting is also identically matching with that of ledger wherefrom it can be seen that Rs. 4.50 crores (including TDS of Rs. 6,00,000/-) was received through cheque” (emphasis supplied) is incorrect. On perusal of the image relied upon by the A.O. on page 4 of the assessment order, it can be seen that it refers to:- a) Area of 3000 sq. yards b) Figure of 54,444 appears to be rate c) Profit of Rs. 90 lakhs d) Aggregate of the above : i.e. 17,23,32,000 e) Deduction of 12,75,00,000 from aggregate representing balance of 4,48,32,000 f) Further reduction of 2,00,00,000 with mention of cheque g) Net balancing figure of 2,48,32,000/- with remark ‘loan cheque’ 450 will be coming. On-going through the above-mentioned details in the image, it may be referring to a transaction which may take place or which has taken place. It is important to note that it refers to area of plot & value of land calculated. The said image also does not refer to the names of parties, plot no. and is unsigned. Further it does not have any dates i.e. period when the transactions did take place or was to take place (it does not indicate when the income accrued /received & whether transaction got concluded or not). 7.5 The said seized digital image relied upon by the A.O. does not mention who paid this amount to whom. If the statement of Shri Suresh Thakkar is believed to be true then such 2,00,00,000 cheque payment ought to have been made by the buyer and found in the ledger copy of the party in the books of account of the appellant. Further, in the said image there is mention of profit (i.e. vadharana nafa) of Rs. 90 lakhs. If the deal pertained to the appellant, why would appellant disclose what profit she wanted to earn from this transaction? The mention of figure of profit would at the most imply that it indicated the profit that Shri Suresh Thakkar had anticipated from the deal. Thus, to co relate the figures mentioned in the image with the deal of land executed by the appellant merely on the basis of matching of area is nothing but assumption. 7.6 The AO has arrived at conclusion that figure of Rs. 12.75 crore is the cash component out of total sale consideration of Rs. 17,23,32,000/- by relying on the seized digital image from the mobile of Shri Suresh Thakkar and Rs. 4.48 crores was received by cheque out of the from total sale value of Rs. 17,23,32,000/-. However, the appellant has received Rs. 6 crore by cheque as reflected in the ledger account of the party and extracted on page 14 of the assessment order. If the figures noted in the seized digital data are considered to be correct, then atleast the amount of Rs. 4.48 crores Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No. 67/Ahd/2025 ACIT Vs. Zeel Deepakbhai Mevada Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 9– mentioned therein should have been reflected in the ledger account. Since the amount is paid by cheque, the figure cannot be altered. On perusal of the ledger entries, it can be seen that the appellant has received cheque of Rs. 4.44 crores and not Rs. 4.48 crores. Further, the appellant has also received Rs. 1.50 crores by three cheques of Rs. 50 lakhs each in the month of July 2019. The entries in the seized digital page do not reflect these entries of Rs. 1.50 crores received by the appellant in cheque. The entries in the seized material must be interpreted as it prima facie appears and cannot be co-related with the transaction entered by the appellant by stretching the imagination. It is very clear from the seized digital page relied by the AO that total consideration was arrived at Rs. 17,23,32,000/- and this figure does not match with the land deal entered by the appellant even if it assumed that Rs. 12.75 crores is paid in cash by the buyer to the appellant. Because, after taking into account Rs. 12.75 crores in cash, as presumed by the A.O., the total consideration works out to Rs. 18.75 crores (Rs. 12.75 crores in cash + Rs. 6 crores in cheque) and it does not match with total sale consideration of Rs. 17,23,32,000/-. Thus, it can be inferred that loose material relied upon by the AO does not pertain to transaction carried out by the appellant. 7.7 Further, information apparent in alleged incriminating document i.e. image of loose paper relied upon cannot be treated as sacrosanct and used against the appellant unless there is any corroborative evidence adduced by the AO - more particularly when the name of the appellant is not mentioned in alleged incriminating document. The image relied by the AO do not reveal the names of the parties and the date on which these transactions were recorded or entered. As such, it is difficult to infer that figures represented transaction entered into by the appellant or that any such payment was made to the appellant. The ledger entries recorded in the books of the account do not match with the entries recorded in the said seized digital data and this itself establishes that the seized digital image relied upon by the A.O. does not belong to the appellant. The explanation offered by Shri Suresh Thakkar also do not match with final land deal entered by the appellant. The AO has accepted the fact that Shri Suresh Thakkar has not received any brokerage regarding the land under reference. The said seized digital image do not mention any survey number. It cannot be concluded only on the basis of mere matching of the area mentioned in it that it represented concluded transaction by the appellant. 7.8 In view of the above discussed facts, it is safely concluded that the said image cannot be a basis for the conclusion reached by the AO and based on said image, a presumption cannot be raised about receipt of cash of Rs. 12.75 crore. The AO has not brought any corroborative material to suggest that cash amount of Rs. 12.75 crore has been received by the appellant. Moreover, the AO has not conducted any further enquiry to support and substantiate the impugned addition. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No. 67/Ahd/2025 ACIT Vs. Zeel Deepakbhai Mevada Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 10– 7.9 On the similar issue, jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Chintan Jadavbhai Patel vs. ITO, [2017] 79 taxmann.com 302 (Guj.) was held that \"Section 69, read with sections 45 and 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investments (On money transactions) - Assessment year 2009-10 - Re-opening notice was issued against assessee on basis of one 'sauda chitthi' seized during search of premises of one RV-As per sauda chitthi, assessee had sold land for sale consideration of higher amount - However, sale consideration in sale deed executed by assessee in favour of one PK was for sale consideration of much lesser amount - Therefore, Assessing Officer held that difference of two sale amounts had escaped assessment by way of long-term capital gain - It was to be noted that assessee was not signatory to sauda chitthi - Even concerned persons who signed said sauda chitthi were not owners of land sold - Sauda chitthi was not acted upon - Person who purchased land from assessee was also not signatory to sauda chitthi Whether where there was no tangible material available to prima facie show that assessee had received any sale consideration, formation of opinion that assessee had sold land and received sale consideration was only on surmises and, therefore, re-opening notice was unjustified - Held, yes [Para 5] [In favour of assessee]\" 7.9.1 On the similar issue, jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah [2008] 307 ITR 137 (Guj) was held that:- \"Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Assessment - Additions to income - Assessment year 1995-96 - Mere entries in seized material are not sufficient to prove that assessee has indulged in such a transaction in which 'on money' has been received [In favour of assessee]\" 7.9.2 In the case of CIT vs. Gian Gupta [2014] 46 taxmann.com 372 (Delhi), it was held that:- \"Section 69, read with section 271(l)(c), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investments (Immovable properties) Assessment year 2006-07 - An unsigned memorandum of understanding between assessee and a seller of land as well as an unsigned receipt issued by seller was recovered - Said MOU as well as receipt in question were found to be unsigned documents and transaction had not materialized - Whether since both Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal found that facts did not establish revenue's contention that unexplained investment in cash had been made by assessee, no question of law arose from order of Tribunal deleting addition on that account - Held, yes [Para 6] [In favour of assessee]\" Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No. 67/Ahd/2025 ACIT Vs. Zeel Deepakbhai Mevada Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 11– 7.9.3 In the case of Rajvee Tractors (P.) Ltd.vs. ACIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 330 (Ahmedabad - Trib.), it was held that:- \"Section 69A, read with section 148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained moneys (Immovable property) - Assessment year 2015- 16 - Assessing Officer based on a survey operation conducted under section 133A on a developer, namely OHM, noted that there was a draft sale deed between assessee and developer which was reported less/short by assessee - Based on such information, reassessment proceedings was initiated - Assessee sought for a copy of application filed by developer before Settlement Commission admitting that it had invested certain amount of unaccounted income on purchase of property along with order passed by Settlement Commission - However, same was denied on ground that it was confidential information of third party and subsequently additions on account of unaccounted income on purchase of property were made in assessee's total income - It was noted that draft sale deed based on which additions were made was never signed by assessee and therefore had no credence - It was further noted that admission before Settlement Commission made by third party could not be used against assessee until and unless same was provided to assessee for confrontation - Whether since application made by developer did not establish fact that assessee had received unaccounted payment which was liable to be taxed, impugned additions made were to be deleted - Held, yes [Paras 9 and 10] [In favour of assessee]\" 7.9.4 In the case of CIT vs. Hiraben Govindbhai Patel [2014] 44 taxmann.com 29 (Guj), it was held that:- \"Section 48 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Computation of (Full value of consideration) - Assessee filed its return claiming capital gain arising from sale of land - During assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer relying upon MoU signed between parties, enhanced amount of sale consideration received by assessee - Assessing Officer further reduced fair market value of land as on 1- 4-1981 - Accordingly, certain addition was made to taxable amount of capital gain - Tribunal, however, deleted said addition - On appeal, no material was found suggesting that sale consideration in excess of amount mentioned in sale deed was paid - It was also noted that fifty per cent of land was likely to be reserved and, thus, seller agreed to receive reduced rate - With respect to fair market value, Assessing Officer could not substitute amount declared on basis of valuation report given by registered valuer - Whether in view of above, Tribunal was justified in deleting impugned addition - held, yes [Paras 6 and 7] [In favour of assessee]\" Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No. 67/Ahd/2025 ACIT Vs. Zeel Deepakbhai Mevada Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 12– 7.9.5 In the case of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka High Court in the case Dr. Syed Anwar v. DCIT [2023] 146 taxmann.com 247 (Karnataka), it was held that:- \"Section 158BD, read with section 158BC, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Block assessment in search cases - Undisclosed income of any other person (On money) - Assessment years 1991-92 to 2000-01 - 'J' group funded five individuals who in all purchased 103 acres of land - Assessee was GPA holder of said five individuals - A search was conducted upon 'J' group and also upon assessee - During search, some typed unsigned papers were found in assessee's premises - Assessing Officer on basis of seized material and statement of landowners held that there was an undisclosed income in hands of assessee alleging that he had paid 'on-money' to original landowners from whom five individuals had purchased lands - It was noted that seized documents did not bear any signature of appellant and statement given by landowner was subsequently retraced - Further, there was no incriminating material seized during search which could suggest that assessee had paid any 'on-money' - Further, five purchasers had filed their respective returns and offered their income to tax - Whether, on facts, impugned order passed by Assessing Officer was not sustainable and same was to be set aside - Held, yes [Paras 17 and 18] [In favour of assessee]\" In view of the above discussed facts and following the judgments supra, the AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 12,75,00,000/-.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. DR heavily relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and contended that the addition was based on credible digital evidence recovered during a valid search and the statement under oath of Shri Suresh Thakkar corroborated the seized document. The Ld. DR argued that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the seized file as a \"dumb document\". The Ld. DR also submitted that the assessee failed to rebut the presumption under Section 292C of the Act. The Ld. DR cited judicial precedents such as S.M. Aggarwal, Surendra M. Khandhar, and Ahir Salt (supra) in support of the addition. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No. 67/Ahd/2025 ACIT Vs. Zeel Deepakbhai Mevada Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 13– 7. The Ld. AR, on the other hand, supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the seized document did not bear any identifiable link with the assessee and the digital file was unsigned, undated, and uncorroborated. The Ld. AR also submitted that the assessee received Rs.6 crore by cheque, which did not match the amounts referred in the image. The Ld. AR submitted that no MOU or other documentary evidence was found to corroborate the cash receipt. In support of Ld. AR’s submission, he cited the judicial decisions in the case of Chintan Jadavbhai Patel, Maulikkumar K. Shah, and Rajvee Tractors (P.) Ltd. (supra), as referred to by the Ld. CIT(A), wherein similar additions were deleted for lack of credible material. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The core issue before us for adjudication is whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.12.75 crore made by the Assessing Officer as alleged unaccounted cash consideration purportedly received by the assessee on sale of land at Makarba, Ahmedabad. The addition made by the Assessing Officer rests solely on (i) a digital image file named IMG-20191002-WA0020.jpg seized from the mobile phone of one Shri Suresh Thakkar, and (ii) his statement recorded under section 131 of the Act. It is undisputed that the impugned digital file neither bears the name of the assessee nor any signature, date, or identifiable reference to the specific transaction executed by the assessee. It merely contains certain reference to an area of “3000 sq. yards” and some cheque and cash figures. The only basis for the addition is the inference drawn by the Assessing Officer from the digital image seized from the phone of a third party, Shri Suresh Thakkar, who admittedly was not a beneficiary of the sale transaction. The said person’s statements have also been found to be inconsistent and contradictory on several material aspects, as detailed by the CIT(A). The Revenue has not rebutted these inconsistencies. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No. 67/Ahd/2025 ACIT Vs. Zeel Deepakbhai Mevada Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 14– 8.1 We also note that no cross-examination of the purchaser or any verification was carried out by the Assessing Officer to substantiate the alleged cash transaction. Even the affidavit filed by the buyer confirming that no on-money was paid has not been disproved by the Revenue through any investigation. Further, the similar issue of considering the digital evidence has been examined in the case of Shri. Anil Rambhai Mevada in ITA No. IT(SS)A No.52/Ahd/2025 for AY 2020-21. In that case, as per the digital evidence, the Assessing Officer considered Rs.71,000/- per sq. yard as sale consideration, whereas the sale consideration in the present case was determined at Rs. 54,444/- per sq. yard. No evidence was found in the course of investigation that the assessee has received the excess amount more than the registered value for the sale of the property. It is found that the Ld. CIT(A) has meticulously examined each and every aspect of the transaction and given a categorical finding as to why the addition in respect of unaccounted cash received could not have been made. The Revenue has been unable to controvert the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). One of the contentions of the Revenue is that when the rate for the land was quoted by the broker, the property could not have been sold at a much lower rate. However, the Revenue has been unable to bring on record any evidence to substantiate the rate alleged for this sale transaction. The digital record with a third person namely Shri Suresh Thakkar and the rate quoted therein can’t be considered as conclusive evidence for the rate. Merely because certain rate was quoted to a prospective buyer, the said rate can’t be considered as final rate for the sale transaction with another person. The Revenue has also not brought on record any other evidence or a comparable rate. The matter was not even referred by the AO to the DVO to find out the fair market value of the property. No evidence of receipt of any on-money in respect of the sale consideration of the land was found from the assessee in the course of enquiry and investigation. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No. 67/Ahd/2025 ACIT Vs. Zeel Deepakbhai Mevada Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 15– 8.2 In view of the above, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has carefully analyzed the seized material, the statements, and the documentary evidences, and has rendered a reasoned finding that the impugned addition was made purely on presumptions and assumptions without any corroborative basis. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 9. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 17.11.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated 17.11.2025 *btk आदेश की \u0007ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u0007 / The Appellant 2. \b थ\u0007 / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु\u0015 / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु\u0015(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय \bितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation …words processed by the Hon’ble VP on his PC on 14.11.2025 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 14.11.2025 3. Other Member 14.11.2025 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S 14.11.2025 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 17.11.25 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 17.11.25 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 17.11.25 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 10. Date of Dispatch of the Order…………………………………… Printed from counselvise.com "
Other Referred Cases
CIT v. S.M. Aggarwal [2007] 293 ITR 43 (Del), Surendra M. Khandhar v. ACIT [2010] 321 ITR 254 (Bom), P.R. Metrani v. CIT [2006] 287 ITR 209 (SC), Ahir Salt and Allied Products Pvt. Ltd, v. ACIT [IT(SS)A Nos. 6 & 7/RJT/2022], CIT v. Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar Sahson [2017] 86 taxmann.com 44 (All), CIT v. Girish Chaudhary [2005] 296 ITR 619 (Del), CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC), Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC), Chintan Jadavbhai Patel vs. ITO [2017] 79 taxmann.com 302 (Guj.), CIT vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah [2008] 307 ITR 137 (Guj), CIT vs. Gian Gupta [2014] 46 taxmann.com 372 (Delhi), Rajvee Tractors (P.) Ltd.vs. ACIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 330 (Ahmedabad - Trib.), CIT vs. Hiraben Govindbhai Patel [2014] 44 taxmann.com 29 (Guj), Dr. Syed Anwar v. DCIT [2023] 146 taxmann.com 247 (Karnataka)
Laws Referred To
Income-tax Act, 1961
1:1 Consultation on SME Listing
₹0
1:1 Consultation on Salary Structuring
₹1
1:1 Consultation on Business Valuations
₹1
CRM Implementation Plan
₹0
Assignment of Registered Trademark
Mehul₹500
Residency Rules: Income Tax Act, 1961 vs Income Tax Bill, 2025 — A Subtle Yet Significant Shift!
Team Counselvise - February 18, 2026
Why Lacoste Won a 20-Year Trademark Battle Against Crocodile ?
Team Counselvise - March 10, 2026
SEBI Resets Mutual Fund Rules: A Structural Shift for Investors
Team Counselvise - March 13, 2026