Samutkarsh Co.Op.Hsg.Society Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The ACIT.,Cent.Circle-2(4), Ahmedabad

CO 211/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3310 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 29-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 13-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VASUNDRA UPMANYA
• Assessee Lawyers: P M MEHTA; S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Loose papers; Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ IT(SS)A NO.121/AHD/2010 WITH CO NO.211/AHD/2012 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2007-08 ACIT, CENT.CIR.(4) AHMEDABAD. VS. SAMUKTKARSH CO-OP. HSG. SOCIETY AT POST MAKARBA NR. YMCA S.G. HIGHWAY AHMEDABAD. PAN : AAAJS 3570 M / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI VASUNDRA UPMANYA, CIT-DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR, AND SHRI P.M. MEHTA, AR ! / DATE OF HEARING : 19/12/2017 '#$ ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29/12/2017 %& / O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS REVENUE APPEAL AND ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION S FOR ASST.YEAR 2007-08 ARISE AGAINST THE CIT(A)-I, AHMED ABADS ORDER DATED 30.11.2009 IN CASE NO.CIT(A)-I/CC.1(1)/538/20 08-09 REVERSING ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION ADDING AN AMOUNT OF RS.1 ,39,82,200/- ON ACCOUNT OF LATTERS INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND FROM ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AS WELL AS IN UPHOLDING VALIDIT Y OF SECTION 153C IT(SS)A NO.121/AHD/2010 WITH CO 2 PROCEEDINGS, RESPECTIVELY, IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC TION 143(3) R.W.S. 153C R.W.S. 153D(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, (THE ACT). 2. WE COME TO THE RELEVANT COMMON FACTS. THE INSTA NT LIS EMANATES FROM THE SEARCH IN QUESTION DATED 14.2.2007 CARRIED OUT IN M/S.SAVVY GROUP OF CASES. THE SAID SEARCH LEAD TO SEIZURE OF VARIOUS DOCUMENTS/ BOOK OF ACCOUNTS VALUABLES AND OTHER THINGS. THE S AME INCLUDED PAGES 121 TO 147 OF ANNEXURE A-10 INVOLVING AGREEMENT BET WEEN FARMERS AND VENDORS FOR LAND IN SURVEY NO.274/1 273 AND 277. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY HAD PURCH ASED LAND MEASURING 30,130 SQ.METERS IN ABOVE SURVEY NUMBERS. ITS MEMBERS HAD SIGNED THE RELEVANT AGREEMENT ON THIS BEHALF. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS THEREFORE INITIATED SECTION 153C PROCEE DING ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID DOCUMENTS. HE SOUGHT ASSESSEES EXPLANATI ON QUA ITS RELATION WITH THE PROJECT IN QUESTION, RECONCILIATION OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS WITH BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS WELL AS SOUGHT TO TREAT C ASH COMPONENT AS NOTICED FROM THE ABOVE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS SEIZ ED DURING SEARCH. 3. THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO HAVE FILED DETAILED REPL Y(IES) BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT INTERALIA PLEADED THAT THIS SOCIETY HAD COME UP BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT GROUP OF FRIENDS DECIDED T O DEVELOP THEIR OWN HOUSING UNITS IN A LOCALITY OF KNOWN PEOPLE ONLY, T HEY THEREFORE ACTED AS ITS FOUNDER MEMBERS SINCE INVOLVED IN CONSTRUCTI ON BUSINESS, THEY PREPARED ROUGH ESTIMATION OF LAND PURCHASED AS WELL AS CONSTRUCTION COST, SUCH MEMBERS FOUND THE LAND IN QUESTION TO BE HAVING LITIGATION AND WAS UNDER TOWN PLANNING SCHEME AND THEY THEREFO RE DID NOT COMMENCE ANY ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION. THE ASSESSEE FUR THER EXPLAINED IT(SS)A NO.121/AHD/2010 WITH CO 3 THAT IT RECEIVED THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION FROM MEMBE RS FOR LAND PURCHASES AS WELL AS CONSTRUCTION. THE ASSESSEE AL SO STATED THAT THE EXPRESSION W DENOTED THE AMOUNT REQUIRED TO BE PA ID IMMEDIATELY WITHOUT CONSTRUCTION AND CON WAS MEANT TO BE CONS TRUCTION AS PER NOTINGS IN PAGE 97. IT THEREFORE CONTESTED THE PR ESUMPTION THAT THE FORMER REPRESENTED CHEQUE SUM AND LATER ONE WAS FOR CASH COMPONENT. THE ASSESSEE TOOK ALTERNATIVE PLEA AS WELL THAT NEG ATIVE FIGURE OF RS.139.82 IN QUESTION WAS WORKED OUT AS PER SEIZED DOCUMENTS WAS DULY COVERED AS PER THE SEARCHED ASSESSEES DISCLOS URE OF RS.2 CRORES. 4. WE NOTICE AT THIS STAGE THAT THE CIT(A)S APPEAL OPERATIVE PART DISCUSSES AT LENGTH ASSESSING OFFICERS FINDING AS WELL AS ASSESSEES EXPLANATION POINT WISE AS FOLLOWS: 7. THE ABOVE EXPLANATION HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED IN PARA - 2.4 TO 2.9 OF THE A SSESSMENT ORDER. THE REASONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR SUCH REJECTION ARE SUMMARIZED HEREUNDER: (I) IT IS STATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT PAGE NO. 1 TO 5 OF ANNEXURE - A-13 CONTAINS DETAILS OF MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY. VARIOUS FIGURES ARE MENTIONED AGAINST THE NAMES OF THE MEMB ERS UNDER HEAD PROJECT COST, COST AMOUNT, LEGAL AMOUNT, TOTAL, EXT RA, GRAND TOTAL, ETC. THE APPELLANT HAD FILED DETAILS OF MEMBERS' CO NTRIBUTION RECEIVED BY CHEQUES ON DIFFERENT DATES. IT IS STATED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER THAT WHILE THE FIGURES UNDER THE HEAD COST AMOUNT AND LE GAL AMOUNT TOTALING TO RS. 2,32,31,240 WERE MATCHING WITH THE COLLECTION FIGURES OF DIFFERENT MEMBERS, THE FIGURES UNDER THE HEAD EXTRA AND OTHERS COULD NOT BE RECONCILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID FIGURES ALSO DID NOT MATCH WITH THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT IS STATED THA T A PERUSAL OF PAGE 2 TO 5 AND IN PARTICULAR, THE FIGURES UNDER HEAD 'RECEIP T FROM MEMBERS FOR LAND AND LEGAL EXPENSES' MATCHES WITH THE BOOKS. PA YMENT UNDER THE HEAD 'LAND' AMOUNTING TO RS. 107.54 LAKHS '' IS A LSO MENTIONED ON PAGE - 4 AND IT ALSO MATCHES WITH THE PAYMENT FIGUR E FOR LAND. IT(SS)A NO.121/AHD/2010 WITH CO 4 DIFFERENTIA! AMOUNT OF RECEIPT AND PAYMENT HAD BEEN COMPUTED AT RS. 139.82 LAKHS. THE EXPLANATION THAT IT WAS PROJECTIO N FIGURE IS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY REFERRING TO T HE DETAILS ON PAGE - 5 OF . THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. IT IS STATED THAT THE DO CUMENTS ARE RECORDING COLLECTION RECEIVED BY CHEQUE FROM THE MEMBERS AND IT EXACTLY MATCHES WITH THE FIGURE IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. PAYMENT OF RS. 503.06 LAKHS HAS BEEN RECORDED AS BEING MADE TOWARDS LAND, WHICH IS OVER AND ABOVE THE RECORDED PAYMENT TOWARDS COST OF LAND. A PART T HEREOF HAS BEEN COLLECTED FROM THE MEMBERS AND THE DEFICIT AMOUNT I S COMPUTED AT RS. 139.82 LAKHS. IT IS EXCESS OF PAYMENT OVER THE COLL ECTION. IT IS CONCLUDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE FIGURES ARE ACTUA L AND NOT PROJECTION. (II) THE APPELLANT'S REPLY THAT THE NOTINGS CO N DOES NOT MEAN CASH IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE G ROUND THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ARE PERTAINING TO PURCHASE OF LAND, TH E FIGURES ON THIS PAGE ARE AGAIN REFLECTED ON PAGE - 3 AND THE FIGURES ARE MATCHING WITH THE AMOUNTS MENTIONED AGAINST PLOT NO. 12 AND 12A. THER EFORE, CASH HAS BEEN COLLECTED FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY TOWA RDS LAND. IT IS STATED THAT THE PAYMENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN RECEIVED FROM T HE MEMBERS AND PENDING AMOUNTS ARE ALSO CALCULATED. IT IS STATED T HAT ON PERUSAL OF PAGE - 5, THE COLLECTION FROM MEMBERS UNDER THE HEAD 'LA ND', 'LEGAL', 'EXTRA LEGAL' HAS BEEN MADE, OUT OF WHICH THE PAYMENT IS M ADE TOWARDS LAND AND OTHER EXPENSES. (III) THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE WAS THAT DEFIC IT OF RS. 139.82 LAKHS IS ACTUALLY PAID BY THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM OUT OF TH E INCOME EARNED, WHICH IS DISCLOSED IN THE HANDS OF SAVVY CONSTRUCTI ON COMPANY. THIS EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE STATES THAT THE SOCIETY IS A SEPARATE ENTITY AND EX CESS PAYMENT OF RS. 139.82 LAKHS HAS BEEN MADE OVER AND ABOVE THE COLLE CTION RECEIVED FROM THE MEMBERS. THE SOURCE OF THIS PAYMENT IS UNEXPLAI NED. HE IS OF THE VIEW THAT NO NEXUS OF THE INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE P ARTNERSHIP FIRM SAVVY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY WITH THE SOCIETY HAS BEE N ESTABLISHED. IT IS ALSO STATED THAT NO PROOF HAS BEEN FILED BY THE FIRM REGARDING DISTRIBUTION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME AMONGST THE PART NERS. IT IS ALSO STATED THAT THE PARTNERS HAVE ALSO CLAIMED APPLICAT ION OF INCOME IN THEIR RESPECTIVE HANDS WITHOUT SPECIFYING ACTUAL RECEIPT OF INCOME. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT DOES NOT DESERVE ANY BENEFIT OF APPLI CATION OF INCOME OF THE FIRM. IT(SS)A NO.121/AHD/2010 WITH CO 5 (IV) IT IS STATED THAT THE COLLECTION RECEIVED FRO M MEMBERS AS WELL AS EXPENSES TOWARDS PURCHASE OF LAND RECORDED PORTION FULLY MATCH WITH THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE THE UNACCOU NTED PAYMENT TOWARDS LAND PURCHASED SHOULD ALSO BE TREATED AS CO RRECT. IT IS STATED THAT, THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 139.82 LAKH IS T O BE TREATED AS EXPENSES ACTUALLY INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY. IT IS STATED THAT SINCE THE DOCUMENT CONTAINS RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS DATED 2 1-12-2006, THE ADDITION IS BEING IN THIS YEAR, I.E. AY. 2007-08. (V) IT IS ALSO STATED BY THE A.O. THAT THE UNACC OUNTED INCOME DOES NOT RELATE TO ANY SPECIFIC MEMBERS AND HENCE THE SOCIET Y IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF PRINCIPLES OF MUTUALITY. 8. THE APPELLANT IN THIS CONNECTION SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY NOT HAVING ANY PROFIT MOTIVE AND WAS ESTABL ISHED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING PROJECT FOR MEMBERS. SOCIETY HAS NO SOURCE OF INCOME. IT IS FURTHER EXPLAINED AS UNDER:- '6.2 WITH REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS FAILED TO APPR ECIATE THAT THE SOCIETY WAS BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE BY THE GROUP OF PERSONS IN ORDER FOR TO HAVE THEIR OWN HOUSING SOCIETY IN ONE LOCALITY AND THAT THEY MAINLY RELATED TO THE PARTNERS OF SAVVY C ONSTRUCTION COMPANY. THERE WERE NO CRITERIA OF PROFIT MAKING BY THE SOCIETY. IT MAY ALSO BE NOTICED THAT THE SOCIETY IS NOT HAVI NG ANY SPECIFIC SOURCE OF INCOME. ON THE CONTRARY AS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE PAYMENT FOR LAND AND EXPENSES ARE DIRE CTLY MADE OUT OF THE RECEIPTS FROM THE MEMBERS. HE HAS THEREFORE, FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE CAN NOT BE ANY INCOME WHICH I S UNACCOUNTED IN THE HANDS OF THE SOCIETY. HE HAS FAI LED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE MEMBERS BEING MAINLY FROM THE S AVVY GROUP AND PARTNERS OF SAVVY CONSTRUCTION CO., ENTIRE UN-R ECONCILED PAYMENT WAS TO BE OUT OF THE INCOME OF THE SAVVY GR OUP AS CLAIMED. SAVVY CONSTRUCTION CO. HAS DISCLOSED INCOM E OF RS.2 CRORES WHICH IS MUCH MORE THAN THE DEFICIT OF RS.13 9.82 LAKH AS WORKED OUT IN THE HANDS OF SOCIETY. IT IS, THEREFOR E, REQUIRED TO BE ACCEPTED BY HIM THAT SUCH PAYMENT, IF ANY, IS MET O UT OF THE INCOME SO DISCLOSED. HE HAS REFERRED TO THE APPLICA TION OF SUCH INCOME CLAIMED BY THE OTHER GROUP ASSESSEES BUT HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE TOTAL OF APPLICATION DOES NOT E XCEED THE IT(SS)A NO.121/AHD/2010 WITH CO 6 AMOUNT OF RS.2 CRORES AS DISCLOSED BY SAVVY CONSTRU CTION CO. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE INCOME SO DIS CLOSED IN SAVVY CONSTRUCTION CO. HAS TO BE SET OFF BY WAY OF APPLICATION ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH PAYMENT. 6.3 AS STATED BY THE APPELLANT THAT IN THE CASE OF SAVVY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, THEY HAVE DISCLOSED RS.2 CRORES BY WAY OF INCOME AND THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 1,39,82,000 WAS CONSIDERED IN THEIR C ASE AS APPLICATION OF SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 2 CRORES WHICH CAN B E SEEN FROM THE FOLLOWING DETAILS OF APPLICATION OF THAT AMOUNT: I) SAMUTKARSH STOCK IN /TRADE RS. 1,39,82,000/- II) ADVANCE TAX BEING CASH SEIZED RS. 26,00,000/- III) WITHDRAWAL BY THE PARTNERS: (A) SAMEERSINHA RS. 11,39,334/- (B) JAXAYSHAH RS. 11,39,333/- (C) JIGISHSHAH RS. 11,39,333/- RS. 2,00,00,000/- THE APPELLANT MAY ALSO SUBMIT THAT THE DISCLOSURE O F RS. 2 CRORES MADE BY THE FIRM HAS BEEN ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE F IRM WITHOUT ANY MODIFICATION. 6.4 HAVING REGARD TO THE ABOVE FACTS IT IS SUBMITTE D THAT THE INVESTMENT IN LAND, IF ANY, IS BY THE MEMBERS WHO ARE MAINLY B ELONGING TO SAVVY GROUP AND THEY HAVE CONSIDERED THE SAME AS PART OF APPLICATION OF INCOME DISCLOSED IN THEIR FIRM AS EXPLAINED HEREINA BOVE. HENCE, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,39,82,200 TAXED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 6.5 IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT SOCIETY, AS STATED ABOVE, IS A CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY HAVING NO INDEPENDENT SOURCE OF I NCOME AND HENCE, WHATEVER PAYMENT MADE BY THE SOCIETY IS THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE MEMBERS AS CONTRIBUTION AND, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR HOLDING THAT THE SOCIETY HAS ANY UNRECORDED INCOME AND MADE ANY UNRECORDED INVESTMENT IN THE LAND. 9. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE A BOVE EXPLANATION. IT IS FOUND THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE RE ASON, THAT AS PER THE IT(SS)A NO.121/AHD/2010 WITH CO 7 LOOSE PAPERS FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF SAVVY GROUP , IT WAS NOTICED THAT THERE WERE NOTINGS AND JOTTINGS REGARDING PAYM ENTS WITH REFERENCE TO THE LAND OF THE APPELLANT SOCIETY. THE PAYMENTS ARE STATED TO BE FOR LAND, LEGAL EXPENSES AND EXTRA LEGAL. THE TOTAL PAY MENT, AS STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WORKS OUT TO RS. 515.96 LAKHS. IT IS ACCEPTED FACT THAT COLLECTION FROM THE MEMBERS AS PER THE LOOSE PAPER IS OF RS. 376.13 LAKHS. THEREFORE, THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 139.82 LAKHS IS CONSIDERED AS NOT EXPLAINED WITH REFERENCE TO SOURCE THEREOF. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT THAT HIS AMOUNT, WHICH IS DEFICIT, IS REFLECTED IN THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY SAV VY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. THE APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED THAT THERE ARE MEMBERS, AS PER THE SEIZED PAPER, WHO ARE RELATED TO THE SAVVY GROU P. THE APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE SAVVY GROUP HAS MADE DISCLOSURE OF RS. 2 CRORES IN THE HANDS OF. SAVVY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL INCOME. DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL HEARING, THE AP PELLANT HAS ALSO FURNISHED COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AND RETURN OF IN COME OF THE SAID PARTNERSHIP FIRM TO SHOW THAT THE DISCLOSURE WAS MA DE FOR ADDITIONAL INCOME. THE PAYMENT FOR LAND IS CLAIMED TO BE APPLI CATION OUT OF SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR AND ON BEHALF OF PARTNERS. T HIS DISCLOSURE IS ACCEPTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE FIRM BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE APPLICATION OF THE SAID DISCLOSED INCOME IS EXPLAIN ED BY THE FIRM, WHICH IS STATED IN THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS. THE SAME ISREPRODUCED AS UNDER: I) SAMUTKARSH STOCK IN/TRADE RS. 1,39,82,000/- II) ADVANCE TAX BEING CASH SEIZED RS. 26,00,000/- III) WITHDRAWAL BY THE PARTNERS: (A) SAMEERSINHA RS. 11,39,334/- (B) JAXAYSHAH RS. 11,39,333/- (C) JIGISHSHAH RS. 11,39.333/- RS. 2,00,00,000/- THUS THE AMOUNT OF RS. 139.82 LAKHS HAS BEEN SHOWN AS APPLICATION OF SUCH DISCLOSED INCOME BY THE FIRM. IN THE CIRCUMSTA NCES, THERE IS NO REASON TO DISBELIEVE THIS EXPLANATION BY ONLY STATI NG THAT NO PROOF REGARDING DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME AMONGST THE PARTNE RS OF THE FIRM IS FILED. THE APPELLANT'S EXPLANATION IS FOUND TO BE I N ORDER AND ACCORDINGLY I HOLD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS N OT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.139.82 LAKHS IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT IT(SS)A NO.121/AHD/2010 WITH CO 8 SOCIETY. SUCH AN ADDITION, IF SUSTAINED, .WOULD RES ULT IN DOUBLE ADDITION FOR THE SAME ISSUE. THE SOCIETY IS A COOPERATIVE HO USING AND HAS NO INDEPENDENT SOURCE OF INCOME AND NO BUSINESS ACTIVI TY. THIS FACT IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THE ADDITION IS ACCORDINGLY DELETED. 5. BOTH THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES STRONGLY REITER ATE THEIR RESPECTIVE STANDS AGAINST AND IN SUPPORT OF THE CIT (A)S ABOVE EXTRACTED FINDINGS DELETING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION A MOUNTING TO RS.1,39,82,200/-. WE NOTICE IN THIS FACTUAL BACKDR OP THAT THERE IS HARDLY ANY DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES ABOUT SEARCH ED ASSESSEE TO HAVE MADE DISCLOSURE OF RS.2 CRORES AS ITS UNDISCLO SED UNACCOUNTED INCOME. THE REVENUE FAILS TO REBUT THE FACT THAT T HE SAID SEARCHED ASSESSEE M/S.SAVVY CONSTRUCTION ALSO SUBSTANTIATED THE ABOVE DISCLOSURE OF RS.2 CRORES BY INCLUDING THE VERY SUM IN QUESTION OF RS.1,39,82,000/- IN ASSESSEES NAME IN THE NATURE O F ITS STOCK-IN-TRADE. THIS CLINCHING ASPECT HAS GONE UNDISPUTED FROM THE REVENUES SIDE. WE THEREFORE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THE IMPUGNED SUM TO BE A CASE OF DOUBLE ADDITION I.E. B OTH IN CASE OF SEARCHED ASSESSEE AS WELL AS RESPONDENT-SOCIETY. THE SAID SEARCHED ASSESSEES APPLICATION OF SUM IN QUESTION STANDS AC CEPTED IN ITS ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WE ACCORDINGLY CONCLUDE TH AT THE VERY SUM OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN ADDED IN ASSESSEES HAND WHI CH HAS BEEN RIGHTLY DELETED IN LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. TH E REVENUES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND AS WELL AS ITS APPEAL IT(SS)A.NO .121/AHD/2010 FAIL. 6. LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING ASSESSEE SUBMITS TH AT HE NO MORE WISHES TO PRESS FOR ITS ABOVE CROSS OBJECTION RAISI NG LEGAL ISSUE OF IT(SS)A NO.121/AHD/2010 WITH CO 9 VALIDITY OF SECTION 153C PROCEEDINGS. THESE CROSS- OBJECTIONS ARE THEREFORE DECLINED AS NOT PRESSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IT(SS)A.NO.121/A HD/2010 IS DISMISSED, WHEREAS ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION CO NO .211/AHD/2012 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 29 TH DECEMBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S.GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER