ANUJKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI PATEL,VADODARA V. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VADODARA

ITSSA 125/AHD/2023

AI Insights

The case involves two assessees, Jagdishchandra Ambalal Patel and his son Anuj Jagdishchandra Patel, who appealed against the additions made to their income assessments for the years 2012-13 and 2013-14. These additions were based on the findings from a search operation under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, conducted on the Bafna Panchal group, which included the premises of Rajesh Patel, a broker. The search revealed documents indicating discrepancies between the sale deeds and the actual payments made for land transactions. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under section 153C and added the difference as unexplained investment in land to the assessees' incomes. The Tribunal's decision affirmed the lower authorities' findings, rejecting the assessees' arguments regarding the lack of direct evidence linking them to the cash payments and the procedural fairness of the assessments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716696 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 01-09-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Glass Lines Equipment Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT - 253ITR 454 (Guj)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHER SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: TUSHAR HEMANI; PARIMALSINH B. PARMAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Document seized; Documents seized; Principle of natural justice; Loose papers
• Section: 132; 131

Judgement Text

" FIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A Nos. 123 & 124/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Jagdishchandra A. Patel, 401, Samarth Residency, 21, Sevak Nagar Society, Inside Gautam Nagar Society, Race Course Road, Vadodara-390007 [PAN : ACWPP 0859 J] Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1, Vadodara IT(SS)A No. 125/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Anujkumar Jagdishbhai Patel, 401, Samarth Residency, 21, Sevak Nagar Society, Inside Gautam Nagar Society, Race Course Road, Vadodara-390007 [PAN : ACWPP 0861 C] Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1, Vadodara (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, AR Respondent by: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 20.08.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- These three appeals have been filed by two different assessees, namely Jagdishchandra Ambalal Patel, in respect of Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013- 14, and Anujkumar Jagdishbhai Patel, in respect of Assessment Year 2013-14, against a common order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad [“Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 12.07.2023, under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 123 to 125/Ahd/2023 Jagdishchandra & Anujkr Jagdishchandra Patel Asst. Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 2– 2. Since common issues are involved in all the appeals, they are being disposed of through this consolidated order. For the purpose of adjudication, we refer to the grounds of appeal raised in IT(SS)A No. 123/Ahd/2023, and the decision rendered therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to the remaining appeals. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in initiation of the proceedings u/s. 153C in absence of any document / material belonging to the appellant as found from the possession of the searched person. In absence thereof, the impugned assessment made is liable to be held as void ab initio and is ought to be quashed. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad has erred in law & in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in making an addition of Rs. 8,05,667/- (Rs. 6,83,981/- based on banakhat found between Smt. Nilaben Rajesh Patel & others and farmers and Rs. 1,21,686/- based on declaration made by Shri Rajesh Patel) treating the same as unexplained investment in land. The addition of Rs. 8,05,667/- being bad in law and in facts is prayed to be deleted. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad has erred in law & in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in considering income of appellant of Rs. 1,21,686/- based on declaration made by Rajesh Patel. 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad has erred in law & in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in considering income of appellant being Rs.6,83,981/- based on illegal document which is alleged to be created on a later date and where the appellant is not a party to the agreement. 5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad has erred in law & in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in not considering the area deducted by Government being 40% of the land area when the land is used for other than agriculture purpose. 6. Your appellant craves liberty to add, alter, amend, substitute or withdraw any of the ground(s) of appeal hereinabove contended.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that a search action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in Bafna Panchal group of cases on 07.03.2014, during the course of which, premises of Rajesh Patel and others were also covered. From the locker of Rajesh Patel, loose papers were found and seized during search action which pertained to land bearing Survey Nos.344 & 345 at Jambuva. Possession of such Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 123 to 125/Ahd/2023 Jagdishchandra & Anujkr Jagdishchandra Patel Asst. Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 3– land was with Anuj Jagdischandra Patel (assessee’s son). Banakhats in respect of the said lands were also found. Final sale deeds in respect of lands were executed in favor of ‘Anuj Patel (assessee’s son) and his family members’ at a consideration which was less than the consideration mentioned in the banakhats in respect of such lands. Consequently, proceedings u/s 153C of the Act were initiated in the case of the 'assessee' and his son named ‘Anuj Jagdishchandra Patel’. Assessment was completed by considering the difference between sale value as per final conveyance deed and banakhats, and the difference was added in the hands of the 'assessee', his son named ‘Anuj Jagdishchandra Patel’ as well as other family members as ‘unexplained investment in lands’ to the extent of their respective share. The additions were confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) as well. Hence, assessee is in appeal before Tribunal. 5. Jagdishchandra Ambalal Patel – Father, Anuj Jagdishchandra Patel - Son Search conducted on 07.03.2014 – Bafna Panchal Group Seized material found – Rajesh Patel’s locker 5.1 Excerpts from the Assessment Order:- Seized materials were found from the locker of Shri Rajesh Patel’s locker which were annexed as ‘A/9’. The seized materials consist of banakhat, receipts, cash payments pertaining to transaction of land having survey No. 344/345 at Jambuva. As per the seized material, the entire deal was made for an amount of Rs.5.55 crores and ultimately the land was purchased by Shri Anuj J. Patel, Shri J.A. Patel and others for Rs. 3.20 crores (Rs.2.07+ Rs.1.13 Crores) by registered deed dated 31.03.2012 and 26.07.2012. The Assessing Officer held that the seized material reflected payment of Rs.7,50,000/- through 5 cheques dated 28.02.2012 (cheques of Rs.1,50,000/- each) and 5 cheques dated 03.04.2012 for a total amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (cheques of Rs.4 lakhs each). The seized material also reflects payment of cash of Rs.15,00,000/- on 24.04.2012 and Rs.24,00,000/- on Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 123 to 125/Ahd/2023 Jagdishchandra & Anujkr Jagdishchandra Patel Asst. Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 4– 29.11.2011, Rs.11,000/- on 24.12.2011 and Rs.40,11,000/- and another amount of cash of Rs.15,00,000/-. 5.2 In conclusion, the Assessing Officer held that, • The Deed was made for Rs.2.73 crores, • Payment in cash – Rs.66,00,000/- • Payment through cheque Rs. 27.50 lakhs. (as available on seized material) • Registered sale deed – Rs.2.07 crores. • Seized material also reflects that in the entire deal of Survey No. 344/345 was for Rs.5.50 crores (also signed by Shri Rajesh Patel). • Seized material also reflects that, Cash receivable from Anujbhai – Rs.75,81,500/- (R. Survey No. 344) Rs.1,56,85,684/- (R. Survey No. 345) Total - Rs.2,32,67,184/- 5.3 Taking in to consideration of the facts, Survey Number, Percentage of holding and the years involved, the Assessing Officer made addition on account of cash payment made by the assessee(s), which is tabulated as under:- Purchaser PAN AY 2012-13 AY 2013-14 AY 2014-15 % of holding Amount Rs. Jagdishchandra Ambalal Patel ACWPP0859J 805667 1000000 125000 25 1930667 Anuj Jagdishchandra Patel ACWPP0861C 805667 1000000 125000 25 1930667 Kantibhai Fakirbhai Patel - 805667 1000000 125000 25 1930667 Vithalbhai Chunibhai Amin ABJPA2659R 322267 400000 50000 10 772267 Shardaben Vithalbhai Amin ABJPA2660E 322267 400000 50000 10 772267 Dharmendra Vithalbhai Amin AABHA3025N 161133 200000 25000 5 386133 3222668 4000000 500000 100 7722668 Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 123 to 125/Ahd/2023 Jagdishchandra & Anujkr Jagdishchandra Patel Asst. Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 5– Person-wise bifurcation of unexplained investment for R S No. 345 is as under:- Land Details Purchaser PAN % of holding Amt in Rs. R S No. 345 Anuj Jagdishchandra Patel ACWPP0861C 33.34 5231777 Kantibhai Fakirbhai Patel - 33.34 5231777 Arunbhai Chunibhai Patel AUCPP4356Q 33.34 5231777 100 15695331 6. The Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer on the grounds that there were sufficient material to prove the undisclosed investment in the lands there were purchased. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Before us, the Ld. AR vehemently argued that the alleged cash payment is not emanating from the seized material and the documentary evidences given by the assessee have not been examined in right perspective. The Ld. AR argued that statements of the farmers have been used without supplying the copies to the assessee and opportunity of the cross-examination has not been afforded. For the sake of ready reference, the issues flagged by the Ld. AR are summarized as under:- 8.1 On the issue of alleged cash payment, not forthcoming from seized material, the Ld. AR argued that Rs. 17,11,668/- is merely a balancing figure and the sale deed was executed on 31.03.2012. There has been no mention of Rajesh Patel’s name in the sale deed. It was argued that an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was dated 24.05.2013, hence cannot be assessed during this year. It was argued that no person will execute sale deed if cash payment is outstanding, the cash payment is not forthcoming from seized material. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 123 to 125/Ahd/2023 Jagdishchandra & Anujkr Jagdishchandra Patel Asst. Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 6– 8.2 With regard to the land bearing Survey No.345, it was argued that there is no reference to any seized material. The Ld. AR argued that vital aspects have also not been appreciated by AO & CIT(A), in spite of the assessee categorically furnishing documentary evidences for appreciating the controversy on hand in the correct perspective: i. MOU dated 01/01/2015 for getting NOC on sale deed and cancelling any other document - Pg. 189. ii. Affidavit of farmers dated 01/01/2015 (original land owners) iii. Cancellation deed dated 01/01/2015 w.r.t. agreement to sale iv. Cancellation deed dated 01/01/2015 w.r.t. possession v. Cancellation deed dated 01/01/2015 w.r.t. Power of attorney 8.3 It was argued that a Remand Report was furnished by Assessing Officer containing comments on validity of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act only. AO remained silent on the above referred documentary evidences and the CIT(A) has overlooked the referred documentary evidences. It was also argued that neither Assessing Officer nor CIT(A) has taken pains to consider and evaluate the above referred documentary evidences while deciding the controversy on hand. Thus, principles of natural justice have been grossly violated in this case. It was argued that in absence of any rebuttal to the above referred documents, it can be inferred that the revenue has nothing to controvert the contents thereof, hence, under such facts and circumstances, the impugned addition deserves to be deleted. It was argued that any addition made on the basis of such evidence which was not confronted to the assessee is liable to be deleted as opportunity of “cross- examination” of any of the parties has not been afforded. The Ld. AR further argued that the Assessing Officer has referred to statements of farmers (original land owners) recorded pursuant to issuance of summons u/s 131 of the Act, but copy of such statements was not furnished to the assessee. It was argued that in Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 123 to 125/Ahd/2023 Jagdishchandra & Anujkr Jagdishchandra Patel Asst. Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 7– absence of cross-examination of deponent with reference to statement made in affidavit, it is not open to the revenue to challenge the correctness of the statement made by the deponent in the affidavit. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Glass Lines Equipment Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT - 253ITR 454 (Guj). To conclude, the Ld. AR argued that there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the any cash payment has been actually made by the assessee for purchase of the land in question and under such facts and circumstances of the present case, the impugned addition deserves to be deleted in the interest of justice. 9. Rebutting the arguments of the Ld. AR, the Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that the seized material has to be read as a single holistic document and when the cheque payments are squarely tallied with the documents found and seized, the details of the cash payments reflected on the same document cannot be ignored. The Ld. DR argued that it is an impossible task to find the cash with the parties after the conclusion of the deal as the deal was concluded in the year 2012 after making cheque and cash payments whereas the documents were found and seized in the locker of Rajesh Patel in the year 2014. Rajesh Patel was the broker of the deal, as confirmed by the farmers before the Revenue Authorities. The fact that the profit earned by Rajesh Patel is also offered to tax before the Settlement Commission. The seized material, the statements recorded of the farmers, Rajesh Patel and the assessee who has purchased the lands got it registered in his (their) names clearly proves that the purchasers had paid cash for acquiring the lands. The Assessing Officer has clearly apportioned the amount of cash payments paid by each purchaser as mentioned in the table above. Since all the documents coexist and concur to the fact that cash payments indeed have been made in purchase of the land has been clearly proved, the order of the Revenue Authorities need to be affirmed. The Ld. DR relied on the operative part of the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 123 to 125/Ahd/2023 Jagdishchandra & Anujkr Jagdishchandra Patel Asst. Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 8– 10. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 10.1 We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has redressed all the issues raised by the assessee who has primarily pleaded that the documents found and seized from the possession of Rajesh Patel does not belong to him. The Ld. CIT(A) held that, “…there is no evidence regarding his transaction with Rajesh Patel other than these documents which do not have any document in his writing or signature. Thus he has questioned the reliance of AO on such documents in his case. Further he pleaded that the AO's reliance on the Banakhat dated 27/12/2011 with respect to RS No 344 and dated 07/05/2011 with respect to RS No 345 between Rajesh Patel and the owner farmers of these pieces of land was not justified as they are a later date creation, meant to extract money from him when he sells the property and were illegal in nature. He denied knowledge of existence of any such document. Thereby, he cannot be asked to explain the entries in the documents seized as per A/9. He added that as per statement given by Rajesh Patel, he has said that he has received Rs.2,10,000/- from assessee on 22/12/2011 based on the loose paper found during search but the Banakhat made for RS 344 is dated 27/12/2011. So he had no right with respect to the said property on 22/12/2011 so why will any amount be paid to him. He insisted that the property was purchased from the persons with whom deed was registered. He further added that he had given public notice on 14/12/2011 regarding the title for purchase of land from the farmers. No one appeared stating that he has rights in the said property otherwise he would have got them added as confirming parties in the two registered sale deeds. Moreover, the assessee had also obtained title clearance certificate from advocate on 24/01/2012 for both the lands wherein no mention of the banakhat was made. Thus, he pleads that he has directly transacted with the farmers and has no link with anyone like Rajesh Patel et al and has no knowledge about the banakhat between the sellers and Rajesh Patel till the date assessee's son summoned by the Income Tax Department. The appellant has also raised issue of cross examination of the sellers of the property, i. e. the farmers. 8.7.1 It has also raised an issue that the AO has not given him any benefit of the deduction made by the Govt. of 40% from the land area when the land RS is used for other than agriculture purpose. Generally farmers do not get payments for such land deducted as it is not used by the purchaser & hence valuation considered by the assessing officer on the basis of banakhat entered by third party Is had in law and facts as 40% of Land value is to be deducted as the same is deducted in road area. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 123 to 125/Ahd/2023 Jagdishchandra & Anujkr Jagdishchandra Patel Asst. Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 9– 8.8 I have duly considered the facts brought on record and the submission of the appellant in appeal. The denial of the appellant that he does not know anything about the banakhat that Rajesh Patel had made with the sellers and his ignorance about the same is not acceptable. Rajesh Patel has accepted all the transactions that were recorded in the seized documents. He has admitted that he has received Rs 74,57,550/- in cash from Anuj Patel et al. The Settlement commission has accepted the disclosure of this amount in the hands of Rajesh Patel in its order u/s 245D(4). The banakhat and registration of sale deed on the insistence of Rajesh Patel with Anuj Patel et al has been admitted by the sellers also in their statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act by the AO. It is crystal clear that Rajesh Patel t al entered into an agreement with the farmers for purchase of land RS 344 and 345 at Jambuva. A hanakhat was made for such a deal. In the meanwhile the land was also sold to Anuj Patel; out as a scheme, the sale was registered in the names of the selling farmers and Anuj Patel et al, the eventual purchasers. In between transaction with Rajesh Patel was deliberately kept out of loop and the income earned by them by creating an encumbrance on the property was monetized in cash terms and the same was kept out of the books. The transactions were made through Rajesh Patel where cheque and cash payments were duly made. All cheques paid to the sellers were handed over to Rajesh Patel who kept copies of the same. Cash part of the deal included On Money to be paid to the farmers as well as Cash to be paid to Rajesh Patel as the deal was made through him. Once the deal was completed, original cash and cheque receipts were taken by Rajesh Patel from the seller farmers. On record, the land was shown as land sold by farmers directly to Anuj Patel. But search action led to discovery of incriminating documents/material which blew the lid over the camouflage that was created to evade taxes. The denial of the appellant's about the cash transactions through Rajesh Patel can be equated to the ostrich burying its head in the sand evade detection but the facts are revealed itself. The argument that on knowing the facts, there was defects in the title of the property hence it has started cancellation procedure is an attempt to bolt the door after the horse of truth has bolted and discovered. 8.8.1 On the issue of the cross examination of the farmers it is submitted that the appellant had filed the affidavit of the farmers as per as per Annexure 6 paper book page no. 35 to 37. It stated that, the agreement to sale with Nilaben Rajesh Patel and others was entered just to secure payment from assessee as sale deed was done mentioning post dated cheques and also no amount as mentioned in agreement to sale was received by them. It is seen that the appellant had made them the witness in its case. These witnesses were cross examined by the AO and they spoke the truth. There is no cross examination of the cross examined. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 123 to 125/Ahd/2023 Jagdishchandra & Anujkr Jagdishchandra Patel Asst. Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 10– In any case, the statement of the farmers is a further corroboration of the facts as admitted by Rajesh Patel. Primary evidence was the incriminating material found and seized. Its ownership was accepted and entries there in were admitted to be true by Rajesh Patel. Farmers corroborated the fact that land was sold to Rajesh Patel and on his direction deed was signed with Anuj Patel. This is collateral evidence. The plea of cross examination of the same is rejected. 8.9 To reiterate, the fact of payment of cash for the property purchase made by Anuj Patel through Rajesh Patel, including his receipts, was evidenced primarily by the material seized during the search. The same was found in the possession of Shri Rajesh Patel. He has admitted the entries therein to be true and factual. Based on this discovery, he has disclosed that part of cash receipt that pertained to him as his income before the ITSC in his application. This admittance has been accepted by the Settlement commission in its order u/s 245D(4) of the Act. Few sellers of the property have admitted that the land was sold to Rajesh Patel and on his direction, sale was registered with the appellant/s. Hence the AO's action to add back the said amounts as computed in Table (supra) in the hands was completely justified as is backed by cogent credible evidence, that was corroborated by the other parties of the transaction. The addition was made AY wise on the apportionment of the cash paid to Rajesh Patel as per the ownership ratio of the parties that were eventual purchasers. Any other argument regarding the 40% deduction and advance paid is not acceptable as the AO has taken the complete amounts that were found to have been actually paid in cash to the farmers and Rajesh Patel were apportioned purchaser wise and year- wise correctly as can be seen from the chart prepared by the appellant…” 10.2 We find that the Assessing Officer has duly considered the affidavit filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer held that though the assessee has contended that he has not made any deal with Sh Rajesh Patel, instead the deal was made directly with the Farmers of these lands was not acceptable owing to the summons issued u/s 131 of the IT Act and the statements recorded of the farmers. In the statements recorded on 17.02.2016, initially, they have stated that they have made transactions with Sh. Anuj Patel. However, when they have been confronted with the original banakhat dated 27.11.2011, power of attorney and possession letter of Smt. Ranjanben G Patel & Smt Kokilaben Patel stated in answer to question no. 8 that they have made agreement to sell (Banakhat) first with Sh. Rajesh Patel. Thereafter, as per the directions of Sh. Rajesh Patel, they Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 123 to 125/Ahd/2023 Jagdishchandra & Anujkr Jagdishchandra Patel Asst. Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 11– have made final sell agreement with Sh. Anuj Patel. Similarly, when the farmers of R S No. 345 have been confronted with the original banakhat dated 07.05.2012, Smt. Bharatiben N Patel and Smt. Vanlata Patel have stated in answer to question no. 8 that they have made agreement to sell (Banaknat) first with Sh. Nila Rajesh Patel & others. Thereafter, as per the directions of them, they have made final agreement with Sh Anuj Patel. The original banakhats, possession letter, power of attorney etc. of these lands have been found in the possession of Sh. Rajesh Patel. The seller farmers have accepted of having done the agreement with Sh Rajesh Patel and their family members. The original receipts of money in cash & through cheques have been found from the possession of Sh. Rajesh Patel. For land at R S no. 344, the original receipts of money in cash have been seized as per annexure A/9 pages nos. 111 to 130 & 149 to 194. For land at R S No. 345, the original receipts of money in cash have been seized as per annexure A/9 pages nos. 55 to 83 and 131 to 148. As per banakhats made with Sh. Rajesh Patel & his family members, land at Survey No. 344 was agreed to be sold for an amount of Rs.2,73,06,250/- and Survey No. 345 for an amount of Rs. 2,07,36,200/- aggregating to Rs.4,80,42,450/-. Sh. Rajesh Patel has further got the land registered to Sh. Anuj Patel & other for an amount of Rs.5,55,00,000/- and offered difference of amount of Rs.74,57,550/- for taxation on account of sales of these lands. The incriminating papers found from the possession of Sh. Rajesh Patel demonstrate that Sh. Rajesh Patel has accepted cash from Sh. Anuj Patel & others for the land purchase al R S No. 344 & 345, Jambua. The original cash & cheque receipts signed by the. farmers have been found from the possession of Sh Rajesh Patel. The seller farmers of the lands have accepted of doing banakhats with Sh. Rajesh Patel & family members. In view of all these facts, it is held that Sh. Anuj Patel and the assessee has purchased the above mentioned two lands at RS no. 344 and Sh. Anuj Patel and others have purchased the land at R S No. 345, Jambuva for an aggregate amount of Rs.5,55,00,000/- from Sh. Rajesh Patel & family members. The final agreements to sell of these lands were made directly with the farmers of the lands on directions of Sh. Rajesh Patel & family members. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 123 to 125/Ahd/2023 Jagdishchandra & Anujkr Jagdishchandra Patel Asst. Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 12– 10.3 We find that the evidentiary worth of these seized documents stands fortified by the admission of Rajesh Patel himself, who, in his statement and subsequent application before the Settlement Commission, has categorically accepted having received cash of Rs. 74,57,550/- from Shri Anuj Patel in connection with the impugned transactions. The disclosure has been accepted by the Settlement Commission in proceedings under section 245D(4) of the Act. Such admission by an intermediary, corroborated by seized material and accepted in judicial proceedings, provides clinching proof of the cash component. 10.4 The addition has not been made solely based on the disclosure before the Settlement Commission by Rajesh Patel. The matter does not rest there. The seller farmers, in their statements recorded under section 131, initially attempted to distance themselves; however, when confronted with the original banakhats and related documents, they admitted to having first executed agreements with Rajesh Patel and thereafter, at his direction, executed the final registered sale deeds with Anuj Patel and others. The corroboration by the farmers lends further strength to the Revenue’s case that Rajesh Patel acted as a conduit, routing both cheque payments and on-money transactions as clearly manifested by the seized material. The plea of the assessee that the transactions were directly with farmers is, therefore, contrary to the record. 10.5 The reliance on public notice dated 14.12.2011 and title clearance certificate from an advocate does not, in any manner, establish that no cash was paid. These documents address title but not consideration. The affidavits and so- called cancellation deeds obtained in January 2015 are clearly post-facto, self- serving instruments, created after the search, and cannot displace the probative worth of contemporaneous seized documents. The argument that “no person would execute a sale deed if cash was pending” is speculative and contrary to ground realities where on-money transactions are settled outside the document. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 123 to 125/Ahd/2023 Jagdishchandra & Anujkr Jagdishchandra Patel Asst. Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 13– Indeed, seized receipts demonstrate staggered payments even beyond the date of registration. 10.6 We also note that the assessee’s plea of denial of cross-examination of farmers is an afterthought. From the assessment order it is evident that at no point did the assessee request cross-examination of the sellers of the land during the assessment proceedings. The assessee participated in the proceedings, filed written submissions and documents, yet never raised such a demand before the Assessing Officer. Having failed to raise the issue at the first opportunity, the assessee cannot now, at the appellate stage, plead violation of natural justice. 10.7 In any event, the impugned additions are not founded solely on third-party statements. They are supported primarily by seized banakhats, original receipts, and the categorical admission of Shri Rajesh Patel himself, which were duly confronted. The statements of farmers, even if eschewed, only serve a corroborative purpose. The legal position is well-settled that absence of cross- examination does not vitiate an addition when the addition is otherwise supported by cogent documentary evidence. Therefore, the assessee’s objection on this ground is devoid of merit. 10.8 Once the Revenue has brought on record seized documents evidencing higher consideration and corroborated with the statements of the sellers, reinforced by the cheque payments which were found to be correct as per the bank statements, the cash payments mentioned on the same seized material has sufficient credence. When authorities seized documents during a search, the documents must be interpreted or relied upon in its entirety, not selectively or partially, especially when used to draw conclusions. A sentence or a figure taken out of context may seem to be incriminating or non-incriminating, but read in full context, it would be treated either as an incriminating or non-incriminating. The Courts have held that if a document is being relied upon, the entire document must be read and selective reading be avoided. A reliance is being placed on the Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 123 to 125/Ahd/2023 Jagdishchandra & Anujkr Jagdishchandra Patel Asst. Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 14– judgment dated 05.08.2022 of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Industries Limited Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India. The later affidavits and cancellation deeds cannot override the chain of incriminating evidence. With regard to considering the area deducted by the Govt., we clarify that since the addition has been made based on the accounted cash paid in acquisition of the land, the area deducted will not be a parameter to allow any deductions. 11. In the result, all appeals of the assessee(s) are dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 20.08.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated 20.08.2025 **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 18.08.2025 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member . 18.08.2025 3. Other Member 18.08.2025 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S 18.08.2025 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 20.08.2025 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 20.08.2025 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 20.08.2025 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 IT(SS)A Nos. 123 to 125/Ahd/2023 Jagdishchandra & Anujkr Jagdishchandra Patel Asst. Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 15– Printed from counselvise.com "