Shri Vishwabandhu Dahyabhai Patel, Gandhinagar V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Gandhinagar

CO 16/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3393 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 01-08-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K SINGH
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Business income; Income from undisclosed sources; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 131; 68; 145

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH BEFORE: SHR I MAHAVIR PRASAD , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THE ITO, WARD - 4, GANDHINAGAR (APPELLANT) VS SHRI VISHWABANDHU DAHYABHAI PATEL, PROP: SAIYAM CONSTRUCTION CO., PLOT NO. 633/105, OPP. VASTUNIRMAN SOCIETY, SECTOR - 22, GANDHINAGAR - 382022 PAN: AIVPP8807B (RESPONDENT) SHRI VISHWABANDHU DAHYABHAI PATEL, PROP 3 : SAIYAM CONSTRUCTION CO., PLOT NO. 633/105, OPP. VASTUNIRMAN SOCIETY, SECTOR - 22, GANDHINAGAR - 382022 PAN: AIVPP8807B (CROSS OBJEC TOR ) VS THE ITO, WARD - 4, GANDHINAGAR (RESPONDENT) I T A NO . 1754 / A HD/20 13 A SSESSME NT YEAR 200 8 - 09 C O NO. 16/AHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 1754 /AHD/20 13) ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 09 I.T.A NO. 1754 /AHD/20 13 & CO NO. 16/AHD/2014 A.Y. 08 - 09 PAGE NO ITO VS. SHRI VISHWABHANDHU DHAYABHAI PATEL 2 REVENUE BY : S H RI V.K. SINGH , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: NONE DATE OF HEARING : 31 - 10 - 2 017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEM ENT : 12 - 01 - 2 018 / ORDER P ER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : - THIS REVENUE S APPEAL AND ASSESSEE S CROSS OBJECTION FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09 , AR ISE FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) , GANDHINAGAR, AHMEDABAD DATED 28 - 03 - 2013 , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTI ON 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS.47,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPO SITED IN BANKS. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITED IN BANKS AND DIRECTING THE AO TO TAKE THE PROFITS FROM THE PROJECT TO BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.61,93,000/ - , BEING 20% OF RS.3,09,65,520/ - . 3. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT CONSIDERING THE INCOME SHOWN IN PROFIT & LOSS A/C ON LAND SALES RS.6,36,413/ - ; BANK INTEREST INCOME RS.29,866/ - AND BANK INTEREST ON FD R OF RS.3,92,127/ - , WHILE DIRECTI NG TO TAKE RS.61,93,000/ - AS TOTAL INCOM E. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF T HE A.O. BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. I.T.A NO. 1754 /AHD/20 13 & CO NO. 16/AHD/2014 A.Y. 08 - 09 PAGE NO ITO VS. SHRI VISHWABHANDHU DHAYABHAI PATEL 3 3. IN THIS CASE, RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 4 , 89 , 870/ - WAS FILED ON 31 ST MARCH, 2010. THEREAFTER, THE CASE WAS SELECTED UNDER SCRUTINY BY ISSUING OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT ON 22 ND SEPTEMBER, 2010. THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF LAND. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT CASH DEPOSIT WERE MADE IN VARIOUS ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTIC ED THAT IN BANK A/C. NO. 303901000 00134, THERE WAS CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 3 , 09 , 95 , 080/ - MAINTAINED WITH BANK OF BARODA, GANDHINAGAR DURING THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER, 2007 TO MARCH, 2008 . T HE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS NOTICED THAT IN BANK A/C. 303901000000 3 T HERE WAS CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 1 , 17 , 36 , 000/ - . THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THESE CASH DEPOSITS WITH RELEVANT EVIDENCES. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE SOURCE OF THESE CASH DEPOSITS WAS OUT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE MEMBERS REGARDING BOOKI NG OF PLOTS , WITHDRAWAL FROM BANK ACCOUNT AND REFUND OF ADVANCES FOR AGRICULTURE LANDS . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS: - (I) THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139(4 ) OF THE ACT ON 31/03/2010 I.E. ON THE LAST DATE OF THE EXTENDED PERIOD. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, AGAINST ALL COLUMNS OF THE BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, ONLY NIL FIGURE HAS BEEN ENTERED. THEREFORE, THE BALANCE OF RS.7,02,882/ - IS NOT SHOWN AGAINST BALANCE WITH BANK COLUMN OF THE RETURN OF INCOME. (II) IT IS ALSO FOUND THAT AS PER STATEMENT OF INCOME ENCLOSED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, PROFITS AND GAINS AS PER P&L A/C AT A LOSS OF RS.5,95,585/ - . NO PROFIT OR LOSS ACCOUNT IS ENCLOSED WIT H THE RETURN OF INCOME. (III) VIDE SUBMISSION DTD.23/11/2010, THE ASSESSEE HAS FOR THE FIRST TIME SUBMITTED THE P&L A/C OF SAIYAM CONSTRUCTION, PROP.VISHWABHANDU D PATEL FOR A.Y.2007 - 08. IN THE P&L A/C, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PROFIT ON LAND SALES AT RS .6,36,413/ - , BANK INTEREST INCOME OF RS.29,866/ - AND BANK INTEREST ON FOR OF RS.3,92,127/ - . TOTAL INDIRECT EXPENSES ARE SHOWN AT RS.16,53,991/ - THE BALANCE I.T.A NO. 1754 /AHD/20 13 & CO NO. 16/AHD/2014 A.Y. 08 - 09 PAGE NO ITO VS. SHRI VISHWABHANDHU DHAYABHAI PATEL 4 IS A LOSS OF RS.5,95,585/ - . THE DETAILS OF PROFIT ON LAND SALES IS ALSO ENCLOSED AS UNDER: DATE LAN D SOLD TO AMOUNT (RS.) PROFIT (RS.) 11/7/07 AT NABHOI SURVEY NO.85 MEHTA 52,50,000 2,62,788 1 1/7/07 ATNABHOI SURVEY NO.88 MEHTA 30,84,000 1,53,495 11/7/07 AT NABHOI SURVEY NO.89 MEHTA 43,95,000 2,20,130 TOTAL 1,27,29,000 6,36, 413 (IV) ALONG WITH THE REPLY DTD.23/11/2010, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE LAND SALE DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE AFORESAID THREE LAND, DESCRIPTION OF WHICH IS GIVEN ABOVE. ON VERIFICATION, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE LAND WERE SOLD TO THE FOLLOWING THREE PERSONS AND SALE PROCEEDS WERE RECEIVED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: NAME OF THE PURCHASERS SURVEY NO.85 SURVEY NO.88 SURVEY NO.89 SEJAL RAJEEVKUMAR MEHTA CHEQUE NO.56841FOR RS. 17,50,000 CHEQUE NO.56842 FOR RS. 10,28,000 CH EQUE NO,56843 FOR RS. 14,65,000 ROOPAL RONAKKUMAR MEHTA CHEQUE NO.56831FOR RS. 17,50,000 CHEQUE NO.56832 FOR RS. 10,28,000 CHEQUE NO,56833 FOR RS. 14,65,000 HIRAL CHIRAG MEHTA CHEQUE NO.56811FOR RS.17,50,000 CHEQUE NO.56812 FOR RS. 10,28,000 CHEQUE NO,56813 FOR RS.14,65,000 TOTAL RS.52,50,000 RS.30,84,000 RS.43,95,000 (V) IT IS OBSERVED THAT ALL THESE SALE PROCEEDS BY CHEQUE ARE RECEIVED IN A/C NO.2169 OF THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED IN KANKARIA MANINAGAR .M.S. BANK ON 1 7/07/08 AND 24/07/07. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT IMMEDIATELY A FTER RECEIPT OF RS. 1,27,29,480/ - , ON 25/07/07 RS.50 LAC EACH WERE TRANSFERRED TO SHRI KAMLESH P MODI AND MRS.PARESHABEN. FURTHER, ON 13/09/07, RS.15,00,000/ - WERE TRANSFERRED TO SMT.KALPANABEN. AL L THESE TRANSFERS WERE DONE THROUGH CHEQUES. (VI) THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT NONE OF THE SALE TRANSACTIONS RELATED TO THE THREE LAND WERE CARRIED OUT IN CASH, WHOSE PROCEEDS CAN BE CLAIMED HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN THE RECEIPTS BEING INCORPORATED IN THE SO CALL ED CASH BOOK OF SAIYAM CONSTRUCTION FOR F.Y.2009 - 10. IT IS ALSO SURPRISED TO SEE THAT WHILE VARIOUS ITEMS OF EXPENSES OF RS.16,53,991/ - WERE INCURRED IN CASH BUT HAVE BEEN CLAIMED I.T.A NO. 1754 /AHD/20 13 & CO NO. 16/AHD/2014 A.Y. 08 - 09 PAGE NO ITO VS. SHRI VISHWABHANDHU DHAYABHAI PATEL 5 AGAINST SALES RECEIPTS OF THE THREE LAND AND INTEREST INCOME IN THE P&L A/C SUBMITTED VIDE SUBMISSION DTD.23/11/2010 WHICH ARE TOTALLY BY CHEQUE ONLY. (VII) IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ON 10/12/2010, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE BALANCE SHEET OF SAIYAM CONSTRUCTION, PROP. VISHWABANDHU D PATEL FOR THE FIRST TIME. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN CASH IN HAND OF RS.6,30,882/ - WHILE CASH BALANCE AS PER THE SO CALLED CASH BOOK IS RS.7,02,882/ - . FURTHER, SUNDRY CREDITO RS ARE SHOWN AT RS. 1,99,98,941/ - . ALTHOUGH THERE EXIST NO EVIDENCE OF ANY SUNDRY CREDITORS , FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT IF IT IS CONSIDERED TO EXIST SO, THERE CANNOT BE ANY OTHER SOURCE THAN THE CLAIMED MEMBERS BOOKING AND ADVANCES RECEIVED FOR AGRICULTURE LAND. AS DISCUSSED IN PARA 4.1, EVEN AS PER ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSION, THE AMOUNT C OMES TO RS.3, 56,77,473/ - . THUS, THERE ARE A CLEAR CONTRADICTION BETWEEN TWO SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASESSEE ITSELF. (VIII) IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT ALONG WITH THE BALANCE SHEET SUBMITTED ON 10/12/2010, THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN ANOTHER CASH BOOK FOR THE SAME PERIOD. IN THIS CASH BOOK, NOT A SINGLE ENTRY RELATED TO THE MEMBER'S BOOKING AND ADVANCES RECEIVED FOR AGRICULTURE LAND ARE SHOWN. IN FACT ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT VIDE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD.23/12/2010 REGARDING NON - CORRELATION OF CASH WITHDRA WALS WITH CASH DEPOSITS, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME OUT WITH AN ALL TOGETHER NEW CASH BOOK INTRODUCING CASH TO THE TUNE OF RS.3.56 CRORES. (IX) IN THE LIGHT OF DISCUSSION MADE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO TRUTH OR GENUINENESS WITH RESPECT TO PAPERS TERMED AS CASH BOOK FOR F.Y.2007 - 08 AND SUBMITTED WITH REPLY DTD.27/12/2010. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. SIMULTANEOUSLY, IT IS ALSO FOUND THAT THERE IS NO TRUTH OR GENUINENESS WITH RESPECT TO DETAILS GIVEN IN THE BALANCE SHEET SUBMIT TED ON 10/12/2010. HENCE, THE SAME IS REJECTED TOO. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCREPANCIES , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S. 145 OF THE ACT. AFTER ANALYZING THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 28/12/2010 , THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN LIST OF 26 PERSONS FROM WHOM HE CLAIMED THAT CASH WAS RECEIVED FOR BOOKING OF PLOTS IN THE PROJECT CALLED SAPTARSHI COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY . IN THIS RESPECT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS POINTED OUT THAT ASSESS EE HAS SUBMITTED THE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF 12 PERSONS FROM WHOM THE CASH WAS RECEIVED FOR ALLOTMENT OF PLOTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVIDED I.T.A NO. 1754 /AHD/20 13 & CO NO. 16/AHD/2014 A.Y. 08 - 09 PAGE NO ITO VS. SHRI VISHWABHANDHU DHAYABHAI PATEL 6 ANY INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF 14 OTHER PERSONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT TOTAL CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 98 , 10,000/ - WAS RECEIVED FROM THE 12 PERSONS AS PER THE INFORMATION AND DETAILS PROVIDED AT PAGE 7 AND 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REDUCED THIS CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 98,10, 000/ - OUT OF TOTAL CAS H DEPOSIT FOUND IN THE BANK OF RS . 3 , 09 , 65 , 520/ - AND STATED THAT THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 2 , 11 , 55 , 520/ - COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT RS. 2 , 11 , 55 , 520/ - WAS RECEIVED AS DEPOSIT FROM THE DIFFERENT MEMBERS O F THE SOCIETY. IN ADDITION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO STATED THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF RECEIPT OF RS. 47 LACS AS ADVANCE FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THIS CLAIM WAS ALSO REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO VERIFIED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING RE - DEPOSITING OF CASH WITHDRAW N FROM THE BANK AS UNDER: - 1. BOB A/CNO.30390 100000134 (I) FROM THIS BANK ACCOUNT, MAJOR CASH WITHDRAWAL AS PER EXHIBIT - ! IS RS.30,50,000/ - , RS.60,000/ - IS MISCELLANEOUS WITHDRAWALS O N DIFFERENT DATES. (II) RS. 4,50,000/ - AND RS.1,00,000/ - ARE WITHDRAWALS ON 11/09/2007. FURTHER RS.33,90,000/ - AND RS.14,00,000/ - ARE WITHDRAWALS ON 26/09/2007 AND 28.09.2007. SINCE THERE IS ONLY A TIME GAP OF 12 DAYS IN WITHDRAWALS AND DEPOSITS, IT IS CONSIDERED AS REASONABLE. HENCE, \ A BENEFIT FOR CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.5,50,000/ - IS GIVEN WITH RESPECT TO THESE WITHDRAWALS. (III) RS.10,00,000/ - AND RS. 8,50,000/ - ARE WITHDRAWALS ON 4/1/2008 AND 5/ 1/2008. IN THE MONTH OF JANUARY , THERE IS A SINGLE MAJOR DEPOSIT OF RS.1,00,000/ - ON 23/01/2008 AND FEW SMALL OR DEPOSITS TOTALING TO RS. 5,73,400/ - . EVEN IF A MAXIMUM TIME GAP OF 25 DAYS ARE CONSIDERED REASONABLE, BENEFIT OF RS.6,73,400/ - CAN ONLY BE GIVEN AGAINST THE TWO WITHDRAWALS. ASSESSEEE HAS NOT GIVEN A NY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE AS TO HOW SUCH A HUGE AMOUNT IS WITHDRAWN AND ARE NOT UTILIZED I.E. KEPT IDLE WITH HIM FOR A LONG PERIOD OF MORE THAN A MONTH AND THEREAFTER RE - DEPOSITED. THIS IS MORE PERTINENT LOOKING TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS EXTENSIVE LY DEALING IN SALE OR PURCHASE OF LAND IN CASH. HENCE, ON A REASONABLE BASIS, A BENEFIT OF RS.6,73,400/ - CAN ONLY BE GIVEN RELATED THE MONTH OF JANUARY, 2008. I.T.A NO. 1754 /AHD/20 13 & CO NO. 16/AHD/2014 A.Y. 08 - 09 PAGE NO ITO VS. SHRI VISHWABHANDHU DHAYABHAI PATEL 7 IV) ON THE LAST DAY OF ACCOUNTING PERIOD ON 31/03/2008, THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN CASH OF RS.6,5 0,000/ - . THIS AMOUNT CANNOT BE TREATED AS UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CASH DEPOSITS ON THIS DAY AS NO SUCH CASH DEPOSIT EXIST. HENCE, NO BENEFIT CAN BE GIVEN FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF RS.6,50,000/ - . V) THUS, TOTAL REASONABLE BENEFIT AVAILABLE OUT OF WITHDRAWAL S FROM THIS BANK ACCOUNT IS RS,12,23,400/ - (RS.5,50,000/ - + RS. 6,73,400/ - ). 2. BOB A/C. NO. 3039040000003 (I) FROM THIS ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TOTAL WITHDRAWAL OF RS.80,50,000/ - ON DIFFERENT DATES. (II) ON 05/10/2007, THERE IS SELF WITH DRAWAL OF CASH OF RS.5,00,000/ - . FURTHER, IT IS CLAIMED THAT ON 09/10/2007, A CHEQUE BEARING NO. 331604 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.20,00,000/ - WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF MR. NITIN. IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED THAT CASH OF RS.20,00,000/ - WAS WITHDRAWN ON ASSESSEE'S BEHALF BY MR. NITIN. THESE TWO AMOUNTS WERE CLAIMED TO BE DEPOSITED ON 10 - 10 - 2007. HOWEVER, ON VERIFICATION, I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN ASSESSEE'S CLAIM W.R.T. PAYMENTS MADE BY CHEQUE TO MR. NITIN DUE TO FOLLOWING REASONS: (A)THE CHEQUE IS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF M R .NITIN. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT AGAINST THIS CHEQUE, MR NITIN HAS WITHDRAWN CASH AND HANDED THE AMOUNT BACK TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD, THE COPY OF CHEQUE NO.331604 IS CALLED FROM BOB. IT IS OBSERVED THAT AGAINST THIS CHEQUE, NO CASH WA S ACTUALLY WITHDRAWAN FROM THE BANK. INSTEAD THE CHEQUE IS SENT FOR CLEARANCE BY THE BOB AND SUBSEQUENTLY DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI NITINBHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL IN SUVIKAS PEOPLE'S CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD., C.G.ROAD, AHMEDABAD. THUS, PRIMA FACIE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE WRONG. (B) IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT IN MOST OF OCCASIONS, THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF WAS WITHDRAWING CASH BY SELF CHEQUE. MR. NITIN IS NEITHER AN AGENT NOR AN EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO CARRY SUCH A BIG RESPONSIBI LITY OF WITHDRAWING AND HANDING BACK HUGE CASH OF RS.20 LACS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE BENEFIT OF WITHDRAWAL OF RS.5 LAC BY SELF CHEQUE CAN ONLY BE GIVEN AND THE BALANCE CLAIM IS REJECTED. (III) ON 16/10/2007, WITHDRAWALS OF RS. 4 LAC ANDRS.2.50 LAC ARE MADE BY SELF CHEQUE. THE AMOUNT IS SHOWN TO BE RE - DEPOSITED IS RS. 45 L ACS ON 22/10/2007. SINCE THERE IS A REASONABLE TIME GAP, A BENE FIT OF RS.6,50,000/ - IS GIVEN. (IV) ON 30/10/2007, WITHDRAWAL OF RS.5,00,000/ - IS SHOWN. HOWEVER, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THIS IS NOT A CASH WITHDRAWAL BUT ACTUALLY A TRANSFER TO ANOTHER BOB A/C BY CHEQUE NO. 331629. HENCE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. V) ON 02/11/2007, 03/11/2007, 04/11/2007 AND 05/11/2007, CHEQUES OF RS. 1 1,00,000/ - , RS.5,00,000/ - , RS,.3,50,000/ - AND RS. 20,00,000/ - ARE REFLECTED AS DEBITED IN THE BANK AS SHOWN IN THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE BANK. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THESE AMOUNT AS UTILIZED FOR CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.47,00,000/ - MADE ON 03/11/2007. HOW EVER, THE BANK STATEMENT CLEARLY SHOW THAT RS.47,00,000/ - WAS DEPOSITED AND CREDITED IN THE BANK ON 01/11/2007 ITSELF AND UTILIZED FOR MAKING F.D. ON 01/11/2007. THE ENTRIES RELATED TO THE AFORESAID FOUR CHEQUES ARE SUBSEQUENT TO THE DEPOSIT OF RS.47 LAC. HENCE, PRIMA FACIE ASSESEE'S CLAIM IS INADMISSIBLE. MOREOVER, THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT CHEQUES ISSUED IN THE NAMES OF DIFFERENT PERSONS WERE USED FOR WITHDRAWAL OF CASH AND HANDING IT BACK TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD, COPY OF CHE QUE I.T.A NO. 1754 /AHD/20 13 & CO NO. 16/AHD/2014 A.Y. 08 - 09 PAGE NO ITO VS. SHRI VISHWABHANDHU DHAYABHAI PATEL 8 N O.331632 AMOUNTING TO RS. 1 1 ,00,000/ - IS CALLED FROM THE BANK. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THIS CHEQUE WAS ACTUALLY SENT FOR CLEARANCE BY BOB TO BANK OF INDIA, GANDHI ROAD BRANCH, AHMEDABAD IN THE ACCOUNTS OF SHRI CHANDRAKANT K SHAH. HENCE, PRIMA FACIE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE WRONG. ACCORDINGLY, T HE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM IS REJECTED. VI) ON 01/12/07, RS.50,000/ - IS WITHDRAWN BY SELF - CHEQUE. IT IS OBSERVED THAT ON DIFFERENT DATES NEAR TO THE DATE OF WITHDRAWAL, DEPOSITED IN THE A/C NO.00134. HENCE, BE NEFIT OF RS.50,000/ - IS GIVEN. (VII) THUS, TOTAL REASONABLE BENEFIT FOR WITHDRAWALS THAT CAN BE USED FOR CASH DEPOSIT FROM THIS BANK ACCOUNT CAN BE RS.L2,00,000/ - (RS.5,00,000 + RS.6,50,000 + RS,50,000). KANKARIA MANINAGAR N.S. BANK A/C. NO.2169 RS.9,75, 000/ - IS CLAIMED TO BE WITHDRAWN BY SHRI VISHWABANDHU ON 15/02/2008. SIMILAR TO THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN IN RESPECT OF CHEQUE ISSUED IN THE NAME OF MR.NITIN, IN PARA 4.3.2(2) ON 09/10/2007, THIS CLAIM TOO IS REJECTED AS LACKING EVIDENCE. HENCE, NO BENEFI T CAN BE GIVEN. 4. DENA BANK C/A NO.141 RS.1,15,000/ - & RS.2,40,000/ - ARE CLAIMED TO BE WITHDRAWN ON 11/07/07 & 15/12/07 AND | UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CASH DEPOSITS. DUE TO REASONABLE TIME LIMIT IN WHICH CASH DEPOSITS ARE ; MADE WITH RESPECT TO WITHDRAW AL OF RS.2,40,000/ - , A BENEFIT OF RS.2,40,000/ - IS GIVEN TO THE I ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, NO BENEFIT CAN BE GIVEN FOR RS.1,15,000/ - . 4.4.3.3. THUS, THE TOTAL BENEFIT FOR WITHDRAWALS FROM DIFFERENT BANK ACCOUNTS WHICH CAN BE USED FOR RE - DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOU NTS IS AS UNDER: (I) BOBA/CNO.0013A RS. 12,23,400/ - (II)BOBA/CNO.000030D RS.12,00,000/ - (III) KANKARIA BANK A/C NO.2169 RS.NIL (VI)DENABANKC/ANO. 141 RS.2,40, 000/ - TOTAL RS.26,63,400/ - AFTER VERIFICATION , THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 26 , 63 , 400/ - CAN BE USED FOR RE - DEPOSIT ING IN THE BANK A/C OF THE ASSESSEE AS MENTIONED ABOVE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FURTHER STATED THAT ASSESSEE HA S NOT PROVIDED ANY DETAILED EXPLANATION IN RES PECT OF CLAIM OF CASH IN HAND . THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT SOME PORTION OF CASH DEPOSIT PERTAINED TO RECEIPT OF REFUND IN RESPECT OF A DVANCE MADE FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND BUT ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE SAME WITH EVIDENCES . THE ASSESSING OFFICER I.T.A NO. 1754 /AHD/20 13 & CO NO. 16/AHD/2014 A.Y. 08 - 09 PAGE NO ITO VS. SHRI VISHWABHANDHU DHAYABHAI PATEL 9 OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 98,10,000/ - FROM MEMBERS FOR THE PROJECT BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY INCOME REL ATED TO THE SAPTARSHI C O - OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS A/C FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007 - 08. HE FURTHER STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXPENSES IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS AC COUNT ONLY ON THE FOLLOWING ACCOUNTS: - (I) FENCING EXPENSES RS. RS. 1,35,480/ - (II) LAND LEVELLING EXPENSES RS. 1,97,580/ - (III) MISC. EXPENSES RS.41,235/ - (IV) PLANTATION EXPENSES RS.70,540/ - (V) SALARY (WATCHMAN) RS.60,000/ - HE FURTHER STATED THAT NO PART OF EXPENSES RELATING TO THE SOCIETY INCURRED IN T HE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007 - 08. THEREFORE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT ENTIRE RECEIPT OF RS. 98,10,000/ - WILL REPRESENT UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PROJECT SAPTAR SH I CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY, GANDHINAGAR. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE STATED FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WORKED OUT THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 4,44,86, 0 86/ - AS MENTIONED BELOW: - EXPENDITURE RECEIPTS EXPENDITURE CLAIMED IN THE P&L A/C RS.16,53,991 (I) UNACCOUNTED CASH DEPOSIT IN BOB A/C.NO.00134 LESS: SET OFF FOR WITHDRAWALS RS.3,09,95,080 RS: 12,23, 400 RS.2,97,7 1,680 (II) UNACCOUNTED CASH DEPOSIT RS.L, 17,36,000 I.T.A NO. 1754 /AHD/20 13 & CO NO. 16/AHD/2014 A.Y. 08 - 09 PAGE NO ITO VS. SHRI VISHWABHANDHU DHAYABHAI PATEL 10 IN BOBA/CNO.0003(O D) LESS: SET OFF FOR WITHDRAWALS RS.12,00,000 RS.1,05,36,00 0 (III) UNACC OUNTED CASH DEPOSIT IN DENA BANK A/C.NO.141 LESS: SET OFF FOR WITHDRAWALS RS.33,60,000 RS.2.40,000 RS.3 1,20,000 (IV) PROFIT ON LAND SALES TO MEHTA AS CLAIMED IN THE P&L A/C RS.6,36,413 (V) BANK INTEREST INCOME RS.29,866 (VI) BANK INTEREST ON FDR RS.3,92,127 NET PROFIT RS.4.28.32.095 TOTAL RS.4,44,86,086 RS.4,44,86,08 6 4. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PARTLY ALLOW ED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 6.3 I AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE, DECIDED TO REMAND THE CASE TO THE AO FOR HIS SCRUTINY/INVESTIGATION AND COMMENTS AFTER ADMITTING THE ADDITIONA L EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46A. THE LETTER REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE AO AND GIVING THE REASONS FOR ADMITTING THE EVIDENCES IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: ' THE APPELLANT HAS FILED DETAILED SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCES BEFORE ME IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. SOME OF T HIS IS IN THE FORM OF EVIDENCE WHICH WAS NOT PRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FOR E.G. IN PARA 4.4.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN A FIST OF 26 PERSONS FROM WHOM PAYMENT IN CASH HAS BEEN CLAIMED FOR DEPOSIT AGA INST PLOT BOOKING. THE DETAILS OF 12 PERSONS WERE SUBMITTED ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. THE APPELLANT IS CLAIMING THAT THE COMPLETE DETAILS WERE NOT SUBMITTED AS ONLY SAMPLE WERE SUBMITTED AND NO FURTHER COPIES WERE ASKED AND GIVEN. THE APPELLANT IS CLAIMING THAT THE TOTAL DEPOSITS AGAINST PLOT I.T.A NO. 1754 /AHD/20 13 & CO NO. 16/AHD/2014 A.Y. 08 - 09 PAGE NO ITO VS. SHRI VISHWABHANDHU DHAYABHAI PATEL 11 BOOKING AMOUNTED TO RS.3,09,65,520/ - AND HAS FILED EVIDENCES IN THIS REGARD ALONG WITH A LIST OF 41 PERSONS. 4. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS HAS BEEN QUESTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER A ND THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE. THE CASH BOOK WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED FOR SAIYAM CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN NOT ACCEPTED AS REGULAR BOOKS. AMONGST THE REASONS GIVEN ARE - I) NO P&.L ACCOUNT AS MENTIONED IN THE STATEMENT OF INCOME HAS BEEN FOUND FILED WITH THE RE TURN. THIS IS FILED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON 23/11/2010. THE APPELLANT IS CHALLENGING IT ON THE BASIS OF NOTING BELOW THE STATEMENT OF INCOME. PLEASE FILE EVIDENCE LIKE ORDER - SHEET ENTRY/LETTER ISSUED ETC., BY WHICH IT CAN BE PROVED THAT THIS WAS NOT DONE. TH E APPELLANT HAS ALSO REFUTED /EXPLAINED OTHER OBSERVATIONS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 5. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IN PARA 4.4.2.2, PAGE 9, THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN HELD: 'HENCE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CASH AMOUNT REPRESENTS MEMBERS DEPOSITS AGAINST PLOT BOOKING IS ACCEPTED O NLY TO THE EXTENT RS. 98,10, 000 / - . BALANCE CLAIM IS REJECTED.' 6. FURTHER, THE RECEIPTS ACCEPTED AS DISCUSSED IN PARA.5 WERE ALSO TAKEN AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME, SAYING THAT THE INCOME FROM THE PROJECT AGAINST THESE SALES HAS NOT B EEN OFFERED FOR TAX, ALTHOUGH IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE. THE APPELLANT IS CLAIMING THAT THE DEPOSITS WERE SHOWN BUT WERE NOT TAKEN AS INCOME AS SALE DEEDS WERE NOT EXECUTED. IF THE PART DEPOSITS BY PLOT BOOKERS ARE TAKEN AS CORRECT, EVEN IF THE ACCOUNTING IS TAKEN AS INCORRECT; THE ENTIRE BOOKS CANNOT BE REJECTED IN SUMMARY MANNER. POSSIBILITY OF SOME RECOGNIZED METHOD OF ACCOUNTING BY PERCENTAGE COMPLETION ETC., BEING APPLIED TO WORK OUT THE PROFITS MAY BE EXAMINED. IT IS CLEAR FROM ALL THESE THAT THE EVID ENCES, SUBMISSIONS AND THE COMPLETE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE REQUIRED TO BE THOROUGHLY EXAMINED TO REACH THE TRUE INCOME. 7. THE ENTIRE SUBMISSIONS WITH ENCLOSURES WITH SUBMISSIONS DATED 18/10/2012 AND 18/01/2013 ARE BEING FORWARDED WITH THIS LETTER FOR THORO UGH EXAMINATION, ENQUIRY AS NEEDED AND YOUR COMMENTS. 8. THE EVIDENCES REGARDING REMAINING BOOKINGS OF PLOTS CLAIMED AND CLAIMED RETURN OF ADVANCE FOR LAND FOR RS.47 LAC SHALL BE THOROUGHLY SCRUTINIZED AND ENQUIRED INTO. THESE EVIDENCES ARE ADMITTED UNDER RULE 46A AS THE CLAIM WAS MADE BEFORE THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ITSELF AND IT MAY HAVE BEEN DIFFICULT TO PRODUCE EVIDENCES FROM THIRD PARTIES IN THE TIME AVAILABLE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO SUBMITTING THAT IT HAS GIVEN SAMPLE EVIDENCES AND WAS R EADY TO PRODUCE REMAINING DETAILS AND EVIDENCES.' 6.4 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS STATED THAT TH E REMAND REPORT OF THE AO HAS BEEN RECEIVED ALONG WITH VARIOUS DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS REPRODUCED AS BELOW: 2. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS KIND TO STATE THAT THE SCRUTINY A SSESSMENT WAS FINALIZED ON 31 - 12 - 2010. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS KIND TO STATE THAT AFTER RECEIVING YOUR HONOR ABOVE LETTER REGARDING REMAND REPORT IN THE ABOVE I.T.A NO. 1754 /AHD/20 13 & CO NO. 16/AHD/2014 A.Y. 08 - 09 PAGE NO ITO VS. SHRI VISHWABHANDHU DHAYABHAI PATEL 12 MENTIONED ASSESSEE. THE UNDERSIGNED HAS CARRIED OUT PROCEEDINGS. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH SHRI R.C. DAVE ITP ATTENDED TIME TO TIME AND FURNISHED SUBMISSIONS AND DISCUSSED THE ISSUES. IN RESPECT OF YOUR DIRECTION TO SEND REMAND REPORT WITH REFERENCE TO YOUR ABOVE REFERRED LETTER I HEREBY SUBMIT THE REMAND REPORT AS UNDER. 3. SIR, THE UNDERSIGNED HAS CARRIED OUT INQUIRIES , RECEDED THE STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE, SHRI THAKORE PRAHLADJI R. (WHO DEALT WITH ISSUE OF RS.. 47,00,000) AND 15 DEPOSITORS OUT OF REMAINING 29 DEPOSITORS OUT OF TOTAL 41 DEPOSITORS . SR.NO NAME OF THE PERSON 1 VISHVABANDHU D.PATEL 2 PRAHLADBHAI R. THAKORE 3 CHIRAG G.DAVE 4 DIPA B. ACAHRYA 5 JAYANTILAL J.ACHARYA 6 DEVYANI RAJNEDRA DAVE 7 JIGNESH ACHARYA 8 NISHABEN PARTIV 9 RINA CHIRAG 10 DHAVAL RAMI 11 KIRTIDABEN K.RAVAL 12 PANK AJ M.PATEL 13 NAVINBHAI CHANDUBHAI 14 PARTHIV G. DAVE 15 SHIVRAMBHAI ISWARBHAI 16 CHIRAG G DAVE 17 RAJANDEDRA CHINUBHAI DAVE 4. SIR; AS PER YOUR DIRECTION, I THOROUGHLY GONE THROUGH THE COPIES OF THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCES SUBMITTED B EFORE YOUR HONOR BEING A CONFIRMATION LETTER IN RESPECT OF THE BOOKING AMOUNT (DEPOSIT) OF RS.3,09,65,520/ - OF 41 PERSONS. OUT OF THE ABOVE 41 PERSONS, DETAILS OF I.T.A NO. 1754 /AHD/20 13 & CO NO. 16/AHD/2014 A.Y. 08 - 09 PAGE NO ITO VS. SHRI VISHWABHANDHU DHAYABHAI PATEL 13 12 PERSONS FOR THE BOOKING AMOUNT OF RS.98,10,000/ - WERE ALREADY COVERED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT IS REVEALED FROM PARA 5 O F THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT SO FAR DEPOSITS OF 12 PERSONS AMOUNTING TO RS.98,10,000/ - ARE CONCERNED, SAME WERE ACCEPTED. AS PER PARA 5 OF YOUR LETTER AND IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER IN PARA 4.4.2.2 AT PAGE NO.9, FOLLOWING HAS BEEN HELD: HENCE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT CASH AMOUNT REPRESENTS MEMBERS DEPOSITS A GAINST PLOT BOOKING IS ACCEPTED, ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.98,10,000/ - , BALANCE CLAIM IS REJECTED.' 5. THE UNDE RSIGNED HAS RECEIVED SUBMISSION AND EVIDENCE FILED' BEFORE YOUR HONOR ALONG WITH YOUR ABOVE REFERRED LETTER. IT IS OBSERVED THAT TOTAL 41 PERSONS WHOM PAYMENTS IN CASH HAS BEEN CLAIMED TO BE RECEIVED WITH RESPECT OF ITS PROJECT, SAPTARUSHI CO. HOUSING SOC IETY VIBHAG - 1 KUDASAN, GANDHINAGAR. THE DETAILS OF 12 PERSONS ARE ALREADY MENTIONED IN PARA 4.4.2.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE UNDERSIGNED DID NOT GO THROUGH IN THE DETAIL OF SUCH CONFIRMS OF 12 PERSONS FOR AMOUNTING TO RS.98,10,000/ - . FOR THE REMAINING 2 9 PERSONS TO TEST CHECK OUT OF 41 PERSONS THE SUMMONS TO 15 VARIOUS PERSONS WERE ISSUED AND THEIR STATEMENTS U/S 131 OF THE ACT WERE RECORDED, OBTAINED RECEIPTS, ALLOTMENT LETTER. COPIES OF PAN CARD, OR ID PROOF AND ALSO COPIES OF RETURN OF INCOME IN SOME CASES AND THE SAME HAS BEEN KEPT ON RECORD. IT IS FOUND FROM THE STATEMENT RECORDED THAT MOST OF THE DEPOSITORS HAVE CONFIRMED THEIR BOOKING DEPOSITS AND ALSO EXPLAINED THEIR SOURCE OF INVESTMENT. THEY HAVE ALSO FILED THE COPY OF RELEVANT RECEIPT, ALLOTMEN T LETTER, ETC. DURING THE COURSE OF RECORDING STATEMENT U/S 131 OF THE ACT. IN ALL THE 15 CASES, PLOT BOOKING DEPOSITORS HAVE CONFIRMED THEIR DEPOSITS GIVEN TO SHRI VISHVABANDHU DAHYABHAI PATEL FOR BOOKING OF A PLOT IN HIS SCHEME SAPATARUSHI CO - OPERATIVE H OUSING SOCIETY. IT IS FOUND FROM A STATEMENT RECORDED THAT NOT A SINGLE PERSON HAVE FILED COPY OF NA PERMISSION AND PLAN OF THEIR SCHEME. COPIES OF PLAN AND NA ARE NOT WITH THEM AND ADDED THAT THE SAME ARE WITH THE ASSESSEE. MOST OF PLOT BOOKING DEPOSITORS HAVE CONFIRMED ABOUT THE CONFIRMATION GIVEN TO THE I.T. DEPARTMENT DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL HEARING. IN SOME OF THE PLOT BOOKING DEPOSITORS HOLD PAN BUT HAVE NOT FILED THEIR RETURN OF INCOME. ALL THE PLOT BOOKING DEPOSITORS HAVE STATED THAT NO SALE DEE DS WERE EXECUTED IN FAVOR OF THEM BY THE DEVELOPERS. THE REASONS STATED BY THEM THAT THERE WAS A REVISE IN THE T.P SCHEME; THEREFORE, IT SEEMS FROM STATEMENT RECORDED THAT THE DEVELOPER HAD NOT EXECUTED A SALE DEED IN FAVOR OF THE PLOT BOOKING HOLDERS. I H EREBY SUBMIT THE COPIES OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE ACT OF THE PLOT BOOKING DEPOSITORS OF 14 PERSONS, RECEIPTS, ALLOTMENT LETTERS ETC. FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL. 6. IN RESPECT OF PARA 4 OF YOUR ABOVE REFERRED LETTER, I SUBMIT HEREWITH THE XEROX C OPY OF THE ORDER SHEET FOR THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR A.Y.2008 - 09 CARRIED ON U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL. I.T.A NO. 1754 /AHD/20 13 & CO NO. 16/AHD/2014 A.Y. 08 - 09 PAGE NO ITO VS. SHRI VISHWABHANDHU DHAYABHAI PATEL 14 7 IT. IS OBSERVED THAT THE QUESTION OF THE SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSITS HAVE BEEN ASKED IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED AND IT IS OBSERVED T HAT ALL THE DEPOSITORS HAVE GIVEN THEIR CONFIRMATION. 8. IT IS SEEN FROM THE STATEMENT ATTACHED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME THAT P & L CAPITAL A/C. & BALANCE SHEET ETC, HAVE BEEN ENCLOSED. WITH REGARD TO PARA 6 OF YOUR HONOR'S LETTER IT IS SUBMITTED THAT RS .3,09,65,520/ - TOTAL BOOKING AMOUNT WAS SEEN AND AS PER OBSERVATION FROM THE STATEMENT RECORDED OF 15 DIFFERENT PERSONS WHO BOOKED PLOTS AND CONFIRMED IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS GIVEN .THUS IT CAN BE UNDERSTOOD FROM THE STATEMENT OF SUCH PERSONS THE SAME MAY B E TREATED A GENUINE AND ACCORDINGLY SUITABLE PROFIT MAY BE TAXED . 9. IN RESPECT OF PARA 5 OF YOUR LETTER REGARDING CLAIM OF RETURN OF ADVANCE FOR LAND AMOUNTING TO RS.47,00,000/ - , IT IS FOUND FROM THE AFFIDAVIT, STATEMENT RECORDED OF SHRI PRAHLADJI R.THA KORE AND RECEIPT THAT THE PAYMENT OF RS.47,00,000/ - WAS MADE IN THE YEAR 2000 - 2001 ON DIFFERENT DATES AND SAME AMOUNT OF RS.47,00,000/ - WAS RETURNED TO THE ASSESSEE ON DIFFERENT DATES. IT IS SEEN THAT SHRI THAKOR PRAHLADJI RUPSINGHJI, ONE OF THE JOINT HOLD ER OF THE LAND AND ALSO FOUND FROM AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI THAKOR PRAHLADJI RUPSINGHJI THAT HE IS THE MAIN PERSON WHO DEALT WITH THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE STATEMENT OF SHRI PRAHLADJI RUPSINGHJI WAS REQUIRED TO BE RECORDED. IT IS FOUND FROM THE STATEMENT OF SH RI PRAHLADJI RUPSINGHJI THAT HE HAS RECEIVED RS.47,00,000/ - FOR HIMSELF AND 53 OTHERS AS THE SAID LAND IS FROM INHERITANCE. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED FROM THE STATEMENT RECORDED THAT THE ORAL AGREEMENT WAS MADE AND SAID AMOUNT OF RS.47,00,000/ - WAS RETURNED TO TH E ASSESSEE ON DIFFERENT DATES. THE SAID LAND WAS HELD BY SHRI AMBALAL MOTIJI AND 53 OTHERS WHICH ARE STATED TO BE THE SUCCESSOR OF ONE FAMILY. ACCORDING TO SHRI THAKORE PRAHLADJI RUPSINGHJI AND HIS AFFIDAVIT, THEY HAVE ENTERED INTO AN ORAL AGREEMENT TO SAL E OF THEIR LAND BEARING SURVEY NO.203, ADMEASURING 13759 SQ. METER IN CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,37,59,000/ - IN THE YEAR 2001 - 02 WITH ASSESSEE AND AS A BANA OF THAT ORAL AGREEMENT, THEY HAVE RECEIVED RS.47,00,000/ - FROM ASSESSEE ON DIFFERENT DATES IN 2001 - 02. I T IS OBSERVED FROM THE AFFIDAVIT AND THE STATEMENT THAT THE LAND CANNOT BE SOLD TO ANY PERSON WITHOUT PAYING A PREMIUM TO THE GOVERNMENT AND WITHOUT GETTING THE PERMISSION FROM THE GOVERNMENT. THUS IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS FAILED AND THE MATTE R WAS IN DISPUTE. IT IS FURTHER MENTIONED IN THE AFFIDAVIT THAT ASSESSEE IS PRESSING HARD TO THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE PROPERTY HOLDER TO RETURN BACK THE BANA AMOUNT ALONGWITH INTEREST. THEREAFTER, IT WAS DECIDED BY THE MEDIATOR THAT THEY HAVE TO RETURN BA CK THE BANA AMOUNT WITHOUT INTEREST AND THE MATTER WAS FINALLY SETTLED AND THEY HAVE REPAID THE BANA AMOUNT TO SHRI VISHVABANDHU DAHYABHAI PATEL IN THE YEAR 2007 - 08. THE SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED & SERVED TO SHRI THAKORE PRAHLADJI RUPSINGHJI AN D HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE ACT ON 18/03/2013. I SUBMIT HEREWITH COPY OF SUCH STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE ACT FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL. DURING THE COURSE OF RECORDING THE STATEMENT, SHRI THAKORE PRAHLDJI RUPSINGHJI HAS CONFIRMED THE DETA ILS GIVEN IN THE AFFIDAVIT AND ALSO SUBMITTED COPY OF I.T.A NO. 1754 /AHD/20 13 & CO NO. 16/AHD/2014 A.Y. 08 - 09 PAGE NO ITO VS. SHRI VISHWABHANDHU DHAYABHAI PATEL 15 RECEIPT THEY HAD GIVEN TO SHRI VISHVABANDHU DAHYABHAI PATEL FOR THE BANA AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THEM AMOUNTING TO RS.47,00,000/ - IN 2001 - 02 ON DIFFERENT DATES. 10. IN VIEW OF THE VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI PRAHLADJI R.THAKORE, STATEMENTS RECORDED, RECEIPTS, ALLOTMENT LETTERS AND THE MATTER NARRATED ABOVE, THE REPORT IS SUBMITTED HEREWITH FOR FURTHER GUIDANCE AND INSTRUCTION. ' 6.5 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE SUBMISSIONS, THE REMAND REPORT, THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AS FAR AS THE ADDITIONS BASED ON THE DEPOSITS IN CASH IN DIFFERENT BANK ACCOUNTS IS CONCERNED, THE FOLLOWING PERTINENT OBSERVATIONS/DECISIONS ARE MADE: (I) THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN THE SOURCE MAINLY AS CONSISTING OF DEPOSITS AGAINST PLOT BOOKING AMOUNTED TO RS.3,09,65,520/ - AND HAS FILED EVIDENCES IN THIS REGARD ALONG WITH A LIST OF 41 PERSONS. THE OTHER MAJOR SOURCE IS CLAIM OF REFUND OF RS.47 LAC FROM PERSONS WHO WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN GIVE N ADVANCE AGAINST AGRICULTURE LAND BOOKING IN EARLIER YEAR ON THE CANCELLATION OF ORAL AGREEMENT IN THIS REGARD, (II) THE CASH BOOKS AND OTHER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DEPICTING THESE HAVE BEEN PRODUCED, (III) IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IN PARA 4.4.2.2, PAGE 9, THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN HELD: 'HENCE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CASH AMOUNT REPRESENTS MEMBERS DEPOSITS AGAINST PLOT BOOKING IS* ACCEPTED ONLY TO THE EXTENT RS.98,10,000/ - . BALANCE CLAIM IS REJECTED.' IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE THAT EVEN DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS; THE AO WAS CONVINCED OF THE GENUINENESS OF SUBSTANTIAL DEPOSITS AGAINST PLOT BOOKINGS. (IV) THE AO HAS EXAMINED THE TOTAL DEPOSITS CLAIMED FROM 41 PERSONS IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. HIS FINDINGS ARE SUMMED UP AS FOLL OWS: (A) I THOROUGHLY GONE THROUGH THE COPIES OF THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BEFORE YOUR HONOR BEING A CONFIRMATION LETTER IN RESPECT OF THE BOOKING AMOUNT (DEPOSIT) OF RS.3,09,65,520/ - OF 41 PERSONS. OUT OF THE ABOVE 41 PERSONS, DETAI LS OF 12 PERSONS FOR THE BOOKING AMOUNT OF RS.98,10,000/ - WERE ALREADY COVERED (AND ACCEPTED - IMPLIED) DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. (B) FOR THE REMAINING 29 PERSONS TO TEST CHECK OUT OF 41 PERSONS THE SUMMONS TO 15 VARIOUS PERSONS WERE ISSUED AND THEIR STATEMENTS U/S 131 OF THE ACT WERE RECORDED, OBTAINED RECEIPTS, ALLOTMENT LETTER. COPIES OF PAN CARD, OR ID PROOF AND ALSO COPIES OF RETURN OF INCOME IN SOME CASES AND THE SAME HAS BEEN KEPT ON RECORD. IN ALL THE 15 CASES, PLOT BOOKING DEP OSITORS HAVE CONFIRMED THEIR DEPOSITS GIVEN TO SHRI VISHVABANDHU DAHYABHAI PATEL FOR BOOKING OF A PLOT IN HIS SCHEME SAPATARUSHI CO - OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY. I.T.A NO. 1754 /AHD/20 13 & CO NO. 16/AHD/2014 A.Y. 08 - 09 PAGE NO ITO VS. SHRI VISHWABHANDHU DHAYABHAI PATEL 16 (C) IT IS FOUND FROM A STATEMENT RECORDED THAT NOT A SINGLE PERSON HAS FILED COPY OF NA PERM ISSION AND PLAN OF THEIR SCHEME. COPIES OF PLAN AND NA ARE NOT WITH THEM AND ADDED THAT THE SAME ARE WITH THE ASSESSEE. MOST OF PLOT BOOKING DEPOSITORS HAVE CONFIRMED ABOUT THE CONFIRMATION GIVEN TO THE IT. DEPARTMENT DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL HEARING. I N SOME OF THE PLOT BOOKING DEPOSITORS HOLD PAN BUT HAVE NOT FILED THEIR RETURN OF INCOME. (D) ALL THE PLOT BOOKING DEPOSITORS HAVE STATED THAT NO SALE DEED WERE EXECUTED IN FAVOR OF THEM BY THE DEVELOPERS. THE REASONS STATED BY THEM THAT THERE WAS A R EVISE IN THE T.P SCHEME, THEREFORE, IT SEEMS FROM STATEMENT RECORDED THAT THE DEVELOPER HAD NOT EXECUTED A SALE DEED IN FAVOR OF THE PLOT BOOKING HOLDERS. (E) FURTHER THE BOOKS, P&L ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET ETC., WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO IN THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ITSELF. I FIND FROM THE ORDER SHEET THAT THE AO HAS NEVER EVER QUESTIONED OR NOTED NON - COMPLIANCE OR NON - FILING OF ANY DETAILS CALLED FOR. SOME OF THE ORDER SHEET ENTRIES ARE REPRODUCED FOR READY REFERENCE. (I) 24/11/2010 - SHRI R.C. DAVE, TAX CONSULTANT ATTENDED AND SUBMITTED THE DETAILS CALLED FOR. HEARING IS FIXED 29/11/2010 (II) 10/12/2010 - SHRI R. C. DAVE, TAX CONSULTANT, ATTENDED AND SUBMITTED BANK DETAILS AND BALANCE SHEET AS CALLED FOR. NEXT HEARING IS FIXED ON 13/12/1 0 (III)28/12/2010 SHRI R. C. DAVE ATTENDED AND SUBMITTED THE DETAILS CALLED FOR FROM THE ABOVE, I FIND THAT NONE OF THE CLAIMED PERSON WHO IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BOOKED THE PLOTS HAS DENIED HIS CONFIRMATION GIVEN IN THIS REGARD. SOME OF THEM NOT HAVING FILE D RETURNS DOES NOT IN ANY WAY EFFECT THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. A SELLER OF PLOTTING SCHEME ETC., IS NOT SUPPOSED TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF THE CLIENT U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT AS LONG AS THE CLIENT AND TRANSACTION IS GENUINE. THE VERY FACT THAT 14 PERSONS WERE EXAMINED BY THE AO WHO PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND FURTHER 15 BY THE PRESENT AO AND NONE OF THE PERSONS WAS FOUND TO BE NON - GENUINE SHOWS THAT THE PLOTS WERE INDEED BOOKED AND PAYMENTS MADE FOR THE SCHEME. THE OTHER MAJOR SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND SUBSEQUENTLY BECOMING A SOURCE FOR DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT IS CLAIM OF REFUND OF RS. 47 LACS FROM PERSONS WHO WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN ADVANCE AGAINST AGRICULTURE LAND BOOKING IN EARLIER YEAR ON THE CANCELLATION OF ORAL AGREEMENT IN THIS REGARD. THE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT REPRODUCED ABOVE HAS REPORTED THAT HE HAS EXAMINED THE AFFIDAVIT AND RECORDED THE STATEMENTS OF T HE PARTIE S. THE CLAIM IS NOT PROVED WRONG AND BASED ON THE EVIDENCES, I HOLD THAT THE EXP LA NATION IS REQUIRED TO BE ACCEPTED. SUPPLEMENTED WITH THE FACT THAT P & L ACCOUNT , BALANCE SHEET, BOOKS DETAILS A S REQUIRED WERE PRODUCED (AS EVIDENCED BY THE ORDER SHEET ) WITH NO REMARK OF ANY NON - COMPLIANCE, HO L D THAT NO ADDITION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE ON THE BAS I S OF UNEXPLA INED DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNTS, SUBJECT TO M Y OBSERVATIONS IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPHS. HOWEVER, I HAVE NOTED THAT THE A .O. HAS REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND WHILE MAKING THE ADDITIONS FOR UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS HAS ALSO ADDED THE SUM OF RS. 98,10,000/ - ( DE POSITS OF 12 PERSONS AMOUNTING TO RS. 98,10,000/ - WERE I.T.A NO. 1754 /AHD/20 13 & CO NO. 16/AHD/2014 A.Y. 08 - 09 PAGE NO ITO VS. SHRI VISHWABHANDHU DHAYABHAI PATEL 17 ACCEPTED AS GENUINE) HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNT IS ALSO REQUIRE D TO BE ADDED BECAUSE NO INCOME FROM THE PROJECT HAS BEEN SHOWN. IN A WAY, THE A.O. HAS ADDED THE SUM AS BUSINESS INCOME FROM THE PROJECT. THE ISSUE OF BUSINESS INCOME OF THE PROJECT WHICH SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE YEAR UNDER QUESTION; WOULD BE DEALT WITH SEPARATELY, SUBSEQUENTLY IN THIS ORDER. 6.6 THE NEXT ISSUE IS THE TAXABILITY RELATED TO SAPTARUSHI CO - OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY. TH E A.O. HAS POIN TED OUT THAT NO INCOME HAS BEEN CLAIMED FROM THIS PROJECT ALTHOUGH HUGE BOOKING AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN TAKEN. THE FOLLOWING PERTINEN T OBSERVATIONS ARE MADE ON THE I SSUE: (I) THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT THE AMOUNTS ARE RECEIVED TOWARDS ADVANC E FOR PLOT BOOKING AND THEY WOULD RECOGNIZE THE INCOME ONLY ON EXECUTION OF SALE DEED OF PLOT. THE ADVANCES RECEIVED ARE SHOWN AS 'CURRENT LIABILITIES' IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE APPELLANT HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF AHMEDABAD TRI BUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. SHIVALIK BUILDWELL (P) LTD. (ITA NO. 1698/AHD/2009) WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA NO 6 OF ITS ORDER HAS HELD THAT 'THE ACTION OF THE AO IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THE ASSESSEE BEING A DEVELOPER OF THE PROJECT PROFITS IN HIS CASE WILL ARISE ON TRANSFER OF TITLE OF THE PROPERTY AND ANY AMOUNT TOWARDS ADVANCES/BOOKING AMOUNT CANNOT BE TREATED AS TRADING RECEIPTS IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT.' IT HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT HON'BIE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN THE SAID JUDGMENT BY RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ASHA LAND CORPORATION (133 ITR 44) AND IN THE OF CASE CIT VS. MOTILAL C. PATEL AND CO. 173 ITR 666(GUJ.) FURTHER RELIANCE ,S PLACED ON THE DECISION OF AHMEDABAD ITAT IN THE CASE OF D. R. C ONSTRUCTION VS. ITO (ITA NO. 2735/AHD/2010). (II) WHEN DIRECTED TO SUBMIT THE ESTIMATED COST OF PROJECT AND TOTAL REVENUES ACCEPTED AND THE PROFIT LIKELY TO BE EARNED ON I COMPLETION; THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING ESTIMATE: REG: VISHWABANDHU D. PATEL STATUS: INDIVIDUAL ROUGH MARKING OF PROFITABILITY SPARSH PROJECT, KUDASAN, DIST. GANDHINAGAR SURVEY NO. 203 9275 SQ. MTRS SURVEY NO.204 8443 SQ. MTRS TOTAL 17718 SQ.MTRS AS PER BANANAKHAT RATE RS. 500 SQ. MTRS TOTAL COST RS. 88, 59,000 ADD: LAND BROKERAGE & STAMP ETC. EXPENSES RS. 7,50,000 RS. 1,06,09,000 ADD: DEVELOPMENT & TRAVELLING ETC. EXPENSES ESTIMATING PER SP. MTRS @ RS. 975 RS. 1,72,75,050 ADD. N.A. EXPENSE & PLANNING & ARCHITECT FEES RS. 50,00, 000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST RS.3,28,84,050 TOTAL PLOT LAND IN SQ.MTRS 17718 LESS: 40 X BEING ROAD & COMMON PLOT ETC. 7087 10031 SALE PRICE PER SQ. MTRS - RS. 3500/ - I.T.A NO. 1754 /AHD/20 13 & CO NO. 16/AHD/2014 A.Y. 08 - 09 PAGE NO ITO VS. SHRI VISHWABHANDHU DHAYABHAI PATEL 18 TOTAL VALUE RS.3,72,08,000 NET PROFIT TOTAL ESTIMATE & SALE PRICE RS. 3,72,08,000 LESS:CO ST OF LAND & OTHE R EXPENSES 3,28,84,000 ESTIMATED PROFIT@ 1 1 % RS. 43,24,450/ - THE ESTIMATE OF THE PROFIT WAS ALSO FORWARDED TO THE A.O, WHO HAS REMARKED THAT FROM THE STATEMENT OF SUCH PERSONS THE SAME (REFERRING TO THE PERSONS WHO HAD BOOKED THE PLOTS) MAY BE TR EATED A GENUINE AND ACCORDINGLY SUITABLE PROFIT MAY BE TAXED. (I) I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE APPELLANT THAT UNLESS THE REGISTRY OF THE PLOT IS DONE AND THE TRANSACTION COMPLETE, NO REVENUE HAS TO BE RE COGNIZED. THE DECISIONS OF HON B LE GUJARAT HIGH COURT WERE G IVEN IN THE CONTEXT OF THOSE CASES AT A TIME WHEN THERE WERE NO SEPARATE GUIDELINES FOR REVENUE RECOGNITION IN THE CASE OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS. NOW THE GUIDANCE NOTE ON RECOGNITION OF REVENUE BY REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS, ISSUED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE INSTI TUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA; IS THERE AND FOR CORRECT/FAIR DETERMINATION OF PROFITS, THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED. THIS NOTE WAS ISSUED BEFORE 2006 AND THEREFORE, IS APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. (IV) ACCORDING TO THE GUIDANCE NOTE, FOR RECOGNITION OF REVENUE IN CASE OF REAL ESTATE SALES, IT IS NECESSARY THAT ALL THE CONDITION 5 SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPHS 10 AND 11 OF ACCOUNTING STANDARD (AS) REVENUE RECOGNITION, AS REPRODUCED BELOW, ARE SATISFIED: '10. REVENUE FROM SALES OR SERVICE TRANSACTIONS SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED WHEN THE REQUIREMENTS A S TO PERFORMANCE SET OUT IN PARAGRAPHS 11 AND 1 2 ARE SATISFIED, PROVIDED THAT AT THE TIME OF PERFORMANCE IT IS NOT UNREASONABLE TO EXPECT ULTIMATE COLLECTION AT THE TIME OF RAISING OF ANY CLAIM IT I S UNREASONABLE TO EXPECT ULTIMATE COLLECTION, REVENUE RECOGN ITION SHOULD BE POSTPONED. 11. IN A TRANSACTION INVOLVING THE SALE OF GOODS, PERFORMANCE SHOULD BE REGARDED AS BEING ACHIEVED WHEN THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN FULFILLED: (I) THE SELLE R OF GOOD S HAS TRANSFERRED TO TH E BUYER THE PROPERTY IN THE GOODS FOR A P LACE OR ALL S IGNIFICANT RISK AND REWARDS OWNERSH IP HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE BUYER AND THE SELLER RETAINS NO EFFEC TIVE CONTROL OF THE GOODS TRANSFERRED TO A DE GREE USUALLY ASSOCIATED WI TH OWNERSHIP; AND (II) NO SIGNIFICANT UNCERTAINTY EXISTS REGARDING THE AMOUNT OF THE CONSIDERATION THAT WILL BE DERIVED FROM THE SALE OF THE GOODS. THE REAL ESTATE SALES TAKE PLACE IN A VARIETY OF WAYS AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO DIFFERENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS SPECIFIED IN THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE. ACCORDINGLY, THE POINT OF TIME AT WHICH ALL SIGNIFICANT RISKS AND REWARDS OF OWNERSHIP CAN BE CONSIDERED AS TRANSFERRED, IS REQUIRED TO BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE.' (V) IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE APPELLANT HAS ISSUED ALLOTMENT LETTERS TO THE CUSTOMERS OF THE PARTICULAR PLOTS WHICH ARE IRREVOCABLE. THE OWNERSHIP OF THE APPELLANT OF THE ENTIRE LAND WAS COMPLETE BECAUSE OF THE POSSESSION OF THE IMMOVABLE I.T.A NO. 1754 /AHD/20 13 & CO NO. 16/AHD/2014 A.Y. 08 - 09 PAGE NO ITO VS. SHRI VISHWABHANDHU DHAYABHAI PATEL 19 PROPERTY TO BE TAKEN OR RETAINED IN PART PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT OF THE NATURE REFERRED TO IN SECTION 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 AS PER THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT. THE PURCHASE BY THE APPELLANT WAS EVIDENCED BY A WRITTEN BANAKHAT, THERE WAS INTENTION OF PAY MENT - IN FACT SOME ACTUAL PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE, AND POSSESSION HAS BEEN TAKEN. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO ADMITTEDLY DONE SOME WORK ON THE SITE AND HAS ISSUED ALLOTMENT LETTERS AFTER BOOKING. THE IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT OUT OF AROUND RS.3.72 CRORE ESTIMATE D TO BE RECEIVABLE ON THE ENTIRE SALE, THE APPELLANT HAS ALREADY RECEIVED AROUND RS.3.09 CRORE. THIS IS WITH RESPECT TO BOOKING OF AROUND 70% OF THE PLOTS. MEANING THEREBY, THAT ALMOST ALL PAYMENT TO BE RECEIVED FROM THE ALLOTTEES HAS ALREADY BEEN RECEIVED . THERE IS NO RISK OR SIGNIFICANT UNCERTAINTY EXISTS REGARDING THE AMOUNT OF THE CONSIDERATION THAT WILL BE DERIVED FROM THE SALE OF THE GOODS. SECONDLY, WHEN ALMOST ENTIRE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE AND ALLOTMENT LETTERS AND RECEIPTS ISSUED WITH REGARD TO PART ICULAR PLOTS, THE RIGHT TO THE PLOTS CANNOT BE DENIED IN ANY CASE TO THE ALLOTTEES. THERE IS NO REASON, THEREFORE, WHEN BOTH THE CONDITIONS ABOVE, AS PER THE GUIDELINES HAVE BEEN MET, FOR NOT HAVING RECOGNIZED THE REVENUE AND TAKING THE BOOKING AMOUNTS DI RECTLY TO THE BALANCE SHEET (VI) THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE HELD TO BE CORRECTLY REJECTED U/S 145(3) OF THE IT ACT. (VII) NOW IS THE ISSUE OF ESTIMATION / DETERMINATION OF PROFITS WHICH SHOULD BE SUBJECTED TO TAX ON THE BOOKING OF PLOTS IN THE SAPTRUSHI CO - OP. HSG. SOCIETY OF WHICH THE APPELLANT IS ADMITTEDLY THE DEVELOPER. THE ESTIMATE GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT ITSELF IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE MAJOR EXPENSES IN SUCH CASES IS LAND ONLY, BECAUSE IT IS A PLOTTING SCHEME. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT IS ES TIMATING N.A. CONVERSION EXPENSES, ARCHITECT EXPENSES AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES INCLUDING COMMON FACILITIES AT A HUGE AMOUNT OF ABOUT RS. 2.72 CRORE. THIS DOESN'T SEEM AT ALL REASONABLE AND NO DETAILED COMPUTATION IS GIVEN. THE APPELLANT HA S ONLY SPENT AROUND RS.16 LAC ON SUCH ACTIVITIES TILL 31/03/2008. IN THE ENTIRETY OF CIRCUMSTANCES, LOOKING TO THE LOW RATE OF PURCHASE OF LAND AND EVEN ALLOWING 40% OF AREA AS NON - SALEABLE, I ESTIMATE THE NET PROFIT AT 20% OF TH E REVENUE RECOGNIZED. I AGREE THAT EXPENSES ON DEVELOPMENT WHICH THE APPELLANT IS BOUND TO INCUR IN FUTURE ARE TO BE ALLOWED FROM THE RELATED REVENUE RECOGNIZED WHILE ESTIMATING THE NET PROFIT AND HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. THE TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED TILL THE END OF THE PREVIOUS YE AR RS.3,09,65,520/ - AND THEREFORE, THE PROFITS FROM THE PROJECT TO BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME ARE DIRECTED TO BE TAKEN AT RS.61,93,000/ - . THE ADJUSTMENT ENTRY AS PER FINAL PROFITS OBTAINED; IF REQUIRED; ON COMPLETION OF PROJECT/COMPLETE SCHEME WOULD HAVE TO BE PASSED IN THE LAST YEAR OF COMPLETION OF PROJECT. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DECIDED ACCORDINGLY. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING I.T.A NO. 1754 /AHD/20 13 & CO NO. 16/AHD/2014 A.Y. 08 - 09 PAGE NO ITO VS. SHRI VISHWABHANDHU DHAYABHAI PATEL 20 OFFICER AND CONTENDED THA T LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ESTIMATING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE @ 20% IN SPITE OF FACT THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE HUGE AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE FOR THE PROJECT. NOBODY HAS ATTENDED FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. AFTER PERUSAL OF MATERIAL ON RECORD , THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ADJUDICATED AS UNDER: - 1 ST GROUND OF APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT SOME PORTION OF CASH DEPOSIT PERTAINED TO RECEIPT OF REFUND IN RESPECT OF ADVANCE MADE FOR AGRICU LTURAL LAND. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE WITH RELEVANT EVIDENCES THAT THE AFORESAID CASH DEPOSITED PERTAINED TO RECEIPT OF REFUND IN RESPECT OF ADVANCE MADE FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND. SUBSEQUENTLY, AT THE APPELLATE STAGE THE LD.CIT(A) HAS REMAND ED THE MATTER TO THE AO FOR ADMITTING THE EVIDENCES EVIDENCE WHICH WAS NOT PRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REPORTED IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT STATEMENT OF SHRI PRAHLADJI R.THAKORE WAS RECORDED STATING THAT PAYME NT OF RS.47,00,000/ - WAS RECEIVED IN THE YEAR 2000 - 2001 ON DIFFERENT DATES AND SAME AMOUNT OF RS.47,00,000/ - WAS RETURNED TO THE ASSESSEE ON DIFFERENT DATES . IN THE REMAND REPORT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FORWARDED THE RECORDED STATEMENT ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI PRAHLADJI R.THAKORE FOR FURTHER GUIDANCE AND INSTRUCTION TO THE LD. CIT(A). WE OBSERVED THAT IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE CONTENTS OF THE REMAND REPORT AS REPORTED IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT APPEAL THAT THE ASSESSING I.T.A NO. 1754 /AHD/20 13 & CO NO. 16/AHD/2014 A.Y. 08 - 09 PAGE NO ITO VS. SHRI VISHWABHANDHU DHAYABHAI PATEL 21 OFFICER HAS SIMPL Y FORWARDED THE AFFIDAVIT ALONG WITH STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR FURTHER GUIDANCE AND INSTRUCTION TO THE LEARNED CIT APPEAL. THE LEARNED CIT APPEAL HAS SIMPLY HELD THAT THE CLAIM WAS NOT PROVED WRONG ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCES THEREFORE EXPLANATION IS REQ UIRED TO BE ACCEPTED. WE OBSERVED THAT IN THE REMAND REPORT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT STATED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF RS.47 LACS WAS GENUINE. THE LEARNED CIT APPEAL HAS ALSO NOT ELABORATED AND SPECIFIED THE RELEVANT EVIDENCES IN HIS FINDINGS WHICH CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT AFORESAID CLAIM WAS GENUINE. WE OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY AGREEMENT OR OTHER RELEVANT EVIDENCES WHICH CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE SAID AMO UNT IN THE YEAR 2000 - 2001 AND RECEIVED THE SAME AMOUNT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AFTER A LONG GAP . WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT SPECIFIED ANY UNDISPUTED COGENT EVIDENCES OTHER THAN STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT FROM SHRI PRAHLADJI R.TH AKORE . DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLANT PROCEEDING BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER ATTENDED NOR SUBMITTED ANY RELEVANT EVIDENCES BEFORE US TO ENABLE US TO ADJUDICATE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED CIT APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE, THEREFORE, WE CONSIDERED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IT WILL BE APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE IT A FRESH AFTER EXAMINATION OF RELEVANT EVIDENCES IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT CASH DEPOSIT OF RS 47,00000/ PERTAINED TO RECEIPT OF REFUND IN RESPECT OF ADVANCE MADE FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE I.T.A NO. 1754 /AHD/20 13 & CO NO. 16/AHD/2014 A.Y. 08 - 09 PAGE NO ITO VS. SHRI VISHWABHANDHU DHAYABHAI PATEL 22 OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE S . 2 ND GROUND OF APPEAL AND CRO SS OBJECTION NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEE. AFTER ANALYZING THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF 12 PERSONS FROM WHOM THE CASH DEPOSIT WAS RECEIVED FOR ALLOTMENT O F PLOTS. BUT ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF 14 OTHER PERSONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER MENTIONED THAT ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN DETAILS OF RECEIPT OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 98,10,000/ - FROM MEMBERS FOR THE PROJECT IN WHICH HE WAS THE DEVELOPER. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY INCOME RELATED TO THE SAPTARSHI CO - OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY NOT SHOWN ANY RECEIPT OF DEPOSIT FROM MEMBERS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS A/C FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007 - 08. HE FURTHER STATED THAT NO PART OF EXPENSES RELATING TO THE SOCIETY WAS INCURRED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007 - 08. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT ENTIRE RECEIPT OF RS. 98,10,000/ - WILL REPRESENT UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PROJECT SAPTARSHI CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY, GANDHINAGAR. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE STATED FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WORKED OUT THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 4,44,86,086/ - AT THE APPELLATE STA GE BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE TOTAL DEPOSITS AGAINST PLOT BOOKING WAS AMOUNTED TO RS.3,09,65,520/ - AND HAS FILED EVIDENCES IN THIS REGARD I.T.A NO. 1754 /AHD/20 13 & CO NO. 16/AHD/2014 A.Y. 08 - 09 PAGE NO ITO VS. SHRI VISHWABHANDHU DHAYABHAI PATEL 23 ALONG WITH A LIST OF 41 PERSONS.THE A SSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE DEPOSITS WERE SHOWN BUT WERE NOT TAKEN AS INCOME AS SALE DEEDS WERE NOT EXECUTED. THE EVIDENCES REGARDING REMAINING BOOKINGS OF PLOTS CLAIMED WERE ADMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BY THE LD.CIT(A) ON WHICH THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CALLED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REPORTED IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT FROM THE REMAINING 29 PERSONS SUMMONS TO 15 VARIOUS PERSONS WERE ISSUED AND THEIR STATEMENTS U/S 131 OF THE ACT WERE RECORDED AND OBTAINED RECEIPTS, ALLOTMENT LETTER ETC. AND MOST OF THE DEPOSITORS HAVE CONFIRMED THEIR BO OKING DEPOSITS AND ALSO EXPLAINED THEIR SOURCE OF INVESTMENT. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS OBTAINED THE ESTIMATED COST OF PROJECT AND TOTAL REVENUES ACCEPTED AND THE PROFIT LIKELY TO BE EARNED ON COMPLETION OF PROJECT FROM THE ASSESSEE. AS ELABORATED SUPRA IN THIS ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING ESTIMATE: REG: VISHWABANDHU D. PATEL STATUS: INDIVIDUAL ROUGH MARKING OF PROFITABILITY SPARSH PROJECT, KUDASAN, DIST. GANDHINAGAR SURVEY NO. 203 9275 SQ. MTRS SURVEY NO.204 8443 SQ. MTRS TOTAL 177 18 SQ.MTRS AS PER BANANAKHAT RATE RS. 500 SQ. MTRS TOTAL COST RS. 88,59,000 ADD: LAND BROKERAGE & STAMP ETC. EXPENSES RS. 7,50,000 RS. 1,06,09,000 ADD: DEVELOPMENT & TRAVELLING ETC. EXPENSES ESTIMATING PER SP. MTRS @ RS. 975 RS. 1,72,75,05 0 ADD. N.A. EXPENSE & PLANNING & ARCHITECT FEES RS. 50,00,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST RS.3,28,84,050 TOTAL PLOT LAND IN SQ.MTRS 17718 LESS: 40 X BEING ROAD & COMMON PLOT ETC. 7087 10031 SALE PRICE PER SQ. MTRS - RS. 3500/ - TOTAL VALUE RS.3,72,08,000 NET PROFIT TOTAL ESTIMATE & SALE PRICE RS.3,72,08,000 LESS:COST OF LAND & OTHER EXPENSES 3,28,84,000 I.T.A NO. 1754 /AHD/20 13 & CO NO. 16/AHD/2014 A.Y. 08 - 09 PAGE NO ITO VS. SHRI VISHWABHANDHU DHAYABHAI PATEL 24 ESTIMATED PROFIT@ 11% RS. 43,24,450/ - THE LD.CIT(A) HAS FORWARDED THE ESTIMATE OF THE PROFIT TO THE A.O, WHO STATED THAT THE STATEMENT OF SUCH PER SONS MAY BE TREATED A S GENUINE AND SUITABLE PROFIT MAY BE TAXED. WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ISSUED ALLOTMENT LETTERS TO THE CUSTOMERS AND AROUND RS.3.72 CRORE ESTIMATED TO BE RECEIVABLE ON THE ENTIRE SALE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY RECEIVED AROUN D RS.3.09 CRORE .AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILED FINDINGS OF THE LD .CIT(A) AS ELABORATED ABOVE IN THIS ORDER WE OBSERVED THAT THE ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT AT 20% IN NOT ADEQUATE BECAUSE THE NATURE OF ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE IS A PLOTTING SCHEME FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXORBITANT EXPENSES TO THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,72,75,050 UNDER THE HEAD LAND DEVELOPMENT AND TRAVELLING ON ESTIMATED BASIS . WE OBSERVED THAT IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF PLOTTING SCHEME THE MAJOR EXPENSES IS THE COST OF LAND AND THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF OTHER DEVELOPMENTAL EXPENSES ON ASSUMPTION BASIS IS ON HIGHER SIDE . AFTER TAKING IN TO CONSIDERATION THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE ARE NOT INCLINED WITH THE DECISION OF THE LD.CIT(A) ,THEREFORE WE CONSIDERED THAT IT WI LL BE APPROPRIATE TO ESTIMATE NET PROFIT AT 25% AS AGAINST ESTIMATION OF 20% BY THE LD.CIT(A). THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . 3 RD GROUND OF APPEAL THE REVENUE HAS FILED APPEAL ON THE GRO UND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT CONSIDERING THE I.T.A NO. 1754 /AHD/20 13 & CO NO. 16/AHD/2014 A.Y. 08 - 09 PAGE NO ITO VS. SHRI VISHWABHANDHU DHAYABHAI PATEL 25 INCOME SHOWN IN PROFIT & LOSS A/C ON LAND SALES RS.6,36,413/ - ; BANK INTEREST INCOME RS.29,866/ - AND BANK INTEREST ON FDR OF RS.3,92,127/ - , WHILE DIRECTING TO TAKE RS.61, 93,000/ - AS TOTAL INCOME. WE OBSERVED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT IN RESPECT OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PROJECT SAPTARSHI CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY, GANDHINAGAR AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DECLARED ANY INCOME FROM THIS PROJE CT ALTHOUGH HUGE BOOKING AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN TAKEN. WE OBSERVE THIS ISSUE REQUIRED TO BE VERIFIED .THEREFORE, WE CONSIDER IT WILL BE APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SAME AS A FRESH AFTER EXAMINATION OF THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT , THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTION: - 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND OR ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING REJECTION OF BOOKS AND METHOD OF ACCOUNT ING. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND OR ON FACTS IN ESTIMATING PROFIT AT RS.61,93,000 IN RESPECT OF SPARSH PROJECT, KUDASAN. 3. THE OBSERVATIONS MADE AND CONCLUSION REACHED BY CIT(A) IN PARA 6.2 ARE NOT ADMITTE D AND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 1 ST GROUND OF CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE 7. IN THIS CASE, RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 4,89,870/ - WAS FILED ON 31 ST MARCH, 2010. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTICED CASH DEPOSIT MADE IN VARIOUS ACCOUNT S MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT CASH WAS DEPOSITED INTO THE BANK A/CS FROM REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HE FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE SOURCE OF THESE CASH DEPOSITS WAS THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM I.T.A NO. 1754 /AHD/20 13 & CO NO. 16/AHD/2014 A.Y. 08 - 09 PAGE NO ITO VS. SHRI VISHWABHANDHU DHAYABHAI PATEL 26 THE MEMBERS REGARDING BOOKING OF PLOTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FOUND A NUMBER OF DISCREPANCIES IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AS ELABORATE SUPRA IN THIS ORDER AND PART O F THE DISCREPANCIES ARE MENTIONED AS UND ER: - (I) IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, AGAINST ALL COLUMNS OF THE BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, ONLY NIL FIGURE HAS BEEN ENTERED. (II) IT IS ALSO FOUND THAT AS PER STATEMENT OF INCOME ENCLOSED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, PROFITS AND GA INS AS PER P&L A/C AT A LOSS OF RS.5,95,585/ - . NO PROFIT OR LOSS ACCOUNT IS ENCLOSED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. (III) VIDE SUBMISSION DTD.23/11/2010, THE ASSESSEE HAS FOR THE FIRST TIME SUBMITTED THE P&L A/C OF SAIYAM CONSTRUCTION, PROP.VISHWABHANDU D PATEL FOR A.Y.2007 - 08. IN THE P&L A/C, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PROFIT ON LAND SALES AT RS.6,36,413/ - , BANK INTEREST INCOME OF RS.29,866/ - AND BANK INTEREST ON FOR OF RS.3,92,127/ - . TOTAL INDIRECT EXPENSES ARE SHOWN AT RS.16,53,991/ - THE BALANCE IS A LOSS OF RS.5,95,585/ - (VIII) IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT ALONG WITH THE BALANCE SHEET SUBMITTED ON 10/12/2010, THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN ANOTHER CASH BOOK FOR THE SAME PERIOD. IN THIS CASH BOOK, NOT A SINGLE ENTRY RELATED TO THE MEMBER'S BOOKING AND ADVANCES RECEIVE D FOR AGRICULTURE LAND ARE SHOWN. IN FACT ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT VIDE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD.23/12/2010 REGARDING NON - CORRELATION OF CASH WITHDRAWALS WITH CASH DEPOSITS, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME OUT WITH AN ALL TOGETHER NEW CASH BO OK INTRODUCING CASH TO THE TUNE OF RS.3.56 CRORES. AFTER CONSIDERING THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS ELABORATED ABOVE AND THE REASONS FOR REJECTIONS OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER , WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE CROSS O BJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT , THE APPEAL OF THE REVEN UE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PR ONOUN CED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 12 - 01 - 201 8 SD/ - SD/ - ( MAHAVIR PRASA D ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO. 1754 /AHD/20 13 & CO NO. 16/AHD/2014 A.Y. 08 - 09 PAGE NO ITO VS. SHRI VISHWABHANDHU DHAYABHAI PATEL 27 AHMEDABAD : DATED 12 /01/2018 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,