Shri Ravjibhai Gordhanbhai Prajapati, Ahmedabad V. DCIT Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

CO 52/AHD/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5423 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: PF JAIN
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Block assessment; Tax effect; Retraction; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 201; 274; 143(2); 43; 48; 13; 22; 132

Judgement Text

- , - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH C [CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT] BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NO.180/AHD/2019 / ASSTT.YEAR : 2013-14 SHRI NARESHBHAI RAMANBHAI PRAJAPATI 1, GORDHAN BUNGALOW NR. KASTURI FLAT THALTEJ-SHILAJ ROAD THALTEJ, AHMEDABAD. PAN : ATZPP 8773 D VS. DCIT, CENT.CIR.1(2) AHMEDABAD. IT(SS)A NO.181/AHD/2019 / ASSTT.YEAR : 2013-14 SHRI MAHESHBHAI RAMANBHAI PRAJAPATI 6, GORDHAN BUNGALOW NR. KASTURI FLAT THALTEJ-SHILAJ ROAD THALTEJ, AHMEDABAD. PAN : ATZPP 8957 F VS. DCIT, CENT.CIR.1(2) AHMEDABAD. CROSS OBJECTION NO.51, 52 AND 53/AHD/2019 IN IT(SS)A.NO.308, 309 AND 301/AHD/2019 ASSTT.YEAR 2013-14 SHRI SURESHHAI GORDHANBHAI PRAJAPATI SHRI RAJIVBHAI GORDHANBHAI PRAJAPATI SHRI VITHALBHAI GORDHANBHAI PRAJPATI ALL HAVING ADDRESS AT: 1-2-3-5, GORDHAN BUNGALOW NR.KASTURI FLATS THALTEJ-SHILAJ ROAD THALTEJ, AMEDABAD. VS. DCIT, CENT.CIR.1(2) AHMEDABAD. ( APPLICANT ) ( RESPONENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.F. JAIN, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. SHARMA, CIT-DR / DATE OF HEARING : 10/09/2020 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05/10/2020 IT(SS)A NO.180 AND 181/AHD/2019 WITH COS 2 / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DECIDED FIVE APPEALS OF THE ASSES SEE I.E. APPELLANTS HEREIN, AS WELL AS CROSS OBJECTORS BY WAY OF SEPARA TE ORDERS IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2013-14. AGAINST FIVE ORDERS, REVENUE FILED APPEAL BEARING IT(SS)A.NO.308, 309 AND 310/AHD/2018 IN THE CASE OF SHRI SURESHBHAI GORDHANBHAI PRAJAPATI, RAJIVBHAI GORDHANBHAI PRAJAPATI AND VITHALBHAI GORD HANBHAI PRAJAPATI. ON RECEIPT OF NOTICE, THESE ASSESSEES HAVE FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS BEARING CO. NOS.51, 52, 53/AHD/2019. THE APPEALS OF THE REVENU E WERE DISMISSED BECAUSE TAX EFFECT BY VIRTUE OF RELIEF GIVEN BY THE LD.CIT(A) WAS BELOW RS.50 LAKHS. ALONG WITH THESE APPEALS, COS. OF THE ASSES SEES WERE ALSO DISMISSED. THEREAFTER, THEY HAD FILED MA, AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS RECALLED ITS ORDER DATED 20.1.2020 TO THAT EXTENT AND RESTORED THESE COS. TO ITS ORIGINAL NUMBERS FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. 2. REGISTRY HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES I.E. IT(SS)A.NO.180 AND 181/AHD/2019 ARE TIME BARRED BY 163 DAYS. IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI P.F.JAIN AND SHRI AJAYKRISHNA SHARMA HAVE FILED THEIR AFFIDAVITS STAT ING AS TO HOW DELAY HAS OCCURRED. COPY OF THIS AFFIDAVIT IS FILED IN PAPER BOOK AS WELL AS IN THE ORIGINAL FILE. IT READS AS UNDER: WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, WHO ARE AUTHORISED TO CONDUCT THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS HEREBY RESPECTFULLY EXPLAIN THE UNINTEN DED DELAY WHICH HAS OCCURRED IN FILING APPEAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI MAHES HBHAI RAMANBHAI PRAJAPATI AND SHRI NARESHBHAI RAMANBHAI PRAJAPATI F OR ASSTT. YEAR 2013-14 BEFORE THE HONBLE I.T.A.T., AHMEDABAD AS SET OUT B ELOW:- 1. THAT IN THE CASE OF ABOVE TWO APPELLANTS, ALONGW ITH THEIR THREE UNCLES SEARCH PROCEEDINGS WERE CONDUCTED ON 06/11/2012 PUR SUANT TO WHICH THEIR CASES WERE CENTRALIZED WITH THE CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1(2 ),AHMEDABAD AND PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED U/S.143(3) R.W.S.153B(1) (B) OF THE ACT . IT(SS)A NO.180 AND 181/AHD/2019 WITH COS 3 2. THAT ON COMPLETION OF PROCEEDINGS WITH A.O. AND THE C.I.T. (APPEALS), APPEALS WERE FILED BEFORE THE I.T.A.T. AND WHEREVER REQUIRED CROSS OBJECTIONS WERE ALSO FILED IN PRESCRIBED TIME. 3. THAT FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2013-14 , THE APPEAL ORDERS WHICH ARE COMMON ON THE MAIN ISSUE OF DISCLOSURE OF RS.9.05 CRORES WERE PAS SED IN THE CASE OF ALL THE FIVE ASSESSEES UPHOLDING ADDITION PROPORTIONATELY A S DETAILED BELOW :- S.NO. NAME PAN AMOUNT OF ADDITIONS (INRS.) DEMAND RAISED BY A.O. 1. SHRI NARESHBHAI RAMANBHAI PRAJAPATI ATZPP8773D 1,13,12,500 43,49,707 2. SHRI MAHESHBHAI RAMANBHAI PRAJAPATI ATZPP8957F 1,13,21,500 37,82,102 3. SHRI RAVJIBHAI GORDHANBHAI PRAJAPATI APRPP0713K 2,26,25,000 89,04,488 4. SHRI SURESHBHAI GORDHANBHAI PRAJAPATI APRPP0781K 2,26,25,000 1,66,39,762 5. SHRI VITTHALBHAI GORDHANBHAI PRAJAPATI AFZPP0251L 2,26,25,000 1,28,88,093 1. NO. CIT(A)-11/C.C.1(2)/AHD/060-A/2015-16 2. NO. CIT(A)-11/C.C.1(2)/AHD/062-A/2015-16 3. NO. CIT(A)-11/C.C.1(2)/AHD/058-A/2015-16 4. NO. CIT(A)-11/C.C.1(2)/AHD/061-A/2015-16 5. NO. CIT(A)-11/C.C.1(2)/AHD/059-A/2015-16 5. THAT CONSIDERING THE HEAVY ADDITIONS AND AS THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE ALLEGED DISCLOSURES WER E UPHELD, WE WERE UNDER THE BONA-FIDE BELIEF THAT THE DEPARTMENT WILL FILE APPEALS IN ALL THE ABOVE CASES AND ON RECEIPT OF APPEAL MEMO OF THE DEPARTME NT, CROSS-OBJECTIONS WHICH IS ALSO IN THE CATEGORY OF REGULAR APPEAL WIL L BE FILED. 6. THAT ON RECEIPT OF APPEAL MEMOS FILED BY THE DEP ARTMENT WAS RECEIVED ON 3 RD APRIL, 2019, IT WAS NOTICED THAT APPEAL IN THE CAS E OF ABOVE TWO ASSESSEES S/SHRI NARESHBHAI RAMANBHAI PRAJAPATI AND MAHESHBHA I RAMANBHAI PRAJAPATI HAVE NOT BEEN FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT. TH E APPEAL MEMOS RECEIVED ARE AS UNDER:- SR.NO NAME ITA NO. BENCH 1. SHRI VITTHALBHAI G.PRAJAPATI ITSSA310/AHD/2018 B 2. SHRI RAVJIBHAI G.PRAJAPATI ITSSA309/AHD/2018 B 3. SHRI SURESHBHAI G.PRAJAPATI ITSSA-308/AHD/2018 B 7. THAT ON KNOWING THAT FOR ABOVE TWO ASSESSEES, A PPEALS HAVE NOT BEEN FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT, STEPS WERE TAKEN TO DEPOSI T ITAT FILINGS OF RS.10,000/- EACH WHICH WERE PAID ON 05/04/2019. 8. THAT FOR UNINTENDED DELAY OF 162 DAYS WHICH HAS ENSUED ON ACCOUNT OF BONA-FIDE AND VALID REASONS AS MENTIONED ABOVE, THE AFFIDAVIT IS FILED EXPLAINING THE DELAY AND PRAYING FOR CONDONATION OF THE SAME. IT(SS)A NO.180 AND 181/AHD/2019 WITH COS 4 3. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT I N THE GROUP OF CASES OF THE ASSESSEES CONSISTING OF FIVE ASSESSEES, THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED SEPARATE ORDERS AND PARTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSE ES. THEREAFTER, PRESENT TWO ASSESSEES PRESUMED THAT THE DEPARTMENT WOULD APPEAL AGAINST ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(A) AGAINST ALL FIVE APPEALS, AND IF NECESSAR Y, THE ASSESSEE WOULD ONLY FILE CROSS OBJECTION. HOWEVER, THEREAFTER, IT CAME TO KNOW THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS ONLY FILED APPEALS AGAINST SHRI VITHALBHAI G. P RAJAPATI, SHRI RAVJIBHAI G. PRAJPATI AND SURESHBHAI G. PRAJAPATI AND NOT AGAINS T THE PRESENT ASSESSEES. IT IMMEDIATELY FILED THE PRESENT TWO APPEALS BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL, AND THE DELAY OCCURRED DUE TO THIS BONA FIDE AND GENUINE REASONS, WHICH DESERVE TO BE CONDONED. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR OPPOSED CON DONATION OF THE DELAY. 4. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GO NE THROUGH THE RECORD. SUB-SECTION 5 OF SECTION 253 CONTEMPLATES THAT THE TRIBUNAL MAY ADMIT AN APPEAL OR PERMIT FILING OF MEMORANDUM OF C ROSS-OBJECTIONS AFTER EXPIRY OF RELEVANT PERIOD, IF IT IS SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT PRESENTING IT WITHIN THAT PERIOD. THIS EXPRESS ION SUFFICIENT CAUSE EMPLOYED IN THE SECTION HAS ALSO BEEN USED IDENTICA LLY IN SUB-SECTION 3 OF SECTION 249 OF INCOME TAX ACT, WHICH PROVIDES POWER S TO THE LD.COMMISSIONER TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER. SIMILARLY, IT HAS BEEN USED IN SECT ION 5 OF INDIAN LIMITATION ACT, 1963. WHENEVER INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTIO N OF THIS EXPRESSION HAS FALLEN FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT AS WELL AS BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, THEN, HONBLE COURT WERE UNA NIMOUS IN THEIR CONCLUSION THAT THIS EXPRESSION IS TO BE USED LIBER ALLY. WE MAY MAKE REFERENCE TO THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT FROM THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISIT ION VS. MST. KATIJI & OTHERS, 1987 AIR 1353: IT(SS)A NO.180 AND 181/AHD/2019 WITH COS 5 1. ORDINARILY A LITIGANT DOES NOT STAND TO BENEFIT BY LODGING AN APPEAL LATE. 2. REFUSING TO CONDONE DELAY CAN RESULT IN A MERITO RIOUS MATTER BEING THROWN OUT AT THE VERY THRESHOLD AND CAUSE OF JUSTI CE BEING DEFEATED. AS AGAINST THIS WHEN DELAY IS CONDONED THE HIGHEST THA T CAN HAPPEN IS THAT A CAUSE WOULD BE DECIDED ON MERITS AFTER HEARING TH E PARTIES. 3. 'EVERY DAY'S DELAY MUST BE EXPLAINED' DOES NOT M EAN THAT A PEDANTIC APPROACH SHOULD BE MADE. WHY NOT EVERY HOUR'S DELAY , EVERY SECOND'S DELAY? THE DOCTRINE MUST BE APPLIED IN A RATIONAL C OMMON SENSE PRAGMATIC MANNER. 4. WHEN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERA TIONS ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER, CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DE SERVES TO BE PREFERRED FOR THE OTHER SIDE CANNOT CLAIM TO HAVE VESTED RIGH T IN INJUSTICE BEING DONE BECAUSE OF A NON-DELIBERATE DELAY. 5. THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT DELAY IS OCCASIONED DELIBERATELY, OR ON ACCOUNT OF CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE, OR ON ACCOUNT OF MA LA FIDES. A LITIGANT DOES NOT STAND TO BENEFIT BY RESORTING TO DELAY. IN FACT HE RUNS A SERIOUS RISK. 6. IT MUST BE GRASPED THAT JUDICIARY IS RESPECTED N OT ON ACCOUNT OF ITS POWER TO LEGALIZE INJUSTICE ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS BU T BECAUSE IT IS CAPABLE OF REMOVING INJUSTICE AND IS EXPECTED TO DO SO. 5. SIMILARLY, WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE REFERENCE TO AU THORITATIVE PRONOUNCEMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF N.BALAKRISHNAN VS. M. KRISHNAMURTHY (SUPRA). IT READS AS UNDER: RULE OF LIMITATION ARE NOT MEANT TO DESTROY THE RI GHT OF PARTIES. THEY ARE MEANT TO SEE THAT PARTIES DO NOT RESORT TO DILA TORY TACTICS, BUT SEEK THEIR REMEDY PROMPTLY. THE OBJECT OF PROVIDING A LE GAL REMEDY IS TO REPAIR THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY REASON OF LEGAL INJURY. LAW OF LIMITATION FIXES A LIFE-SPAN FOR SUCH LEGAL REMEDY FOR THE RED RESS OF THE LEGAL INJURY SO SUFFERED. TIME IS PRECIOUS AND THE WASTED TIME W OULD NEVER REVISIT. DURING EFFLUX OF TIME NEWER CAUSES WOULD SPROUT UP NECESSITATING NEWER PERSONS TO SEEK LEGAL REMEDY BY APPROACHING T HE COURTS. SO A LIFE SPAN MUST BE FIXED FOR EACH REMEDY. UNENDING PERIOD FOR LAUNCHING THE REMEDY MAY LEAD TO UNENDING UNCERTAINTY AND CONSEQU ENTIAL ANARCHY. LAW OF LIMITATION IS THUS FOUNDED ON PUBLIC POLICY. IT IS ENSHRINED IN THE IT(SS)A NO.180 AND 181/AHD/2019 WITH COS 6 MAXIM INTEREST REIPUBLICAE UP SIT FINIS LITIUM (IT IS FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE THAT A PERIOD BE PUTT TO LITIGATION). RULES OF LIMITATION ARE NOT MEANT TO DESTROY THE RIGHT OF THE PARTIES. THEY ARE MEANT TO SEE THAT PARTIES DO NOT RESORT TO DILATORY TACTICS BUT SEEK THEIR REMEDY PROMPTLY. THE IDEA IS THAT EVERY LEGAL REMEDY MUST BE KEPT AL IVE FOR A LEGISLATIVELY FIXED PERIOD OF TIME. A COURT KNOWS THAT REFUSAL TO CONDONE DELAY WOULD R ESULT FORECLOSING A SUITOR FROM PUTTING FORTH HIS CAUSE. THERE IS NO PR ESUMPTION THAT DELAY IN APPROACHING THE COURT IS ALWAYS DELIBERATE. THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THE WORDS 'SUFFICIENT CAUSE' UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT SHOULD RECEIVE A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION SO AS TO ADVA NCE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE VIDE SHAKUNTALA DEVI LAIN VS. KUNTAL KUMARI [AIR 1969 SC 575] AND STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. THE ADMINISTRATOR , HOWRAH MUNICIPALITY [AIR 1972 SC 749]. IT MUST BE REMEMBER ED THAT IN EVERY CASE OF DELAY THERE CAN BE SOME LAPSE ON THE PART O F THE LITIGANT CONCERNED. THAT ALONE IS NOT ENOUGH TO TURN DOWN HI S PLEA AND TO SHUT THE DOOR AGAINST HIM. IF THE EXPLANATION DOES NOT S MACK OF MALA FIDES OR IT IS NOT PUT FORTH AS PART OF A DILATORY STRATEGY THE COURT MUST SHOW UTMOST CONSIDERATION TO THE SUITOR. BUT WHEN THERE IS REASONABLE GROUND TO THINK THAT THE DELAY WAS OCCASIONED BY THE PARTY DELIBERATELY TO GAIN TIME THEN THE COURT SHOULD LEAN AGAINST ACCEPTANCE OF THE EXPLANATION. WHILE CONDONING DELAY THE COULD SHOULD NOT FORGET T HE OPPOSITE PARTY ALTOGETHER. IT MUST BE BORNE IN MIND THAT HE IS A L OOSER AND HE TOO WOULD HAVE INCURRED QUIET A LARGE LITIGATION EXPENS ES. IT WOULD BE A SALUTARY GUIDELINE THAT WHEN COURTS CONDONE THE DEL AY DUE TO LACHES ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT THE COURT SHALL COMPENSAT E THE OPPOSITE PARTY FOR HIS LOSS. 6. WE DO NOT DEEM IT NECESSARY TO RE-CITE OR RECAPI TULATE THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN IN OTHER DECISIONS. IT IS SUFFICE TO SAY THAT THE HONBLE COURTS ARE UNANIMOUS IN THEIR APPROACH TO PROPOUND THAT WHENEV ER THE REASONS ASSIGNED BY AN APPLICANT FOR EXPLAINING THE DELAY, THEN SUCH REASONS ARE TO BE CONSTRUED WITH A JUSTICE ORIENTED APPROACH. 7. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PREVENTED BY SU FFICIENT REASONS FOR NOT COMING TO THE TRIBUNAL WELL IN TIME. TO OUR MIND, THERE IS NO DELIBERATE ATTEMPT AT THE END OF THE ASSESSEE TO DELAY THE CHA LLENGE TO THE ORDERS OF THE IT(SS)A NO.180 AND 181/AHD/2019 WITH COS 7 CIT(A) ON MERIT. THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT GAIN ANYTHI NG BY DELAYING THE FILING OF THE APPEALS OR BY MAKING CHALLENGE TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THUS, IT COULD NOT BE SEEN AS A DELAY STRATEGY RATHER IT HAP PENED ON ACCOUNT OF BONA FIDE MISTAKE. THEREFORE, WE ALLOW APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ALON G WITH COS.. 8. ALL THESE ASSESSEES HAVE TAKEN LARGE NUMBER OF G ROUNDS, BUT IN BRIEF THEIR COMMON GRIEVANCE IS, WHETHER ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISCLOSURE MADE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE STATEMENT R ECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT DESERVES TO BE UPHELD IN THE CASE S OF THE APPELLANTS. 9. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1916 WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASES OF VITTHAL BUAI PRAJAPATI GROUP ON 6.11.2012, AND ON SUBSEQUENT DATE, WARRANT OF AUTHO RIZATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED IN THE CASES OF ALL THESE ASS ESSEES. IN ORDER TO GIVE LOGICAL END TO THE PROCEEDINGS, THESE ASSESSEES WER E CALLED FOR FILING THEIR RETURNS OF INCOME. THEY HAVE FILED THEIR REGULAR R ETURNS, AND THEIR CASES WERE SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. NOTICE UNDER SEC TION 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 24.12.2014 IN THE CASES OF NARESHBHAI RAMANBHAI PRA JPATI AND SIMILAR NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO OTHERS. THEREAFTER, NOTICE UNDER SE CTION 142(1) WAS ISSUED ON 24.12.2014. IN THE CASES OF NARESHBHAI RAMANBHAI P RAJPATI ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 5.3.2015 UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. SECTION 153B(1)(B) OF THE ACT. IN SHORT, THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT ON 6.12.2012, SEVEN RESIDENTIAL PREMISES BELONG TO SHRI VITTHALBHAI GORDHANBHAI PRA JAPATI, HIS TWO BROTHERS SHRI RAVAJIBHAI PRAJAPATI AND SHRI SURESHBHAI PRAJA PATI AND HIS TWO NEPHEWS SHRI MAHESH PRAJPATI AND NARESH PRAJAPATI WERE ALSO COVERED UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ONE PO CKET DIARY, NAMELY, BHAKTI DIARY WAS SEIZED AND INVENTORISED AS ANNEXURE-1 AND 2. ACCORDING TO THE AO, THIS DIARY CONTAINED NINE WRITTEN PAGES AND ON PAGE NO.7, 8 AND 9 OF IT(SS)A NO.180 AND 181/AHD/2019 WITH COS 8 ANNEXURE-A/1, CERTAIN NOTINGS EXHIBITING AMOUNT GIV EN IN ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE OF LAND AT VILLAGE RANCHADA WAS RECORDED. ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF SUCH NOTING HAS BEEN REPRODUCED ON PAGE NO.3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH READS AS UNDER: AMOUNT ADVANCED FOR PURCHASE OF LAND AT VILLAGE - RANCHADA SERIAL NUMBER PAGE NUMBER DATE AMOUNT (RS.) 1 7 8.06.2012 50,00,000 2 7 15.06.2012 50,00,000 3 7 28.06.2012 75,00,000 4 7 15.07.2012 50,00,000 5 7 06.08.2012 1,00,00,000 6 8 25.08.2012 1,00,00,000 7 8 13.09.2012 1,10,00,000 8 8 28.09.2012 65,00,000 9 8 25.10.2012 1,15,00,000 10 9 29.10.2012 1,00,00,000 11 9 4.11.2012 90,00,000 TOTAL 9,05,00,000 10. THESE PAGES WERE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEES, A ND ACCORDINGLY SHRI VITTABHAI PRAJAPATI HAS GIVEN HIS STATEMENT UNDER S ECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ON BEHALF OF HIS FAMILY MEMBE RS. HE ADMITTED THAT RS.9.05 CRORES WAS GIVEN AS ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE OF LAND, OVER AND ABOVE, CHEQUE PAYMENT. ARMED WITH RECOVERY OF THIS DIARY, COUPLED WITH ADMISSION OF SHRI VITTALBHAI UNDER SECTION 132(4), DEPARTMENT SOUGHT TO MAKE ADDITION OF RS.9.05 CRORES PROPORTIONATELY AMONGST ALL THES E BROTHERS AND NEPHEWS. IN IT(SS)A NO.180 AND 181/AHD/2019 WITH COS 9 RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE OF THE DEPARTMENT , THE ASSESSEES HAVE RETRACTED DISCLOSURE MADE BY THEM, AND LEVELED ALLE GATIONS AGAINST SEARCH TEAM THAT THEY HAVE TAKEN ABOVE STATEMENT UNDER COE RCION AND DURESS. THEY HAVE FORCED THESE ASSESSEES TO WRITE SUCH THINGS IN THE DIARY. A JOINT AFFIDAVIT TO THIS EFFECT WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO, WHICH HAS B EEN REPRODUCED FROM PAGES 5 TO 10 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT READS AS UNDER : JOINT AFFIDAVIT FOR RETARCTION OF WRONG DECLARATIO N OF INCOME IN THE STATEMENTS RECORDED U/S 132(4) DURING SEARCH OPERAIONS IN THE CASE OF SHRI VITTHALBHAI PRAJAPAI AND OTHERS WE, ALL FAMILY MEMBERS OF VITTHALBHAI PRAJAPATI GRO UP AS STATED HEREUNDER, MAKE THIS JOINT AFFIDAVIT AS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF AFFIDAVIT AND THE CONTENTS THEREOF ARE COMMON AND HAVING SIMILAR IMPLICATIONS ON ALL OF US. A) I, VITTHALBHAI GORDHANBHAI PRAJAPATI, SON OF GOR DHANBHAI PRAJAPATI,AGED 55 YEARS, BY NATIONALITY INDIAN, RES IDING AT PRAJAPATI VAS, POST THALTEJ GAM, THALTEJ SHILAJ ROAD, THALTEJ , AHMEDABAD 380 059, B) I, RAVJILBHAI GORDHANBHAI PRAJAPATI, SON OF GORD HANBHAI PRAJAPATI,AGED 49 YEARS, BY NATIONALITY INDIAN, RES IDING AT 308/43, PRAJAPATI VAS, POST THALTEJ GAM, THALTEJ SHILAJ ROA D, THALTEJ, AHMEDABAD 380 059, C) I, SURESHBHAI GORDHANBHAI PRAJAPATI, SON OF GORD HANBHAI PRAJAPATI,AGED 43 YEARS, BY NATIONALITY INDIAN, RES IDING AT 308/4, PRAJAPATI VAS, POST THALTEJ GAM, THALTEJ SHILAJ ROA D, THALTEJ, AHMEDABAD 380 059, D) I, MAHESHBHAI RAMANBHAI PRAJAPATI, SON OF RAMANB HAI PRAJAPATI,AGED 32 YEARS, BY NATIONALITY INDIAN, RES IDING AT PRAJAPATI VAS, KUMBHAR VAS, POST THALTEJ GAM, THALTEJ SHILAJ ROAD, THALTEJ, AHMEDABAD 380 059, AND E) I, NARESHBHAI RAMANBHAI PRAJAPATI, SON OF RAMANB HAI PRAJAPATI,AGED 25 YEARS, BY NATIONALITY INDIAN, RES IDING AT PRAJAPATI VAS, KUMBHAR VAS, POST THALTEJ GAM, THALTEJ SHILAJ ROAD, THALTEJ, AHMEDABAD 380 059, DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY AFFIRM AND STATE AS FOLLOWS: THIS AFFIDAVIT IS MADE BY US TO CLARIFY THE SEQUENC E OF EVENTS AND THE CORRECT POSITION OF THE FACTS RELATED TO SEARCH BY INCOME-TAX DEPT. ON IT(SS)A NO.180 AND 181/AHD/2019 WITH COS 10 06/11/2012,EVENTS OCCURRING THEREAFTER IN SEQUENCE AND FILING OF RETURN FOR VARIOUS BLOCK ASSESSMENT YEARS. 1) THAT SEARCH OPERATIONS U/S 132 OF I.T. ACT, 1961 WAS INITIATED ON 06/11/2012 ON ME AND MY BROTHERS AS LISTED HEREUNDE R: NAME OF ASSESSEE PAN NO. AGE EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS VITTHALBHAI GORDHANBHAI PRAJAPATI AFZPP0251L 55 12 TH STD. RAVJIBHAI GORDHANBHAI PRAJAPATI APRPP0713R 49 NON-MATRICULATE SURESHBHAI GORDHANBHAI PRAJAPATI APRPP0781K 43 NON-MATRICULATE MAHESHBHAI RAMANBHAI PRAJAPATI ATZPP8957F 34 NON-MATRICULATE NARESHBHAI RAMANBHAI PRAJAPATI ATZPP8773D 32 NON-MATRICULATE ANKIT VITTHALBHAI PRAJAPATI AUMPP4286H 25 NON-MATRICULATE 2) THAT NOW WE ARE MAKING THIS AFFIDAVIT ALMOST AFT ER TWO YEARS OF SEARCH DURING NOVEMBER 2012, WITH A SOLE AND ONLY I NTENTION TO BRING THE TRUTH TO THE LIGHT OF THIS UNIVERSE. IT IS PERT INENT TO POINT OUT THAT THERE IS UNINTENDED DELAY IN MAKING THIS RETRACTION CUM AFFIDAVIT ON ACCOUNT OF FACT THAT THE COPIES OF STATEMENTS RECOR DED OF WHOLE FAMILY WERE NOT INITIALLY GRANTED TO US THOUGH REQU ESTED TO DDIT. ULTIMATELY AN APPLICATION WAS MADE DURING LAST WEEK OF FEBRUARY 2014 TO A.O. TO WHOM OUR CASES FOR SEARCH ASSESSMEN T WERE ASSIGNED. OUR THE THEN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SH RI ASEEM L THAKKAR RECEIVED COPY OF STATEMENT APPROXIMATELY D URING FIRST WEEK OF MARCH, 2014 ON THE BASIS OF CHALLAN DATED 26/2/2 014 SUBMITTED FOR OBTAINING COPIES OF STATEMENTS RECORDED.FURTHER WHI LE PREPARING THE RETURN BY OUR CONSULTANT FOR AY 2013-2014, WE WERE PROVIDED WITH COMPUTATION SHEET OF TAX AND ON CONFRONTING HOW THI S MUCH AMOUNT OF TAX IS COMPUTED, WE WERE PROVIDED DURING 3 RD WEEK OF NOVEMBER, 2014, THE COPIES OF ALL THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURI NG SEARCH OPERATIONS. THE DELAY IN MAKING THIS RETRACTION AND AFFIDAVIT IS ON ACCOUNT OF ABOVE REFERRED SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AND AL SO TO THE FACT THAT OUR WHOLE FAMILY IS LESS LITERATE IN COMPREHEN DING THE NICETIES OF THE IT LAWS.IF WE ARE NOT MAKING THIS AFFIDAVIT NOW , THE REAL TRUTH WILL NEVER BE KNOWN TO ANYBODY AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THI S AFFIDAVIT, THE TRUTH WILL REMAIN BURIED AND INVISIBLE. MAKING THIS AFFIDAVIT EVEN AFTER TWO YEARS DOES NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES UNDERMIN E THE POWER OF THE TRUTH, BECAUSE THE TRUTH WILL REMAIN AS IT IS, EVEN IF IT IS DECLARED SOONER OR LATER. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AFFIDAVITFO R BRINGING THE TRUTH ON THE SURFACE,THE ARTIFICIAL, WRONG AND SELF-GENER ATED FACTSWILL LOOK LIKE CORRECT EVEN AFTER GENERATIONS. SO AS TO MAKE THE THINGS CORRECT, THE UNDERSIGNED THROUGH THIS AFFIDAVIT AND WITH FUL L ZEAL AND DETERMINATIONWANTS TO BRING THE TRUTH ON THE SURFAC E AND BURY THE IT(SS)A NO.180 AND 181/AHD/2019 WITH COS 11 WRONGS. THE WHOLE CONTENTS OF THIS AFFIDAVIT ARE EM BEDDED WITH THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH AND REMOVE THE EVIL OF FALSEHOOD. WE AGAIN SOLEMNLY DECLARE THAT THE CONTENTS HEREINA FTER ARE TRUTH AND ONLY TRUTH . 3) THAT CASH OF RS. 1.49 CRORES WAS FOUND FROM LOCK ERS OF OUR FAMILY WHICH WAS DULY SEIZED BY IT DEPT. ON 06/11/2012 ALO NG WITH OTHER DOCUMENTS RELATED TO PURCHASE / SALE OF LANDS, WHIC H HAVE BEEN DULY INVENTORIZED BY IT DEPT. 4) THAT DURING SEARCH OPERATION THE THEN DY. DIRECT OR OF INCOME-TAX (INV.), MR. SUMIT KUMAR (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS DDIT) HAD RESORTED TO COERCIVE MEASURES AND FORCING ME AND MY FAMILY MEMBERS TO DECLARE SUCH HIGHER NON-EXISTENCE AMOUNT AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO HI M AND HIS TEAM. 5) THIS OVER-ZEALOUS ACTION OF DDIT HAS RESULTED IN TO FABRICATION OF NON- EXISTENT PAGES THROUGH HAND-WRITING OF SHRI VITTHAL BHAI PRAJAPATI ON A PAPER IN THEBHAKTI POCKET DIARY. THE ENTRIES IN T HE DIARY WERE IN EXISTENCE ON PAGE NO. 1 TO 6. HOWEVER, THROUGH THRE AT, COERCION, INTIMIDATION, PRESSURE, OPPRESSION, HARASSMENT, WAR NING, FORCE, COMPULSION, TYRANNY AND DOMINATION SHRI VITTHALBHAI PRAJAPATI WAS FORCED TO WRITE THROUGH HIS OWN HAND-WRITING ON PAG E NOS. 7, 8 & 9 OF BHAKTI POCKET DIARY, THE FALSE AND FAKE DETAILS A BOUT AMOUNT GIVEN AS ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE OF LAND AND DATE OF PAYMENT AND THAT TOO NOT FOR ANY SMALL AMOUNT BUT FOR EXORBITANT AND ENO RMOUS AMOUNT OF RS. 9.05 CRORES. THESE DETAILS WERE TOTALLY NON-EXI STENT HITHERTO I.E. BEFORE FORCEFULLY AND WRITING UNDER COERCION. 6) THE CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE THAT THESE ENTRIES AS STATED UNDER POINT NO. 5 SUPRA WERE FALSE AND CAN BE GAUGED FROM THE F ACT THAT THE WRITINGS ON PAGE NO. 1 TO 6 WERE IN DIFFERENT HAND- WRITING OF EITHER OF MY SON, ANIL PRAJAPATI OR ANKIT PRAJAPATI OR ANYBOD Y ELSE, THE FACT OF WHICH IS NOT KNOWN TO SHRI VITTHALBHAI PRAJAPATI, W HILE ENTRIES ON PAGE NOS. 7, 8 & 9 OF BHAKTI POCKET DIARY, SHRI V ITTHALBHAI PRAJAPATI WAS FORCED TO WRITE IN HIS OWN HAND-WRITING. (FOR T HE PURPOSE OF CLARITY, WE ARE MAKING THOSE PAGES AND INTEGRAL PAR T OF THE AFFIDAVIT BY ATTACHING THE PHOTOCOPY OF RESPECTIVE PAGES FOR PERUSAL OF THE USER OF THIS AFFIDAVIT AS EXHIBIT I.) WE ALSO REPRODUCE HEREUNDER THE CONTENTS OF THE DI ARY MORE PARTICULARLY THAT OF FABRICATED PAGE NO. 7,8 AND 9 DULY TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH FOR READY PERUSAL, THOUGH PHOTOCOPY OF THE SAME IS MADE PART OF THIS AFFIDAVIT: PAGE NO. 7 OF BHAKTI POCKET DIARY ADVANCE GIVEN IN RS. FOR LAND AT RANCHARDA 50 LAKH 8/6/2012 IT(SS)A NO.180 AND 181/AHD/2019 WITH COS 12 50,00,000 15/6/2012 75,00,000 28/6/2012 50,00,000 15/7/2012 1,00,00,000 6/8/2012 3,25,00,000 TOTAL PAGE NO. 8 OF BHAKTI POCKET DIARY 3,25,00,000 CASH BALANCE 1,00,00,000 25/8/2012 1,10,00,000 13/9/2012 65,00,000 28/9/2012 1,15,00,000 25/10/2012 7,15,00,000 TOTAL 25/10/2012 PAGE NO. 9 OF BHAKTI POCKET DIARY 7,15,00,000 TOTAL 25/10/2012 1,00,00,000 29/10/2012 90,00,000 4/11/2012 THESE DETAILS WERE TOTALLY WRONG AND NON-EXISTENCE AND SHRI VITTHALBHAI PRAJAPATI WAS FORCED TO MAKE THESE ENTR IES ONLY WITH A SOLE PURPOSE OF RUINING US AND OUR FAMILY AND COLLE CTING WRONGFUL INCOME-TAX THEREON FOR THE PURPOSE OF MEETING THE U NKNOWN GOALS OF DDIT AND HIS TEAM. THESE PAYMENTS WERE TOTALLY NON- EXISTENCE AND WE WERE FORCED AND WRONG STORY WAS FED INTO OUR MOU TH TO MAKE THESE WRONG STATEMENTS THAT THESE ALLEGED PAYMENTS WERE MADE FOR PURCHASE OF LAND AT RANCHARDA. THIS IS PROVEN BY THE FACT THAT FOR THE PERIOD STAR TING FROM 08/06/2012 TO 4/11/2012, I.E DURING THIS PERIOD OF 5 MONTHS TH ERE IS NO ANY KNOWN SOURCE OF INCOME GENERATING THIS MAGNITUDE OF AMOUNT OF RS. 9.05 CRORES. EVEN THE SEARCH PARTY HAS NOT FOUND AN Y INDISCRIMINATING SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO GENERATION OF THIS QUANTUM OF MONEY. THE DDIT TEAM HAS NOT COME A CROSS ANY CORROBORATIVE DETAILS ABOUT SUCH PAYMENTS VIZ. BANA KHAT COPIES, LIST AND NAME OF PERSONS, WHO RECEIVED THIS AMOUNT, COPY OF 7/12 DOCUMENT, PARTICULARS OF LAND, NAME OF ANY BROKER/D ALAL WHO FACILITATED THESE TRANSACTIONS (IT IS CUSTOMARY TO HAVE BROKER/DALAL FOR ALL TYPES OF LAND TRANSACTIONS), STAMP NOTARIZED DO CUMENTS SO ON AND SO FORTH. OUR FAMILY IS PURELYAGRICULTURIST AND IS NEITHER ENGAGED IN ACTIVITY OF ANY BUILDER OR CARRYING OUT ANY BUSINES S ACTIVITIES SO QUESTION OF GENERATING THIS MAGNITUDE OF AMOUNT IS TOTALLY RULED OUT. IN OTHER WORDS SUCH FACTS CAN BE COMPARED ONLY AND ONLY WITH COOKED UP STORY AT THE BEHEST OF DDIT AND HIS TEAM. THIS IS EVIDENT FROM PAST RETURNS AND RECORDS OF WHOLE FAMILY AS TH EY ARE FILING THE RETURN AND SHOWING INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE ACTIVITI ES, INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAI NS WHEREVER APPLICABLE. ALL THESE FACTS OF INCOME ARE ALREADY T HERE WITH THE RECORDS OF IT DEPARTMENT. 7) THAT WE BEING PURE AGRICULTURIST AND NOT EDUCATE D BEYOND SCHOOLS, NEVER KNEW ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH WRONGFULL Y AND FORCEFULLY TAKEN DECLARATIONS, BUT WE WERE MADE TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT(SS)A NO.180 AND 181/AHD/2019 WITH COS 13 NOTHING WILL HAPPEN TO US ABOUT THIS WRONGFUL DECLA RATION BY THE DDIT AND HIS TEAM. 8) WHILE RECORDING THE STATEMENT ON 06/11/2012 AT 1 .30 AM OF SHRI VITTHALBHAI PRAJAPATI ON PAGE NO. 5 QUESTION NO. 9, HE WAS ASKED ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF BHAKTI POCKET DIARY AND THE ANSWER WAS ALSO MISCHIEVOUSLY DICTATED BY THEM SO AS TO SUIT THE NE EDS OF DDIT AND HIS TEAM. SIMILARLY, RELATED QUESTIONS WERE ASKED A BOUT PAYMENTS OF RS. 9.05 CRORES ON PAGE NO. 6,9 & 10 (INADVERTENTLY PAGE NO. 7 & 8 ARE NOT GIVEN IN THE STATEMENT, HOWEVER THE SEQUENC E OF QUESTION NUMBERS ARE IN ORDER) UNDER QUESTION NO. 10, 11 & 1 2. HOWEVER, THE DDIT TEAM MISCHIEVOUSLY AND CONSPICUOUSLY REMAINED SILENT ABOUT ASKING THE QUESTION RELATED TO LAND FOR WHICH ADVAN CES WERE GIVEN, SURVEY NUMBERS, NAMES AND IDENTITIES OF THE RECIPIE NTS, ETC. DESPITE OUR QUESTIONS TO THEM ABOUT WHY WE ARE BEING FORCED TO DECLARE SUCH WRONG AND FALSE STATEMENT AND THAT TOO FOR SUCH A M AGNIFIED AND OVERSTATED NON-EXISTENCE AMOUNT OF RS. 9.05 CORES B UT OF NO AVAIL TO US. FURTHER, WE ALSO STATE THAT THE STATEMENT RECOR DED ON 31/12/2012 AT 3.00 PM UNDER QUESTION NO. 8 & 9 THERE IS REFERE NCE OF RS. 80,00,000/- BEING RECEIVED FROM SO-CALLED NON-EXIST ENCE AMOUNT OF RS. 9.05 CRORES IS ALSO A FABRICATED STORY COOKED U P BY DDIT AND HIS TEAM AND THAT THE QUESTION OF RECEIVING BACK RS. 80 LACS FROM NON- EXISTENCE ADVANCE GIVEN OF RS. 9.05 CRORES DOES NOT ARISE AT ALL. 9) IT IS VERY SURPRISING THAT THE WHOLE TEAM OF DDI T DID NOT BOTHER TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE THE FALSE PAYMENTS FOR THE PURC HASE OF LAND AT RANCHARDA BY INQUIRING ABOUT THE RECIPIENTS, THEIR NAMES, ADDRESSES & IDENTITY, THE DETAILS OF LAND, COPIES OF 7/12 DOC UMENTS, ETC. THOUGH THE MAGNITUDE OF SUCH PAYMENT WAS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 9.05 CRORES, BECAUSE THEY KNEW IN THEIR CONSCIENCE ABOUT THE FAC T THAT THIS IS A COOKED UP AND COLOURED DECLARATION ON THE BASIS OF THEIR OWN FABRICATED STORY. HAD THEY INQUIRED ABOUT THIS CONT ENT, THEY WOULD HAVE COME TO KNOW THAT THERE IS NOBODY OR BLANK IN EXISTENCE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TRANSACTION WHO HAVE RECEIVED THE SE PAYMENTS, BUT THAT WAS NOT TO BE BECAUSE THE TEAM OF DDIT KNEW AB OUT THE FALSEHOOD OF ALL THE PAYMENTS IN THEIR CONSCIENCE. THE CORRECT SITUATION PROACTIVELY WOULD HAVE PROMPTED THE DDIT TEAM TO ALSO APPROACH WITH SEARCH WARRANT ON SO-CALLED RECIPIENT S OF ADVANCE FOR LAND BUT DDIT WOULD HAVE CERTAINLY FAILED AS THERE IS NO EXISTENCE OF ANY RECIPIENT, ANY LAND, ANY ADVANCE UNDER THIS SKY OF UNIVERSE LET ALONE AND THOUGH IT MAY HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO AS R ACHARDA IN THE BHAKTI POCKET DIARY. 10) WE HAD DURING THE PERIOD OF ABOVE SEARCH OPERAT IONS STRONGLY CONFRONTED ABOUT THESE FACTS, BUT WE WERE TOLD BY D DIT TEAM THAT IT IS NONE OF OUR BUSINESS WHETHER WE INQUIRE FURTHER OR NOT ABOUT THE SO-CALLED BENEFICIARIES OF THE ABOVE REFERRED AMOUN T OF RS. 9.05 CRORES. IT IS VERY SURPRISING THAT FOR SUCH MAGNITU DE OF AMOUNT THEY DID NOT INTENTIONALLY BOTHERED NOT TO INQUIRE BECAU SE IT WAS A MISCHIEVOUS PLAN TO RUIN OUR AGRICULTURIST FAMILY A ND LESS EDUCATED IT(SS)A NO.180 AND 181/AHD/2019 WITH COS 14 PERSONS LIKE USSO AS TO MEET THEIR OVERZEALOUS GOAL S AT THE COST OF A CITIZEN AND AGRICULTURIST OF THIS COUNTRY. 11) THAT MEANWHILE ON THE BASIS OF NOTICES RECEIVED U/S 153A, WE FILED THE RETURNS OF INCOME FROM A.Y. 2007-08 TO A.Y. 201 2-13 ON 08/07/2014 WITH CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), AHMEDABAD,TH ROUGH OUR CONSULTANT, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, SHRI ASEEM L. THA KKAR. MEANWHILE THE WORKING FOR TAX COMPUTATION FOR A.Y. 2013-14 WERE BEING MADE BY OUR CONSULTANT AND ON 10/11/2014WE WE RE GIVEN A COMPUTATION SHEET ASKING USTO PAY TAX OF RS. 3,75,8 7,960/- FOR THIS PARTICULAR YEAR WHICH CAME AS A SHOCK TO ALL OF US AND OUR FAMILY MEMBERS AS WE NEVER KNEW THE REPERCUSSION OF SUCH WRONGFUL STATEMENT FORCEFULLY TAKEN FROM ALL OF OUR FAMILY M EMBERS. 12) ON THE HAPPENING OF THE ABOVE EVENT, WE ALL AND OUR FAMILY MEMBERS WENT UNDER TRAUMA AND DID NOT KNOW HOW TO REACT IN SUCH DIFFICULT SITUATION WHEN THE UNTRUTH IS BENT UPON TO RUIN ALL OF OUR FAMILY MEMBERS. WE ALL THEREAFTER JOINTLY DECIDED TO FIGHT AGAINST THE WRONG, FALSE, UNTRUTH AND MAKE THIS JOINT AFFIDAVIT. WHEN CONFRONTED ABOUT ALL THESE FACTS WITH OUR CONSULTANT, SHRI ASEEM L. THAK KAR, HE ASKED US TO PAY THE WRONGFUL TAX ON WRONG AND NON-EXISTENT I NCOME. THIS SITUATION HAD RESULTED INTO SOUL SEARCHING BY ALL F AMILY MEMBERS AND WE ALL CONCLUDED THAT HOW ONE CAN PAY SUCH AWRONGFU L AND EXORBITANT AMOUNT OF INCOME-TAX AND THAT TOO ON FAL SE INCOME CREATED THROUGH WRONGFUL STATEMENTS FORCED UPON US. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXISTENCE OF ADVANCES FOR PURCHASE OF NON-EX ISTENT LAND MADE TO NON-EXISTENT PERSON, UNDISCLOSED INCOME CANNOT A RISE.THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOME, THE QUESTIO N OF PAYING ANY WRONGFUL INCOME-TAX DOES NOT ARISE. 13) ALL THE CONTENTS STATED HEREINABOVE ARE DECLARE D SOLEMNLY AND JOINTLY WITH A SOLE PURPOSE AND INTENTION TO BRING OUT THE TRUTH FROM THE MOUNTAIN OF FALSE AND WRONGFUL FACTS. THE PHRASE TH AT TO BE LATE IS BETTER THAN NEVER IS THE SPIRIT BEHIND THIS DECLARATION AND WITHOUT WHICH THE TRUTH WOULD NEVER HAVE COME OUT A ND WE WOULD HAVE BEEN BURIED UNDER THE BURDEN OF LIES AT THE LA TER STAGE ALONG WITH OURSELVES. THE ARGUMENT THAT LATE AFFIDAVIT UN DERMINES THE POWER OF CONTENT OF THE AFFIDAVIT IS TOTALLY UNFOUN DED AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS APPLICABLE HERE IN THIS CASE BECAUSE TRUTH REMAINS TRUTH AND THAT TOO ALWAYS. HAD WE DECLARED THESE VERY CONTENTS AT EARLY STAGE WILL ALSO HAVE S IMILAR VALUES AND STRENGTH AS THAT IS PREVAILING NOW. 14) THAT THE ORIGINAL STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED ON 0 6/11/2012 AT 1.30 AM AND ONE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE IN NORMAL AND PHYS ICAL MENTAL CONDITION AT SUCH WEE HOURS OF NIGHT. IN THE STATEM ENT RECORDED ON 31/12/2012 THE DDIT AND HIS TEAM HAD MISCHIEVOUSLY ANSWERED THE QUESTION AT POINT NO. 9 SO AS TO MAKE THE FALSE LOO K LIKE TRUTH AND IT(SS)A NO.180 AND 181/AHD/2019 WITH COS 15 FORCEFULLY AND WRONGFULLY CORROBORATED THE FACTS TO LOOK AS IF LINKED TO DECLARATION OF WRONGFUL AMOUNT OF RS. 9.05 CRORES. 15) THE DECLARATION IS FABRICATED ONE IS PROVEN BY ANOTHER EVIDENCE IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON 31/12/2012 OF SHRI VITTHA LBHAI PRAJAPATI, WHEREIN THE DDIT AND HIS TEAM HAS TRIED TO LINK THI S FABRICATED STORY OF ADVANCE GIVEN FOR RANCHARDA LAND OF RS. 9.05 CRO RE BY SAYING THAT RS. 80 LAKHS HAS BEEN RECEIVED BACK FROM AFORESAID ADVANCES AND KEPT AT BUNGLOW OF BROTHERS AND THIS CASH WAS FOUND AND SEIZED. THIS STATEMENT IS CONTRADICTORY IN NATURE BECAUSE O F THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO SUCH ENTRY OF RECEIPT OF CASH OF RS. 80 LAKHS IN THE SO CALLED FABRICATED PAGES OF BHAKTI POCKET DAIRY. HAD THE ENTRIES WOULD HAVE BEEN CORRECT AND MAINTAINED UP TO DATE B Y US THEN THE ENTRY OF RECEIVING BACK RS. 80 LAKHS WOULD HAVE BEE N THERE, BUT IT WAS NOT TO BE BECAUSE FABRICATED THINGS ARE NEVER T RUE AND FULL PROOF. THIS FACT OF RECEIVING BACK OF RS. 80 LAKHS IS FURT HER CONTRADICTED IF LINKED TO STATEMENTS RECORDED OF SHRI SURESHBHAI PR AJAPATI ON 6/11/2012 WHEREIN WHILE GIVING ANSWER TO QUESTION N O. 4 ON PAGE NO. 3-4 HE HAD STATED THAT THE CASH FOUND AT HIS HOME I S PERTAINING TO ON- MONEY RECEIVED FROM SALE OF LAND BEARING SURVEY NO. 1237 TO KAUSHIKBHAI MAJETHIYA GROUP(BAGHBAN GROUP). IT CAN BE SEEN THAT ONCE THE SOURCE OF CASH FOUND A ND SEIZED FROM RESIDENTIAL PREMISES RELATED TO SURESHBHAI PRAJAPAT I AND RAVJIBHAI PRAJAPATI ARE EXPLAINED AND ESTABLISHED IN THE STAT EMENT OF SURESHBHAI PRAJAPATI MADE ON 6/11/2012 THAT THIS CA SH IS BELONGING TO THE PORTION OF ON MONEY RECEIVED AGAINST SALE OF LAND BEARING SURVEY NO. 1237 TO KAUSHIKBHAI MAJETHIYA GROUP(BAGH BAN GROUP), THEN HOW COME THE SAME CASH CAN HAVE ANOTHER SOURCE THAT TOO OF RECEIVED BACK FROM ADVANCES GIVEN FOR NON-EXISTED R ANCHARDA LAND. THERE CANNOT BE TWO SOURCES OF ONE RECEIPT. FURTHER WE HAVE TO STATE THAT WHILE RECORDING THE STATEMENT IN THE NAME OF S HRI VITTHALBHAI PRAJAPATI ON 6/11/2012 AND 7/11/2012, SIGNATURES OF SHRI VITTHALBHAI PRAJAPATI, SHRI SURESHBHAI PRAJAPATI, SHRI NARESHBH AI PRAJAPATI, SHRI MAHESHBHAI PRAJAPATI AND SHRI RAVJIBHAI PRAJAPATI, WERE OBTAINED TO GIVE CREDENCE TO THE HYPOTHETICAL THEORY OF ADVANCE BUT, WHILE, AT THE JUNCTURE OF OPENING OF P.O. AND RECORDING STATEMENT OF SHRI VITTHALBHAI PRAJAPATI, ON 31/12/2012, SIGNATURE OF ONLY SHRI VITTHALBHAI PRAJAPATI WAS OBTAINED. IN THE STATEMEN T RECORDED ON 31/12/2012, THE QUESTIONS RELATED TO ADVANCE GIVEN FOR RANCHARDA LAND OF RS. 9.05 CRORE WERE RAISED AND DDIT TEAM TR IED TO REAFFIRM THE COOKED UP STORY BY LINKING THE RECEIPT OF RS. 8 0 LAKHS AND SIGNATURE OF ONLY SHRI VITTHALBHAI PRAJAPATI WAS OB TAINED. ALL THE ABOVE REFERRED FACTS AND SEQUENCE OF EVENTS PROVES THAT THE ADVANCES GIVEN FOR RANCHARDA LAND OF RS. 9.05 CRORE IS NOTHING BUT A FABRICATED, FALSE, COOKED STORY MADE WITH A SOLE MO TIVE OF ACHIEVING DDIT TEAMS OVERZEALOUS GOALS WITH INTENTION OF RUIN ING LESS LITERATE FARMERS LIKE US. DDIT AND HIS TEAM HAVE IN THE MELE E OF FABRICATING IT(SS)A NO.180 AND 181/AHD/2019 WITH COS 16 AND WEAVING THE LIES, FORGOTTEN TO TAKE SIGNATURES OF ALL BROTHERS OF OUR GROUP AND HAVE FALTERED IN THEIR OWN GAME OF LI ES. THAT, WE STRONGLY REITERATE THAT THERE IS NO DELIBE RATE INTENTION IN OURMIND TO EVADE INCOME-TAX, AND THAT TOO ON THE FO UNDATION OF WRONG AND FALSE INCOME FORCED UPON US THROUGH DDIT AND HIS TEAM. WE ARE OF STRONG OPINION THAT THE EXCHEQUER CANNOT MAKE UNJUST ENRICHMENT ON WRONGFUL DECLARATION OF INCOME THROUG H COERCION AND MORE SO WHEN THE INCOME DOES NOT EXIST AT ALL, RATH ER INCOME DOES NOT EXIST FACTUALLY BUT IT IS REFLECTED ONLY ON PAP ER.THIS JOINT AFFIDAVIT IS MADE FOR BRINGING THE TRUTH IN LIGHT FROM THE DARKN ESS HITHERTO PREVAILING. 16) THAT WE ARE LIVING AS FARMERS AND NOT CONVERSAN T ABOUT THE FINER AND INTRICACIES OF THE LAW AND THEREFORE, NOT ABLE TO G AUGE THE ULTIMATE IMPLICATIONS ON OUR FAMILY OF THESE WRONGFUL AND FO RCEFUL DECLARATIONS. FURTHER, DUE TO VARIOUS PERSONAL, PHYSICAL HEALTH, STRESS OF COERCION AND THREAT HAS ALSO RESULTED INTO BAD HEALTH OF OUR FAMILY AND THREE BROTHERS VIZ. SHRI VITTHALBHAI PRAJAPATI, SHRI RAVJ IBHAI PRAJAPATI AND SHRI SURESHBHAI PRAJAPATI HAD TO UNDERGO THE PROCES S OF HEART OPERATIONS. 17) WE AS A FAMILY DECIDED TO BRING THE TRUTH ON TH E SURFACE OF THIS EARTH LEST IT BURIES OURSELVES UNDER THE BURDEN OF FALSEH OOD. WE FAILED TO COMPREHEND THE SITUATION THAT WOULD ARISE FROM MAKI NG FALSE STATEMENTS. WE CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE PROBLEM AND G RAVITY ARISING OUT OF THIS WRONG DECLARATION ONLY AFTER COMING TO KNOW OF PAYING WRONGFUL TAX WHEN ADVISED BY THE CONSULTANT CHARTER ED ACCOUNTANT, SHRI ASEEM L. THAKKAR. FURTHER, WRONG EXPLANATIONS BY THE THEN DDIT AND HIS TEAM ALSO PROVED TO BE FALSE AS THE EX PLANATIONS GIVEN BY DDIT WERE MEANT FOR SERVING THEIR OWN SELFISH AN D OVERZEALOUS PURPOSES. 18) IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE REFERRED FACTS AND CONTEN TS OF THIS AFFIDAVIT FOR BRINGING OUT THE TRUTH, WE ALL DEPONENTS TO THIS AF FIDAVIT HEREBY RETRACT AND WITHDRAW OUR STATEMENTS RECORDED AND GIVEN ON 06.11.2012 THROUGH SHRI VITTHALBHAI PRAJAPATI ON PA GE NO. 5, 6, 9 & 10 BEARING QUESTION NO. 9, 10, 11 & 12 WITH REGARDS TO DECLARATION OF WRONG INCOME OF RS. 9.05 CRORES PERTAINING TO SO-CA LLED NON- EXISTENCE ADVANCES GIVEN FOR PURCHASE OF NON-EXISTE NCE LAND AT RANCHARDA TO ANY NON-EXISTENCE PERSONS UNDER THIS S KY OF THE WHOLE UNIVERSE. WE ALL ARE COMMON SIGNATORIES TO THE STAT EMENTS RECORDED OF SHRI VITTHALBHAI PRAJAPATI ON 06.11.2012 AND STA TEMENTS RECORDED OF SHRI VITTHALBHAI PRAJAPATI ON 31.12.2012, IN WHI CH SIGNATURE OF ONLYSHRI VITTHALBHAI PRAJAPATI WAS OBTAINED. IN OTH ER WORDS, WE FULLY WITHDRAW AND RETRACT OUR STATEMENTS ABOUT DECLARATION OF NON-EXISTENCE AND FABRICATED INCOME OF RS. 9.05 CRORE MADE THROUGH FORCE, COERCION, THREAT THROUGH FAKE E NTRIES FORCED AND FORGED INTOBHAKTI POCKET DIARY AT THE BEHEST OF D DIT AND HIS TEAM. IT(SS)A NO.180 AND 181/AHD/2019 WITH COS 17 19) THE ABOVE REFERRED STATEMENTS ARE TRUE AND CORR ECT AND TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF ON THE BASIS OF FACTS A ND THE CONTENTS OF THE SAME. THE WHOLE ABOVE REFERRED STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN CONVEYED BY US IN OUR VERNACULAR LANGUAGE, I.E. GUJ ARATI, AND IN TURN THE SAME ARE ALSO EXPLAINED AND TRANSLATED TO US IN OUR VERNACULAR LANGUAGE, I.E. GUJARATI. THESE STATEMENTS ARE GIVEN BY ALL OF US WITHOUT ANY COERCION, FORCE, ETC. AND ARE GIVEN WIT H STABLE MIND WITHOUT ANY EFFECT OF DRUG, MEDICINE, ALCOHOL, ETC. SOLEMNLY AFFIRMED AT AHMEDABAD DEPONENTS THIS DAY OF DECEMBER 2014 ____________________________ (VITTHALBHAI GORDHANBHAI PRAJAPATI) ____________________________ (RAVJIBHAI GORDHANBHAI PRAJAPATI) ____________________________ (SURESHBHAI GORDHANBHAI PRAJAPATI) ____________________________ (MAHESBHAI RAMANBHAI PRAJAPATI) ____________________________ (NARESBHAI RAMANBHAI PRAJAPATI) 11. THERE WERE TWO INDEPENDENT WITNESSES, WHO WERE CALLED AS PANCHAS AT THE TIME OF SEARCH VIZ. KANUBHAI PRAJAPATI, AND GA UTAM PRAJAPATI. THIS FACT HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN PANCHANAMA AVAILABLE AT PAGE NO.43 OF THE PAPER BOOK AT SERIAL NO.E. NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THESE PANCHAS HAVE BEEN WRITTEN UNDER THIS HEAD. BOTH THESE PERSONS HAVE A LSO FILED THEIR AFFIDAVITS, AND THESE AFFIDAVITS HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE CI T(A) ON PAGE NO.23 TO 25. THEY HAVE TAKEN SIDE WITH THE ASSESSEE, AND HAVE AL LEGED THAT NO SUCH DIARY WAS FOUND. THE RELEVANT PART OF THEIR AFFIDAVITS R EAD AS UNDER: JOINT AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI GAUTAMBHAI P. PRAJAPATI AN D SHRI KANUBHAI P. PRAJAPATI IN THE CASE OF STATEMENTS RECORDED U/S 132(4) DURING SEARCH OPERATIONS IN THE CASE OF SHRI VITTHALBHAI PRAJAPATI AND OTHERS WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, DEPONENTS MAKE THIS JOINT AFFI DAVIT AS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF AFFIDAVIT AND THE CONTENTS THEREOF ARE CO MMON AND HAVING SIMILAR IMPLICATIONS ON BOTH OF US. THIS AFFIDAVIT IS MADE IN THE STATUS OF WITNESSES AT THE TIME OF RECORDING OF STATEMENTS U/S 132(4) O F SHRI VITTHALBHAI G. PRAJAPATI AND IN THAT STATEMENT SIGNATURESOF OTHER FOUR FAMILY MEMBERS VIZ. SHRI VITTHALBHAI G. PRAJAPATI, SHRI RAVJIBHAI G. PR AJAPATI, SHRI SURESHBHAI G. IT(SS)A NO.180 AND 181/AHD/2019 WITH COS 18 PRAJAPATI, SHRI MAHESHBHAI R. PRAJAPATI AND SHRI NA RESHBHAI R. PRAJAPATI WERE ALSO TAKEN. THIS AFFIDAVIT IS MADE SOLELY WITH A VIEWTO NARRATE THE FACTS AS IT HAPPENED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS U/ S 132 AT THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI VITTHALBHAI PRAJAPATI AND OTHERS ON 06/11/2 012 AND 07/11/2012. WE DEPONENTS AND THE UNDERSIGNED STATE AS UNDER: A) I, GAUTAMBHAIPURUSHOTTAMBHAI PRAJAPATI, SON OF S HRI PURUSHOTTAMBHAI PRAJAPATI,,AGED 51 YEARS, BY NATION ALITY INDIAN, RESIDING AT PRAJAPATI VAS, POST SUGHAD GAM, GANDHIN AGAR AND SERVING WITH INFORMATION DEPT. OF GOVT. OF GUJARAT AND B) I, KANUBHAIPURUSHOTTAMDAS PRAJAPATI, SON OF PURU SHOTTAMBHAI PRAJAPATI,AGED 55 YEARS, BY NATIONALITY INDIAN, RES IDING AT 540, NISHAL VAS, NEW WADAJ, AHMEDABAD 380 013 DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY AFFIRM AND STATE AS FOLLOWS: THIS AFFIDAVIT IS MADE BY US TO CLARIFY THE SEQUENC E OF EVENTS AND THE CORRECT POSITION OF THE FACTS RELATED TO SEARCH BY INCOME-TAX DEPT. ON 06/11/2012 AND 07/11/2012,EVENTS OCCURREDDURING SEA RCH OPERATIONS IN SEQUENCE RELATED TO SEARCH PROCEEDINGS U/S 132 AT T HE RESIDENCE OF SHRI VITTHALBHAI PRAJAPATI AND OTHERS ON 06/11/2012 AND 07/11/2012. 1) THAT SEARCH OPERATIONS U/S 132 OF I.T. ACT, 1961 WAS INITIATED ON 06/11/2012 AND 07/11/2012 ON SHRI VITTHALBHAI G. PR AJAPATI AND OTHER FOUR FAMILY MEMBERS VIZ. SHRI VITTHALBHAI G. PRAJAPATI, SHRI RAVJIBHAI G. PRAJAPATI, SHRI SURESHBHAI G. PRAJAPAT I, SHRI MAHESHBHAI R. PRAJAPATI AND SHRI NARESHBHAI R. PRAJ APATI. 2) THAT NOW WE ARE MAKING THIS AFFIDAVIT ALMOST AFT ER TWO YEARS OF SEARCH DURING NOVEMBER 2012, WITH A SOLE AND ONLY I NTENTION TO BRING THE TRUTH TO THE LIGHT OF THIS UNIVERSE. IT IS PERT INENT TO POINT OUT THAT THERE IS UNINTENDED DELAY IN MAKING THIS RETRACTION -CUM-AFFIDAVIT ON ACCOUNT OF FACT THAT THE COPIES OF STATEMENTS RECOR DED OF WHOLE FAMILY WERE NOT INITIALLY GRANTED TO THEM THOUGH RE QUESTED TO DDIT. ULTIMATELY AN APPLICATION WAS MADE BY THEM DURING L AST WEEK OF FEBRUARY 2014 TO THEIR A.O. THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRES ENTATIVE SHRI ASEEM L. THAKKAR GAVE COPY OF STATEMENT APPROXIMATE LY DURING FIRST WEEK OF MARCH, 2014.THEY WERE PROVIDED DURING 3 RD WEEK OF NOVEMBER, 2014, THE COPIES OF ALL THE STATEMENTS RE CORDED DURING SEARCH OPERATIONS, IN WHICH BOTH OF US HAVE SIGNED ON EACH PAGE AS WITNESS AND TO BE SPECIFIC ON STATEMENTS RECORDED O N 06/011/2012 AND 07/11/2012. THE DELAY IN MAKING THIS AFFIDAVIT IS ON ACCOUNT OF ABOVE REFERRED SEQUENCE OF EVENTS. IF WE ARE NOT MA KING THIS AFFIDAVIT NOW, THE REAL TRUTH WILL NEVER BE KNOWN TO ANYBODY AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THIS AFFIDAVIT, THE TRUTH WILL NOT BE VI SIBLE TO ANYBODY. MAKING THIS AFFIDAVIT EVEN AFTER TWO YEARS DOES NOT UNDER ANY IT(SS)A NO.180 AND 181/AHD/2019 WITH COS 19 CIRCUMSTANCES UNDERMINE THE POWER OF THE TRUTH, BEC AUSE THE TRUTH WILL REMAIN AS IT IS, EVEN IF IT IS DECLARED SOONER OR LATER. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AFFIDAVITFOR BRINGING THE TRUTH ON THE SURFACE,THE ARTIFICIAL, WRONG AND SELF-GENERATED FACTSWILL LOOK LIKE CORRECT EVEN AFTER GENERATIONS. SO AS TO MAKE THE THINGS CORRECT , THE UNDERSIGNED THROUGH THIS AFFIDAVIT AND WITH FULL ZEAL AND DETER MINATIONWANTS TO BRING THE TRUTH ON THE SURFACE AND BURY THE WRONGS. THE WHOLE CONTENTS OF THIS AFFIDAVIT ARE EMBEDDED WITH THE SP IRIT OF TRUTH AND REMOVE THE EVIL OF FALSEHOOD. WE AGAIN SOLEMNLY DECLARE THAT THE CONTENTS HEREINA FTER ARE FACTUALLY CORRECT AND TRUE. 3) THAT I, GAUTAMBHAI PRAJAPATI CAME AT THE PLACE O F SEARCH OPERATIONS AT 4, GORDHAN BUNGALOW, THALTEJ, SHILAJ ROAD, AT 8. 30 AM ON 06/11/2012 AND THAT I REMAINED AT THE PLACE TILL CO NCLUSION OF THE SEARCH OPERATIONS. 4) THAT I, KANUBHAI PRAJAPATI CAME AT THE PLACE OF SEARCH OPERATIONS AT 4, GORDHAN BUNGALOW,THALTEJ, SHILAJ ROAD, AT 9.30 A M ON 06/11/2012 AND THAT I REMAINED AT THE PLACE TILL CO NCLUSION OF THE SEARCH OPERATIONS. 5) THAT BOTH OF US WERE OBSERVING CONTINUOUSLY THE SEARCH OPERATIONS AND ARE WITNESS TO ALL THE ACTIONS AND ACTIVITIES C ARRIED OUT BEFORE OUR PRESENCE. THAT DDIT AND HIS TEAM HAVE RESORTED TO M ANY TIMES DURING THE SEARCH OPERATIONS THREAT, COERCION, INTI MIDATION, PRESSURE, OPPRESSION, HARASSMENT, WARNING, FORCE, COMPULSION, TYRANNY AND DOMINATION OVER SHRI VITTHALBHAI PRAJAPATI AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. 6) THAT DURING SEARCH OPERATION THE THEN DY. DIRECT OR OF INCOME-TAX (INV.), MR. SUMIT KUMAR (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS DDIT) HAD RESORTED TO COERCIVE MEASURES AND FORCING SHRI VITT HALBHAI PRAJAPATI AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS TO DECLARE SUCH HIGHER NON- EXISTENCE AMOUNT AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE REASONS BEST K NOWN TO HIM AND HIS TEAM. 7) WE HAVE OBSERVED AND SEEN THAT THE OVER-ZEALOUS ACTION OF DDIT HAS RESULTED INTO FABRICATION OF NON-EXISTENT PAGES THROUGH HAND- WRITING OF SHRI VITTHALBHAI PRAJAPATI ON THREE PAPE RSIN THEBHAKTI POCKET DIARY. THE ENTRIES IN THE DIARY WERE IN EXI STENCE ON PAGE NO. 1 TO 6. HOWEVER, THROUGH THREAT, COERCION, INTIMIDA TION, PRESSURE, OPPRESSION, HARASSMENT, WARNING, FORCE, COMPULSION, TYRANNY AND DOMINATION SHRI VITTHALBHAI PRAJAPATI WAS FORCED TO WRITE THROUGH HIS OWN HAND-WRITING ON PAGE NOS. 7, 8 & 9 OF BHAKTI P OCKET DIARY, THE FALSE AND FAKE DETAILS ABOUT AMOUNT GIVEN AS ADVANC E FOR PURCHASE OF LAND AND DATE OF PAYMENT AND THAT TOO NOT FOR AN Y SMALL AMOUNT BUT FOR EXORBITANT AND ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF RS. 9.05 CRORES. IT(SS)A NO.180 AND 181/AHD/2019 WITH COS 20 8) BEFORE WRITING OF PAGE NO. 7, 8 & 9 IN THE BHAKT I POCKET DIARY BY SHRI VITTHALBHAI PRAJAPATI, DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX ( INV.), MR. SUMIT KUMAR (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS DDIT) WROTE BY HIS OWN HAND- WRITING THE FABRICATED CONTENTS ON A SEPARATE PIECE OF PAPER THE DETAILS OF ADVANCES GIVEN FOR PURCHASE OF LAND AT R ANCHARADAWITH FABRICATED DATES IN TOTAL AMOUNTING TO RS. 9.05 CRO RES AND THEN ASKED AND FORCED SHRI VITTHALBHAI PRAJAPATI TO WRITE THES E SAME CONTENTS BY SHRI VITTHALBHAI PRAJAPATIS HAND-WRITING. THESE DE TAILS WERE TOTALLY NON-EXISTENT HITHERTO I.E. BEFORE FORCEFULLY AND WR ITING UNDER COERCION BY SHRI VITTHALBHAI PRAJAPATI. IN OTHER WORDS, THE CONTENTS IN BHAKTI POCKET DAIRY ARE NOTHING BUT ONLY FABRICATED AND AR TIFICIAL AND HERETO NON-EXISTENT CREATIVITY AT THE BEHEST OF MIND OF DD IT, SHRI SUMIT KUMAR AND HIS TEAM. WE, BOTH WERE WITNESS TO ALL AB OVE REFERRED MODUS OPERANDI OF FABRICATED ACTIONS OF DDIT AND HI S TEAM AND ALSO WITNESS TO WRITING OF THESE FABRICATED FACTS IN BHA KTI POCKET DAIRY OF SHRI VITTHALBHAI PRAJAPATI. 9) THE ABOVE REFERRED DETAILS ABOUT DECLARATION OF BOGUS AND FABRICATED ADVANCES GIVEN FOR NON-EXISTENT LAND AT RANCHARADAW ERE TOTALLY WRONG AND NON-EXISTENCE AND SHRI VITTHALBHAI PRAJAP ATI WAS FORCED TO MAKE THESE ENTRIES. THESE PAYMENTS WERE TOTALLY NON -EXISTENCE AND HE WAS FORCED AND WRONG STORY WAS FED INTO HIS MOUT H TO MAKE THESE WRONG STATEMENTS THAT THESE ALLEGED PAYMENTS WERE M ADE FOR PURCHASE OF LAND AT RANCHARADA. 10) ON CONFRONTATION OF SHRI VITTHALBHAI PRAJAPATI TO DDIT AND HIS TEAM ABOUT THIS WRONG FABRICATION OF ENTRIES IN BHAKTI P OCKET DAIRY, WE HAVE HEARD THE DDIT TELLING SHRI VITTHALBHAI THAT Y OUR CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT / ADVOCATE WILL RESOLVE THIS ISSUE OF FA BRICATED INCOME AND THAT HE SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT THE SAME. SHRI V ITTHALBHAI PRAJAPATI AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS BEING LESS LITERAT E AND PURE AGRICULTURIST COULD NOT COMPREHEND THE SITUATION PR EVAILING AT THE TIME OF WRITING IN BHAKTI POCKET DAIRY ABOUT THE FABRICA TED FACTS. 11) WHILE RECORDING THE STATEMENT ON 06/11/2012 AND 07/11/2012OF SHRI VITTHALBHAI PRAJAPATI ON PAGE NO. 5 QUESTION NO. 9, HE WAS ASKED ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF BHAKTI POCKET DIARY AND THE ANSWERSWERE ALSO MISCHIEVOUSLY DICTATED BY DDIT AND HIS TEAM SO AS TO SUIT THEIR NEEDS. SIMILARLY, RELATED QUESTIONS WERE ALSO ASKED ABOUT PAYMENTS OF RS. 9.05 CRORES. HOWEVER, THE DDIT TEAM MISCHIEV OUSLY AND CONSPICUOUSLY REMAINED SILENT ABOUT ASKING THE QUES TION RELATED TO LAND FOR WHICH ADVANCES WERE GIVEN, SURVEY NUMBERS, NAMES AND IDENTITIES OF THE RECIPIENTS, ETC. DESPITE OUR QUES TIONS TO THEM ABOUT WHY WE ARE BEING FORCED TO DECLARE SUCH WRONG AND F ALSE STATEMENT AND THAT TOO FOR SUCH A MAGNIFIED AND OVERSTATED NO N-EXISTENCE AMOUNT OF RS. 9.05 CORES BUT OF NO AVAIL TO US. 12) SHRI VITTHALBHAI PRAJAPATI HAD DURING THE PERIO D OF ABOVE SEARCH OPERATIONS STRONGLY CONFRONTED ABOUT THESE FACTS, B UT WE WERE TOLD BY DDIT TEAM THAT IT IS NONE OF OUR BUSINESS WHETHER W E INQUIRE FURTHER IT(SS)A NO.180 AND 181/AHD/2019 WITH COS 21 OR NOT ABOUT THE SO-CALLED BENEFICIARIES OF THE ABO VE REFERRED AMOUNT OF RS. 9.05 CRORES. IT IS VERY SURPRISING THAT FOR SUCH MAGNITUDE OF AMOUNT THEY DID NOT INTENTIONALLY BOTHERED NOT TO I NQUIRE BECAUSE IT WAS A MISCHIEVOUS PLAN TO RUIN OUR AGRICULTURIST FA MILY AND LESS EDUCATED PERSONS LIKE USSO AS TO MEET THEIR OVERZEA LOUS GOALS AT THE COST OF A CITIZEN AND AGRICULTURIST OF THIS COUNTRY . 13) ALL THE CONTENTS STATED HEREINABOVE ARE DECLARE D SOLEMNLY AND JOINTLY WITH A SOLE PURPOSE AND INTENTION TO BRING OUT THE TRUTH FROM THE MOUNTAIN OF FALSE AND WRONGFUL FACTS.THE SPIRIT BEH IND THIS DECLARATION IS THAT TRUTH MUST BE TOLD IN ITS ORIGI NAL FORM AND WITHOUT WHICH THE TRUTH WOULD NEVER COME OUT. THE ARGUMENT THAT LATE AFFIDAVIT UNDERMINES THE POWER OF CONTENT OF THE AF FIDAVIT IS TOTALLY UNFOUNDED AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS APPLICABLE HE RE IN THIS CASE BECAUSE TRUTH HAS GOT ITS SAME VALUE INTACT AT EVER Y MOMENT. 14) ALL THE ABOVE REFERRED FACTS AND SEQUENCE OF EV ENTS PROVES THAT THE ADVANCES GIVEN FOR RANCHARDA LAND OF RS. 9.05 CRORE IS NOTHING BUT A FABRICATED, FALSE, COOKED STORY MADE WITH A SOLE MO TIVE OF ACHIEVING DDIT TEAMS OVERZEALOUS GOALS WITH INTENTION OF RUIN ING LESS LITERATE FARMERS LIKE US. DDIT AND HIS TEAM HAVE IN THE MELE E OF FABRICATING AND WEAVING THE LIES, FORGOTTEN TO TAKE SIGNATURES OF ALL BROTHERS OF OUR GROUP AND HAVE FALTERED IN THEIR OWN GAME OF LI ES. 15) WE BOTH HAVE WITNESSED ALL THE ABOVE REFERRED F ACTS AND ACTIONS ON 06/11/2012 AND 07/11/2012 AND THEREFORE DECIDED TO BRING THE TRUTH OUT SO THAT IT CAN SEE THE LIGHT OF THE DAY. 16) THE ABOVE REFERRED STATEMENTS ARE TRUE AND CORR ECT AND TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF ON THE BASIS OF FACTS A ND THE CONTENTS OF THE SAME. THE WHOLE ABOVE REFERRED STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN CONVEYED BY US IN OUR VERNACULAR LANGUAGE, I.E. GUJ ARATI, AND IN TURN THE SAME ARE ALSO EXPLAINED AND TRANSLATED TO US IN OUR VERNACULAR LANGUAGE, I.E. GUJARATI. THESE STATEMENTS ARE GIVEN BY ALL OF US WITHOUT ANY COERCION, FORCE, ETC. AND ARE GIVEN WIT H STABLE MIND WITHOUT ANY EFFECT OF DRUG, MEDICINE, ALCOHOL, ETC. AND WITH A SOLE MOTIVE OF TELLING THE TRUTH TO THIS WORLD. SOLEMNLY AFFIRMED AT AHMEDABAD DEPONENTS THIS DAY OF DECEMBER 2014 _______________________ (GAUTAMBHAI P. PRAJAPATI) ______________________ (KANUBHAI P. PRAJAPATI) 12. THE LD.AO HAS REJECTED ALL THESE ALLEGATIONS PR IMARILY FOR TWO REASONS VIZ. (A) THAT THE ASSESSEES HAVE NOT PRODUCED ANY D EMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE IT(SS)A NO.180 AND 181/AHD/2019 WITH COS 22 EXHIBITING THE FACT THAT SOME PRESSURE TACTICS OR C OERCION WAS RAISED BY THE SEARCH TEAM FOR TAKING THIS STATEMENT, (B) PROHIBIT ORY ORDER WAS PUT ON THE DATE OF SEARCH I.E. 7.12.2012. THIS PROHIBITORY OR DER WAS LIFTED SUBSEQUENTLY ON 31.12.2012. AUTHORISED OFFICER AGAIN PUT THIS V ERY FACT TO SHRI VITTALBHAI, AND HE DID NOT RETRACT THIS FACT THOUGH HE HAD OPPO RTUNITY TO TAKE ADVICE FROM TAX CONSULTANT BETWEEN 6 TH AND 7 TH NOVEMBER TO 31 ST DECEMBER. THIS DISCLOSURE REAFFIRMED BY THESE PERSONS IS TO BE CON STRUED AS VOLUNTARY; THIRDLY, WITNESSES ARE THEIR RELATIVES, AND THEY DID NOT OBJ ECT, IF ANY FOR FORCE WAS USED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH NOR RAISED OBJECTION SUBSEQUE NT TO THE SEARCH. THEY HAVE COME ALONG WITH ASSESSEES AFTER GAP OF TWO YEARS. THE LD.AO HAS MADE AN ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SE ARCH SEIZED PAPER WAS FOUND EXHIBITING ADVANCE PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THE FA MILY FOR PURCHASE OF A LAND. WHEN THIS PIECE OF PAPER WAS CONFRONTED, THE Y HAVE ADMITTED UNDER SECTION 132(4), AND THEREFORE, ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT DESERVES TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THESE ASSESSEES , VIZ. AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,13,21,500/- EACH IN THE HANDS OF SHRI MAHESHBH AI RAMANBHAI PRAJAPATI, AND SHRI NARESHBHAI RAMANBHAI PRAJAPATI, AND RS.2,2 6,25,000/- EACH IN THE HANDS OF VITHALBHAI, SURESHBHIA AND RAVJIBHAI RESPE CTIVELY TOTALING TO RS.9.05 CRORES. 13. DISSATISFIED WITH THE ADDITIONS, THE ASSESSEES CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEALS BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), BUT THE APPEALS TO TH E CIT(A) DID NOT BRING ANY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS CONFIRME D ORDERS OF THE AO BY RECORDING THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS (IN THE CASES OF N ARESHBHAI PRAJAPATI): 5.2 FACTS OF THE CASE, SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLAN T AND ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. GROUND NO.2 IS AGAIN ST THE ADDITION OF RS.1,13,12,500/-. A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED UPON THE A PPELLANT ON 6.11.2012 AND SUBSEQUENT DAYS. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE PREMISE OF SHRI VITTHALBHAI G. PRAJAPATI & HIS TWO BROTHERS NAMELY RAVJIBHAI G. PRAJAPATI & SHRI SURESHBHAI G. PRAJAPATI AND NEPHEW SHRI MAHE SH PRAJAPATI & NARESH PRAJAPATI, ONE POCKET DIARY WAS FOUND & SEIZ ED. ONE LOOSE PAPER FILE CONTAINING 12 PAGES WERE ALSO FOUND & SEIZED, WHICH HAVE BEEN ANNEXURISED IT(SS)A NO.180 AND 181/AHD/2019 WITH COS 23 AS ANNEXURE 1 & 2. THE MATTER IS PERTAINING TO MATE RIAL IN THE FORM OF 'BHAKTI POCKET DIARY' FOUND DURING THE SEARCH OPERA TION IN THE FORM OF DIARY WHICH WAS HAND WRITTEN BY THE APPELLANT HIMSELF. FU RTHER WHEN CONFRONTED AT THE TIME STATEMENT U/S. 132(4) RECORDING ON 06.11.2 012 AND 07.11.2012, THE APPELLANT HAD ACCEPTED THE FACTS ABOUT GIVING OF AD VANCE FOR LAND. AS PER CONTENTS NOTED IN THE DIARY AND EXPLAINED BY SHRI V ITTHALBHAI PRAJAPATI, MAIN' PERSON OF THE GROUP STATING THAT THESE FIGURE S SHOWING TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.9,05,00,000/- WAS ADVANCED IN CASH FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT VILLAGE RANCHADA, AHMEDABAD. THIS AMOUNT HAS BEEN WRITTEN W ITH DATES IN 11 INSTALMENTS. THE APPELLANT STATED THAT HE AND HIS T WO BROTHERS AND TWO SONS (BOTH) OF THIRD BROTHER ARE HAVING EQUAL SHARE. WHI LE GIVING STATEMENT U/S. 132(4) OF THE ACT, SHRI VITTHALBHAI PRAJAPATI ALONG WITH OTHER BROTHERS STATED THAT THIS INVESTMENT HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND HE ADMITTED THE SAME AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN E QUAL SHARE (TWO BROTHERS & TWO SONS)(BOTH HAVING TOTAL 1/4) AND FUR THER STATED THAT DUE TAX WILL BE PAID. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT DID NOT SHOW H IS SHARE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED. THE APPELLANT FILED AFFIDAVIT RETRACT ING THE STATEMENT MADE U/S.132(4) STATING THAT THE STATEMENT DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH WAS TAKEN UNDER DURESS & PRESSURE. THE AO CONSIDERED THE RETR ACTION AND DEALT WITH EACH & EVERY CONTENTION RAISED BY THE APPELLANT. TH E APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO PROVE ANY RECORD WHICH CAN BE CONSTRUED AS COERCION . IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE RETRACTION HAS COME FROM APPELLANT AND HIS BROTHER AFTER GAP OF TWO YEARS WHICH CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A LONG PERIOD. SIMILARLY AFFIDAVIT OF RETRACTION BY WITNESSES IS ALSO FILED AFTER GAP OF TWO YEARS. THE AO HAS CONTENDED THAT THE SOLE PURPOSE OF MAKING AFFIDAVIT IS TO AVOID TAX PA YMENT. THE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF P. S. BARKATHALI VS. DIRECTORA TE OF ENFORCEMENT, NEW DELHI AIR 1981 KER 81 HELD THAT 'EVEN THOUGH THE S TATEMENT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY RETRACTED, THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ADMISS ION IN THE FIRST PLACE CANNOT BE UNDER-MINED. IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT MERE BALD RETRACTION CANNOT TAKE AWAY THE IMPORTANCE AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE ORIGINAL CONFESSION, ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT IN THIS CASE, THE DEPONENT OF THE STATEMENT HAD PROVIDED THE MINUTE DETAILS RELATING TO THE TRANSACTIONS. IT APPEARS THAT THE RETRACTION STATEMENT WAS MADE PURE LY TO AVOID CLUTCHES OF LAW WHICH HAD CAUGHT UP WITH HIM AND LAID BARE HIS NEFARIOUS ACTIVITIES.' FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY OTHER EVIDENCE TO PROVE OTHERWISE. THE AFFIDAVIT IS IN THE FORM OF SELF-SER VING AFFIDAVIT AND DURING THIS LONG TWO YEARS PERIOD HAS NOT BOTHERED TO RETRACT T HE FACTS. THE DETAILS NOTED THEREIN ARE OF A NATURE THAT WERE IN THE EXCLUSIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FED BY THE DDIT. T HUS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS PECULIAR WHEREIN ONE PART OF THE ST ATEMENT IS STILL TAKEN TO BE CORRECT BUT ANOTHER PART IS BEING SAID TO HAVE BEEN RECORDED UNDER DURESS. FURTHER HE WAS ALSO ADVISED BY PROFESSIONAL TAX ADV ISOR AND CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THE FOLLOW ING JUDGEMENTS: IT(SS)A NO.180 AND 181/AHD/2019 WITH COS 24 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V/S 0. ABDUL RAZAK (2 012) 20 TAXMANIM.COM 48 (KERALA):- A SELF-SERVING RETRACTIO N, WITHOUT ANYTHING MORE CANNOT DISPEL STATEMENT MADE UNDER OATH UNDER SECTION 132(4) 2. RAVINDRA KUMAR VERMA V/S COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2013) 30 TAXMANN.COM 367 (ALLAHABAD) :- WHERE ASSESSEE AT TI ME OF SEARCH HAD SURRENDERED CERTAIN CASH AMOUNT AS UNDISCLOSED INCO ME AND LATER ON AFTER FOUR YEARS RETRACTED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT STATING THAT AFORESAID AMOUNT WAS CASH-IN-HAND AS REFLECTED FROM BOOKS OF ACCOUNT , RETRACTION MADE WAS AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND SAID AMOUNT REPRESENTED UNDISCL OSED INCOME 3. BHAGIRATH AGGARWAL V/S COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (2013) 31 TAXMANN.COM 274 (DELHI):- AN ADDITION IN ASSESSEE'S INCOME RELYING ON STATEME NTS RECORDED DURING SEARCH OPERATIONS CANNOT BE DELETED WITHOUT PROVING STATEMENTS TO BE INCORRECT, IV. SUDARSHAN P. ADMIN V/S ASSISTANT COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2013) 35 TAXMANN.COM 370 (GUJRAT) WHERE ASSESSEE A DMITTED A CERTAIN SUM AS HIS UNDECLARED INVESTMENT IN TWO CONFESSIONA L STATEMENTS AND THEREAFTER HE RETRACTED FROM SAID STATEMENTS, BUT D ID NOT ASSIGN ANY REASON FOR SAME, ADDITION IN HANDS OF ASSESSEE WAS TO BE M ADE. IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HIS TWO BROTHE RS NAMELY RAVJIBHAI PRAJAPATI AND SURESHBHAI PRAJAPATI AND TWO NEPHEWS NAMELY MAHESH PRAJAPATI AND NARESH PRAJAPATI, HAVE JOINTLY ADVANC ED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 9,05,00,000/- FOR THE RANCHARDA LAND BETWEEN 08/0 6/2012 AND 04/11/2012 AS MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE ON PAGE NO 7,8, AND 9 IN THE ' BHAKTI POCKET DIARY' SEIZED FROM RESIDENCE OF SHRI VITTHALBHAI PR AJAPATI AT BUNGLOW NO 5, GOVARDHAN BUNGLOW, THALTEJ VIDE ANN A-1, OF PANCHNAMA DATED 07/11/2012. THESE ADVANCES ARE DISCLOSED BY SHRI VI TTHALBHAI PRAJAPATI JOINTLY WITH THE ABOVE PERSONS EQUALLY IN THE H ANDS FAMILIES OF FOUR BROTHERS. THE FOURTH BROTHER SHRI RAMANBHAI G PRAJA PATI HAVING EXPIRED ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, THE SAME IS TO CONSIDERED IN TH E HANDS OF HIS TWO SONS SHN MAHESH PRAJAPATI AND SHRI NARESH PRAJAPATI. THERE FORE THE ASSESSEE'S SHARE IN THE ABOVE UNDISCLOSED ADVANCES IS CORRECTL Y ARRIVED AT RS.1,13,12,500/- BEING 1/4TH PART AS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE JOINTLY WITH OTHER DEPONENTS IN HIS ABOVE MENTIONED TWO STATEMENTS. TH EREFORE, AN ADDITION MADE OF RS.1,13,12,500/- IS HEREBY CONFIRMED ON ACC OUNT OF UNDISCLOSED ADVANCES FOR RANCHARDA LAND, ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUN D OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 14. IDENTICAL FINDINGS IS BEING RECORDED IN THE CAS ES OF OTHER ASSESSEES. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE IMPUGNING ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES CONTENDED THAT DEPARTMENT HAS PREPARED INVENTORY OF ALL THE LANDS PURCHASED IT(SS)A NO.180 AND 181/AHD/2019 WITH COS 25 OR TRANSACTED BY FAMILY, WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO.53 TO 55 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ALL THESE TRANSACTIONS HAVE TAKEN PLACE EITH ER IN THE YEAR 2006 OR 2008. NONE OF THE TRANSACTION POINTED OUT BY THE REVENUE WAS IN THE ACCOUNTING YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSTT.YEAR 2013-14. HE TOOK U S THROUGH THESE INVENTORIES. HE THEREAFTER POINTED OUT VARIOUS DEF ECTS IN THE MANNER ENTRIES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN FOUND ON THE SEIZED PAPER. HE ALSO POINTED OUT CERTAIN TYPE OF ARITHMETICAL ERROR WHILE TAKING NOTE OF TOT AL AMOUNT IN THE STATEMENT OF SHRI VITTALBHAI PRAJAPATI. HIS MAIN EMPHASIS WAS T HAT WITHOUT IDENTIFYING VENDOR, WHO ALLEGED TO HAVE SOLD LAND TO THE ASSESS EE, WITHOUT IDENTIFYING THE LAND, HOW IT CAN BE ALLEGED THAT AN ADVANCE WAS BEI NG GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, AND THAT OF RS.9.05 CRORES. IT IS HIGHLY IMPROBABL E. WHILE TAKING US THROUGH JUDGMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF K.P.NAIR VS. ACIT, IN TAX APPEAL NO.1152 OF 2007 DATED 3.8.2016. HE CONT ENDED THAT HONBLE COURT HAS MADE REFERENCE TO CIRCULAR NO.286/2/2003 DATED 10.3.2003 AND OBSERVED THAT VIDE THIS CIRCULAR DEPARTMENT HAS DIRECTED ITS EMPLOYEES NOT TO TAKE CONFESSION RATHER FOCUS ON COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE O F INCOME WHICH LEADS TO INFORMATION ON WHAT HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED OR IS NO T LIKELY TO BE DISCLOSED BEFORE THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT. HE ALSO EMPHASI ZES THAT THOUGH DISCLOSURE MADE UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT BIN DS AN ASSESSEE, BUT IN VARIOUS AUTHORITATIVE ANNOUNCEMENTS, IT HAS BEEN PR OPOUNDED THAT SUCH DISCLOSURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CORROBORATED WITH SOME MATERIAL. FOR EXAMPLE, IF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF JWELLERY I S BEING ALLEGED, THEN IT SHOULD HAVE CORROBORATED WITH RECOVERY OF JEWELLERY . BUT HERE AN UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE LAND HAS BEEN ALLEGED WITHOUT IDENTIFYING THE LAND; WITHOUT IDENTIFYING VENDOR. IN OTHER WORDS, DEPARTMENT FAILED TO PROVIDE TO WHOM MONEY WAS PAID. THE LAND COULD NO T BE PURCHASED ONLY BY CASH PAYMENT. THERE MUST BE SOME ACCOUNT PAYEE TRA NSACTION ALSO. IT SHOULD BE LOCATED OR IDENTIFIED, BUT NO SUCH THING HAS HAP PENED IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECOR D A LARGE NUMBER OF IT(SS)A NO.180 AND 181/AHD/2019 WITH COS 26 DECISIONS IN THE PAPER BOOK RUNNING INTO 97 PAGES A S WELL AS RUNNING INTO 180 PAGES. WE DO NOT DEEM IT NECESSARY TO RECITE AND R ECORD ALL THOSE DECISIONS AT THIS STAGE. HE ACCORDINGLY PRAYED THAT ADDITION MAD E BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A) BE DELETED. ON THE OTHE R HAND, THE LD.DR-CIT RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 15. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND G ONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD WOULD SUGGEST T HAT, BASICALLY THE CASE OF THE AO IS THAT, DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH A DIARY VIZ . BHAKTI POCKET DIARY INVENTORISED AS ANNEXURE-A WAS SEIZED. A PERUSAL O F THE PAGE NO.7 TO 9 OF THIS DIARY WOULD EXHIBIT CERTAIN NOTINGS. WHEN THE SE NOTINGS WERE CONFRONTED TO THE MAIN PERSON OF PRAJAPATI GROUP, THEN ONE SHR I VITTHALBHAI PRAJPATI HAS ADMITTED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND AT VILLAGE RANCHADA, DISTRICT AHMEDABAD. THE LD.AO HAS REPRODUCED THE N ARRATIONS AT PAGE NO.7 TO 9 OF THE DIARY. WE HAVE ALSO EXTRACTED THIS NARRA TION IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER. THUS, THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF THE FACT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH A DOCUMENT INVENTORISED AS ANNEXUR E-A FOUND, WHICH EXHIBITED THE NOTINGS OF CERTAIN DETAILS OF UNEXPLA INED ON-MONEY PAYMENT BY THE ASSESSEES. THESE NOTING HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH NO SUCH DIARY WAS FOUND, RATHER THIS DIARY WAS PREPARED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE SEAR CH PARTY, AND THESE NOTHINGS WERE WRITTEN THEREAFTER. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING POINTED OUT VARIOUS PERIPHERAL DEFECTS IN THE MANNE R IN WHICH THESE NOTHINGS HAVE BEEN MADE. HOWEVER, OTHER LIMB OF THE ARGUMEN TS OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT, NEITHER THIS DIARY WAS FOUND NOR ANY LAND WAS PURCHASED BY THESE ASSESSES OR THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS. TO BUTTRESS THIS PROPOSITION, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS PAGE NO S.52 TO 56 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHEREIN CERTAIN ENTRIES OF THE LAND PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN IT(SS)A NO.180 AND 181/AHD/2019 WITH COS 27 COMPILED BY THE SEARCH PARTY AND AVAILABLE ON THE R ECORD. THE LAND TRANSACTION WAS MADE IN THE YEAR 2006-07 AND NOT DU RING THE ACCOUNTING YEAR RELEVANT TO THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE LD.COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT NEITHER THE DEPARTMENT IS ABLE TO LAY ITS HAND ON ANY DETAILS QUA THIS ALLEGED TRANSACTION NOR TRANSACTION ALLEGED T O HAVE BEEN TAKEN PLACE EITHER IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEES OR IN THE NAMES OF THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS. THE DEPARTMENT FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY DETAILS OF VEN DORS FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEES HAVE PURCHASED OR ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN PU RCHASED THE LAND WITH THE AMOUNT OF ON-MONEY OF THIS MAGNITUDE. 16. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE BACKGROUND, WE HAVE B EEN APPRAISED OURSELVES ABOUT THE SCOPE OF SECTION 132(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, AND WHETHER ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE DISCLOSURE BY AN ASSESSEE, AN ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF T HE ASSESSEE ? WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO TAKE NOTE OF RELEVANT PART OF THIS S ECTION OF THE ACT. IT READS AS UNDER: THE AUTHORISED OFFICER MAY, DURING THE COURSE OF TH E SEARCH OR SEIZURE, EXAMINE ON OATH ANY PERSON WHO IS FOUND TO BE IN PO SSESSION OR CONTROL OF ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, DOCUMENTS, MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING AND ANY STATEMENT MADE BY SUCH PERSON DURING SUCH EXAMINATION MAY THEREAFTER BE USED IN E VIDENCE IN ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THE INDIAN INCOME- TAX ACT, 1922 ( 11 OF 1922 ), OR UNDER THIS ACT. EXPLANATION.- FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HERE BY DECLARED THAT THE EXAMINATION OF ANY PERSON UNDER THIS SUB- SECTION M AY BE NOT MERELY IN RESPECT OF ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS FOUND AS A RESULT OF THE SEARCH, BUT ALSO IN RESPECT OF ALL MA TTERS RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSES OF ANY INVESTIGATION CONNECTED WITH ANY PR OCEEDING UNDER THE INDIAN INCOME- TAX ACT, 1922 (11 OF 1922 ), OR UNDE R THIS ACT. 17. A BARE PERUSAL OF SECTION WOULD REVEAL THAT IT EMPOWERS THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER TO EXAMINE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR S EIZURE ANY PERSON ON OATH. THE DISCLOSURE MADE DURING THE STATEMENT RECORDED U NDER THIS SECTION WILL BE IT(SS)A NO.180 AND 181/AHD/2019 WITH COS 28 ADMITTED IN THE EVIDENCE AND CAN BE USED AGAINST TH E ASSESSEE IN THE PROCEEDING. 18. NO DOUBT, THE DISCLOSURE OR ADMISSION MADE UNDE R SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS IS AN A DMISSIBLE EVIDENCE BUT NOT CONCLUSIVE ONE. THIS PRESUMPTION OF ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE IS A REBUTTABLE ONE, AND IF AN ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE WITH THE HELP OF SOME MATERIAL THAT SUCH ADMISSION WAS EITHER MISTAKEN, UNTRUE OR BASED ON MISCONCEPTION OF FACTS, THEN SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF SUCH ADMISSION N O ADDITION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE. IT IS TRUE THAT ADMISSION BEING DECLARATION AGAINST AN INTEREST ARE GOOD EVIDENCE, BUT THEY ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE, AND A PARTY IS ALWAYS AT LIBERTY TO WITHDRAW THE ADMISSION BY DEMONSTRATING THAT THEY A RE EITHER MISTAKEN OR UNTRUE. IN LAW, THE RETRACTED CONFESSION EVEN MAY FORM THE LEGAL BASIS OF ADDITION, IF THE AO IS SATISFIED THAT IT WAS TRUE A ND WAS VOLUNTARILY MADE. BUT THE BASING THE ADDITION ON A RETRACTED DECLARATION SOLELY WOULD NOT BE SAFE. IT IS NOT A STRICT RULE OF LAW, BUT ONLY RULE OF PRUDE NCE. AS A GENERAL RULE, IT IS UNSAFE TO RELY UPON A RETRACTED CONFESSION WITHOUT CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. DUE TO THIS GREY SITUATION, CBDT HAS ISSUED CIRCULA R NO.286/2/2003 PROHIBITING THE DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS FROM TAKING CONFESSION IN THE SEARCH. THE BOARD IS OF THE VIEW THAT OFTEN THE OFFICIALS U SED TO OBTAIN CONFESSIONS FROM THE ASSESSEE AND STOP FURTHER RECOVERY OF THE MATERIAL. SUCH CONFESSIONS HAVE BEEN RETRACTED AND THEN THE ADDITION COULD NOT WITHSTAND THE SCRUTINY OF THE HIGHER APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BECAUSE NO MATERIAL WAS FOUND SUPPORTING SUCH ADDITION. 19. AN ISSUE WHETHER ADDITION SOLELY ON THE BASIS O F STATEMENT U/S.132(4) CAN BE MADE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICT IONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KIALASHBEN MANHARLAL CHOKSHI VS. CIT, 220 C TR (GUJ) 138. IN THIS CASE, SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED UPON THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE IT(SS)A NO.180 AND 181/AHD/2019 WITH COS 29 INCOME TAX ACT ON 4.11.1988. THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT. HE MADE DISCLOSUR E OF RS.7 LAKHS. LATER ON, IN JANUARY, 1989, THE ASSESSEE RETRACTED FROM THE D ISCLOSURE AND STATED THE DISCLOSURE OF RS.50,000/- WAS ACCEPTABLE TO HIM. T HE LD.AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.7 LAKHS ON THE BASIS OF HIS STATEMENT AND OBS ERVED THAT THE RETRACTION WAS MADE AFTER A LAPSE OF 2 MONTHS. THE ASSESSEE D ID NOT HAVE ANY REASON FOR RETRACTING FROM THE DISCLOSURE. THE LD.FIRST APPEL LATE AUTHORITY CONCURRED WITH THE AO AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.7 LAKH S TO HIS INCOME. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVI NG THAT THERE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD WHICH INDICATED THAT THE DISCLOSURE WAS T AKEN FROM THE ASSESSEE UNDER DURESS, PRESSURE OR COERCION. THE RETRACTION AFTER LAPSE OF TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF DISCLOSURE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS CON SIDERED AS AFTER-THOUGHT. THE ISSUE TRAVELLED BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING THAT MERELY O N THE BASIS OF DISCLOSURE, ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE. THERE SHOULD BE SOME CORR OBORATIVE MATERIAL. THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS IN PARA-26 OF THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE COURT ARE WORTH TO NOTE. IT READS AS UNDER: 26. IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN STATED HEREINABOVE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS EXPLANATION SEEMS TO BE MORE CONVINCING, HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ADDITIONS W ERE MADE AND/OR CONFIRMED MERELY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT. DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SAID STATEMENT WAS LATER ON RETRACTED NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN LED BY THE REVENUE A UTHORITY. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT MERELY ON THE BASIS OF ADMISSION THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO SUCH ADDITIONS UNL ESS AND UNTIL, SOME CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IS FOUND IN SUPPORT OF SUCH ADMISSION. WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT FROM THE STATEMENT RECORDED A T SUCH ODD HOURS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE A VOLUNTARY STATEMENT, I F IT IS SUBSEQUENTLY RETRACTED AND NECESSARY EVIDENCE IS LED CONTRARY TO SUCH ADMISSION. HENCE THERE IS NO REASON NOT TO DISBELIEVE THE RETR ACTION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND EXPLANATION DULY SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS N OT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 6 LAKHS ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT R ECORDED BY THE IT(SS)A NO.180 AND 181/AHD/2019 WITH COS 30 ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL HAS COMMITTED AN ERROR IN IGNORING THE RETRACTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 27. IN THE ABOVE VIEW OF THE MATTER, ADDITION OF RS . 1 LAKH MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH IS CONFIRMED AND THE AD DITION OF RS. 6 LAKHS IS HEREBY DELETED. 132 .... .... (4) THE AUTHORISED OFFICER MAY, DURING THE COURSE O F THE SEARCH OR SEIZURE, EXAMINE ON OATH ANY PERSON WHO IS FOUND TO BE IN POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, DOCUMENTS, MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OT HER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING AND ANY STATEMENT MADE BY SUCH PERSON DURING SUCH E XAMINATION MAY THEREAFTER BE USED IN EVIDENCE IN ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THE INDIAN INCOME-TAX ACT, 1922 (11 OF 1922), OR UNDER THIS ACT. 20. APART FROM THE ABOVE, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, T HE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS JUDGMENT OF HON BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KPM NAIR, TAX APPEAL NO.1152 OF 2007 DATED 3.8.2016. COPY OF THIS JUDGEMENT IS PLACED ON PAPER BOOK. IN THIS JUDGMENT ALSO, HONBLE COURT HAS CONSIDERED THE SCOPE OF SECTION 132(4) AS WELL AS TOOK COGNIZANCE OF THE CIRCULAR OF THE BOARD ISSUED IN 2003. THE D ISCUSSION MADE BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT READS AS UNDER: 5.HAVING HEARD LEARNED ADVOCATES FOR BOTH THE SIDE S AND HAVING GONE THROUGH THE MATERIALS ON RECORD, IT IS BORNE OUT TH AT THE AUTHORITIES PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEES WIFE THAT SHE WAS PAYING SALARY TO THE ASSESSEE EVERY MONTH. THIS STATEMENT HAD BEEN DENIED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT THE SAME WAS NOT RETRACT ED BY THE ASSESSEES WIFE. HOWEVER, WHAT REMAINS TO BE SEEN HERE IS THAT THE R EVENUE HAS NOT BEEN IN A POSITION TO BRING ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD SO AS TO S TRENGTHEN ITS CASE. OTHER THAN THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEES WIFE U/S 134(2) OF THE ACT WHICH HAS BEEN DENIED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE REVENUE HAS NO T PRODUCED ANY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE ITS CASE. 5.1 IN THE CASE OF HARJEEV AGGARWAL (SUPRA), THE DE LHI HIGH COURT IN PARA 23 HAS HELD AS UNDER: IT(SS)A NO.180 AND 181/AHD/2019 WITH COS 31 23. IT IS ALSO NECESSARY TO MENTION THAT THE AFORES AID INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT MUST BE READ WITH THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION132(4) OF THE ACT WHICH EXPRESSLY PROVIDES T HAT THE SCOPE OF EXAMINATION UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT IS NOT LIMITED ONLY TO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR OTHER ASSETS OR MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE SEARCH. HOWEVER IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 158BB(1) OF THE A CT WHICH EXPRESSLY RESTRICTS THE COMPUTATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME TO THE EVIDENCE FOUND DURING SEARCH, THE STATEMENT RECORDE D UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT CAN FORM A BASIS FOR A BLOCK ASSE SSMENT ONLY IF SUCH STATEMENT RELATES TO ANY INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNEARTHED DURING SEARCH AND CANNOT BE THE SOLE BASI S FOR MAKING A BLOCK ASSESSMENT. [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED] 5.2 WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO REFER TO THE CIRCULAR DAT ED 10.03.2003 ISSUED BY THE REVENUE AND RELIED UPON BY LEARNED ADVOCATE FOR THE ASSESSEE WHICH RELATES TO CONFESSION OF ADDITIONAL INCOME DURING THE COURS E OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE AND SURVEY OPERATION. THE SAID CIRCULAR READS AS UN DER: INSTANCES HAVE COME TO THE NOTICE OF THE BOARD WHE RE ASSESSEES HAVE CLAIMED THAT THEY HAVE BEEN FORCED TO CONFESS THE U NDISCLOSED INCOME DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH & SEIZURE AND SURVE Y OPERATIONS. SUCH CONFESSIONS, IF NOT BASED UPON CREDIBLE EVIDENCE, A RE LATER RETRACTED BY THE CONCERNED ASSESSEES WHILE FILING RETURNS OF INCOME. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, SUCH CONFESSIONS DURING THE COURSE O F SEARCH & SEIZURE AND SURVEY OPERATIONS DO NOT SERVE ANY USEF UL PURPOSE. IT IS, THEREFORE, ADVISED THAT THERE SHOULD BE FOCUS AND C ONCENTRATION ON COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE OF INCOME WHICH LEADS TO INF ORMATION ON WHAT HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED OR IS NOT LIKELY TO BE DISCL OSED BEFORE THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT. SIMILARLY, WHILE RECORDING S TATEMENT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH & SEIZURE AND SURVEY OPERATION S NO ATTEMPT SHOULD BE MADE TO OBTAIN CONFESSION AS TO THE UNDIS CLOSED INCOME. ANY ACTION ON THE CONTRARY SHALL BE VIEWED ADVERSEL Y. FURTHER, IN RESPECT OF PENDING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS ALSO, ASSESSING OFFICERS SHOULD RELY UPON THE EVIDENCES/ MATERIALS GATHERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH/SURVEY OPERATIONS OR THEREAFTE R WHILE FRAMING THE RELEVANT 5.3 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THA T THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN PROCEEDING WITH THE CALCULATIO N OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY COGENT AND CORROBORA TING EVIDENCE TO THE STATEMENT MADE U/S 132(4). 21. THUS, OVERALL ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE WOULD INDIC ATE THAT AN ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF DISCLOSURE MADE UNDER SECTION 132(4) O F THE ACT IS TO BE MADE ON IT(SS)A NO.180 AND 181/AHD/2019 WITH COS 32 THE BASIS OF OTHER CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE EXHIBITIN G UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OR UNEXPLAINED ASSET POSSESSED BY AN ASSESSEE. IN ORDER TO BUTTRESS THIS CONTENTION, THE REVENUE HAS RELIED ON BHAKTI POCKET DIARY AND ENTRIES THEREIN, BECAUSE THE SEARCH PARTY IS AWARE THAT MERE DISCLOS URE WILL NOT WITHSTAND THE KIND OF JUDICIAL SCRUTINY REQUIRED FOR ESTABLISHING THE CASE, AND THEREFORE, THEY HAVE RECOVERED ANNEXURE-A MORE SO PAGES 7 TO 9 AND SOUGHT TO MAKE ADDITION. 22. LET US MAKE AN ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE COLLECT ED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. ALL THE ASSESSEES HAVE ALLEGED THAT NO DI ARY WAS FOUND RATHER IT WAS PREPARED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH BY SHRI SUMIT KUMAR, DDIT(INVT). IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, THEY HAVE FILED THEIR A FFIDAVITS. A PERUSAL OF PAGE NO.43 OF THE PAPER BOOK WOULD INDICATE THAT THERE I S A PANCHNAMA OF THE SEARCH, WHEREIN NAMES OF TWO PANCHAS VIZ. (I) GAUTAM P. PRAJAPATI, AND (II) KANUBHAI P. PRAJAPATI ARE STATED AS INDEPENDENT WIT NESSES OF THE SEARCH. BOTH THESE WITNESS HAVE FILED THEIR AFFIDAVITS IN SUPPOR T OF THE ASSESSEES STATING THAT NO SUCH DIARY WAS FOUND, AND IT WAS PREPARED ON THE ASKING OF THE SEARCH PARTY. THE LD.AO HAS EXAMINED THIS ASPECT, AND BRU ISED ASIDE ALLEGATIONS THAT THESE ARE SELF-SERVING DOCUMENTS. THE ASSESSEES HA VE NOT RETRACTED THEIR DECLARATION IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SEARCH, RATHER TH EY HAVE FILED AFFIDAVIT AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THIS REGARD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT AFTER SEARCH, THERE WAS NO PROCEEDINGS PENDING AGAINST TH EM. REVENUE, IN ORDER TO STRENGTHEN THEIR CASE AGAIN CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF LIFTING OF PROHIBITORY ORDER, BUT IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT COPIES OF THESE STATEMENTS WERE NOT SUPPLIED TO ALL THESE ASSESSEES. THEY HAV E SUPPLIED MUCH AFTER, AND THIS FACT HAS BEEN ALLEGED IN THE AFFIDAVIT, AND TH EY HAVE EXPLAINED AS TO WHY THEY COULD NOT RETRACT THEIR STATEMENT IMMEDIATELY. THIS ASPECT CAN BE EXAMINED FROM DIFFERENT ANGLE ALSO. ALLEGATION OF THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT FAMILY MEMBERS OF PRAJAPATI HAVE MADE UNEXPLAINED I NVESTMENT IN THE LAND SITUATED AT VILLAGE RANCHADA, DIST. AHMEDABAD. THE REVENUE STATE OF IT(SS)A NO.180 AND 181/AHD/2019 WITH COS 33 RANCHADA IS NOT VERY BIG. THE AO COULD HAVE CALLED FOR DETAILS OF ANY LAND, IF ANY TRANSACTED DURING THE ACCOUNTING YEAR RELEVANT TO THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR. THIS INFORMATION COULD HAVE BEEN COLLECTED FROM TALATI WHO WOULD BE ABLE TO GIVE WHETHER ANY MUTATION HAS TAKEN PLACE EXHIBITIN G CHANGE OF LAND OWNERSHIP DURING THIS ACCOUNT YEAR IN VILLAGE RANCH ADA WITHIN REVENUE STATE OF VILLAGE RANCHADA. THE LD.AO THEREAFTER COULD HA VE COLLECTED INFORMATION FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR EXHIBITING THE FACT, WHETHER THESE ASSESSEES HAVE PURCHASED ANY LAND OR WHETHER THEY H AVE ENTERED INTO ANY TRANSACTION IN THE CAPACITY AS CONFIRMING PARTY. I T IS VERY STRANGE ASPECT THAT SUM OF MORE THAN RS.9.05 CRORES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEE N PAID IN CASH WITHOUT IDENTIFYING THE OBJECT FOR WHICH IT WAS PAID AND WI THOUT CORROBORATING IT WITH DETAILS SUCH AS MODE OF PAYMENT, WHETHER MADE THROU GH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES, BECAUSE THE LAND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PURCH ASED SIMPLY BY MAKING HUGE CASH PAYMENT, AND NO PERSON WOULD LIKE TO PAY THIS MUCH HUGE AMOUNT IN CASH WITHOUT ENTERING INTO ANY DOCUMENTATION VIZ . AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE, MOU ETC. SHOWING THE DETAILS OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQU ES ETC. APART FROM THE ABOVE CASH. THUS, NEITHER THE DEPARTMENT IS ABLE T O LAY ITS HAND ON THE DETAILS OF PROSPECTIVE VENDORS, NOR LAY ITS HAND ON ANY OF THE DETAILS OF LAND WHICH ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE. TH E DEPARTMENT EVEN IS NOT ABLE TO LAY ITS HAND ON THE MODE OF PAYMENT, AS TO ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES, BANK DETAILS ETC. IF THESE ASPECTS ARE BEING EXAMI NED IN THE LIGHT OF THE ALLEGATIONS LEVELLED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE AFFIDAV IT VIS-A-VIS CORROBORATION OF THE AFFIDAVITS OF INDEPENDENT WITNESSES, THEN IT WO ULD REVEAL THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS FAILED TO GET ANY INFORMATION SHOWIN G UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE LAND BY THESE ASSESSEES. EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY THE REVENUE IS SUPERFICIAL AND NOT SUFFICIENT TO ARRIVE AT CONCLUS ION THAT THE ASSESSEES HAVE MADE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE LAND. A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WOULD INDICATE THAT THE LD.AO AS WELL AS CIT(A) HAS DEVOTED MUCH ENERGY ABOUT SAFEGUARDING THE STAND OF THE REVENUE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, IT(SS)A NO.180 AND 181/AHD/2019 WITH COS 34 WHETHER ANY UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE LAND HAS BEEN MADE OR NOT. THEY HAVE POINTED OUT PERIPHERAL DEFECTS IN THE RETRACTI ON MADE BY THESE ASSESSEES. TO OUR MIND, EVEN IF THERE IS AN IRREGULARITY OR TI ME GAP IN THE RETRACTION STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEES, THEN ALSO, IT WOU LD NOT JUSTIFY THE ADDITION MADE BY THE REVENUE BECAUSE IT IS THE DUTY OF THE R EVENUE FIRST TO BRING POSITIVE DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE EXHIBITING THAT UNE XPLAINED INVESTMENT WAS MADE BY THESE ASSESSEES. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO N OTE THAT WE HAVE NOTED DOWN EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION OF THESE ASSESSEES WHILE TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THEIR AFFIDAVITS ON CONDONATION OF DELAY AS WELL AS IN TH E RETRACTION AFFIDAVITS. IF THE EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION OF THESE ASSESSEES IS LOO KED INTO, THEN IT WOULD REVEAL THAT THEY ARE HARDLY 10TH-12TH PASS. THEY A RE SEMI-LITERATE PERSONS, AND IF THEIR INTELLIGENT QUOTIENT IS BEING CONSIDERED V IS-A-VIA A TRAINED REVENUE IRS OFFICER, WHO HAVE CONDUCTED THE SEARCH, AND WHO RECORDED THEIR STATEMENT, THEN IT WOULD BE, BUT NATURAL THAT THEY MUST HAVE COME UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF HIGHLY TRAINED INDEPENDENT IRS OFFICER S WHILE GIVING THEIR STATEMENT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE SO-CALL ED COERCION OR THREAT CAN NEVER ONLY PHYSICAL; THAT MAY BE PSYCHOLOGICAL ALSO . THEREFORE, THERE MAY BE SOME ALLUREMENT, OR THERE MAY BE SOME SUSPICION WHI CH WOULD HAVE OPERATED IN THE MINDS OF SUCH SEMI-LITERATE PERSONS, WHO ARE COMING FROM THE BACKGROUND OF FARMING COMMUNITY. WHILE APPRECIATIN G THE SITUATION, AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, WE HAVE TO KEEP THIS ASPECT IN MIND . THEREFORE, ON AN OVERALL ANALYSIS OF THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT EXCEPT A DISCL OSURE ON THE STRENGTH OF CERTAIN NOTINGS, THE DEPARTMENT FAILED TO BRING ANY OTHER CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE EXHIBITING ACTUAL INVESTMENT BY THESE ASSE SSEES IN THE PURCHASE OF ANY LAND. IF THE DEPARTMENT IS ABLE TO LAY ITS HAN D ON THE DETAILS OF VENDOR, DETAILS OF LAND, SOME CONNECTION WITH ACTUAL TRANSA CTION, BY PART PAYMENT THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL PROBABLY IT COULD BE ASSUME D THAT APART FROM ACCOUNT PAYEE PAYMENT, SOME CASH AMOUNT MIGHT HAVE BEEN MADE. BUT THAT LIVE LINK IS GROSSLY MISSING IN THE INSTANT CASE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY IT(SS)A NO.180 AND 181/AHD/2019 WITH COS 35 HESITATION IN HOLDING THAT THESE ADDITIONS ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE HANDS OF THESE ASSESSEES. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEALS AND THRE E COS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED. ADDITIONS IN THE CASES OF SHRI NARESHBHA I RAMANBHAI PRAJAPATI OF RS. 1,13,12,500; SHRI MAHESHBHAI RAMANBHAI PRAJAPAT I OF RS.1,13,21,500; AND ADDITIONS OF RS.2,26,25,000/- EACH IN THE CASES OF SHRI RAVJIBHAI GORDHANBHAI PRAJAPATI, SHRI SURESHBHAI GORDHANBHAI PRAJAPATI AND OF SHRI VITTHALBHAI GORDHANBHAI PRAJAPATI ARE DELETED. 23. NO OTHER GROUND IS PRESSED FOR ADJUDICATION FRO M COS. OF THE ASSESSEES. 24. IN THE RESULTS, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES AS WEL L AS THREE CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 5 TH OCTOBER, 2020 AT AHMEDABAD. S D / - (AMARJIT SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S D / - (RAJPAL YADAV) VICE-PRESIDENT