The ITO, Ward-2, Mehsana V. Shri Manubhai Khodidas Patel, Mehsana

ITA 1095/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80338 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K SINGH
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3); 131; 69; 148

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD , , , , 0 00 0 0 00 0 , , , , !' !' !' !' ! # ! # ! # ! # BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 0 00 0/ // / ITA NO. 1095/AHD/2011 % &% % &% % &% % &%/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, MEHSANA. VS SHRI MANUBHAI KHODIDAS PATEL, C/O ALSHIFA MEDICAL STORES, VARAHI COMPLEX, NR. GOPINALA, MEHSANA. PAN: ABIPP6282E '(/ APPELLANT )*'( / RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI V.K. SINGH, SR. DR ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI ANIL KSHATRIYA, AR + , -'/ // / DATE OF HEARING : 28/08/2014 ./& , -' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26/09/2014 !0 !0 !0 !0/ // / O R D E R PER SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), GANDHINAGAR, AHMEDABAD DATED 10.01.2011. 2. GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DELETING THE A DDITION OF RS 27 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF LAND RETAINED B Y THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 1095/A/2011 SHRI MANUBHAI K. PATEL, MEHSANA AY 1999-2000 - 2 - 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 31 ST MARCH 2000 SHOWING INCOME OF RS 1,56,070/- WHICH W AS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER THE A SSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT ON 5 TH AUGUST, 2002 AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT ON 23 RD DECEMBER 2002 AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS 29,46,070/-, MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS 28,30,000/-. 4. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WHO VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 19. 09.2003 DECIDED THE APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ADDITION O F RS 28,30,000/- WAS DELETED. 5. THE REVENUE FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER O F THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL WHO RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WI TH THE FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS: IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, TH E ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE ALSO RESTORED BA CK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DECISIONS. 6. IN PURSUANCE OF THIS DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 254 OF THE ACT ON 30 TH DECEMBER, 2009 AND DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS 29,06,070/- AFTER MAKING ADDITION OF RS 27 LAKHS TOWARDS PART OF SALE CONSIDERATION RETAINE D BY THE ASSESSEE AND RS 90,000/- TOWARDS INCOME ESTIMATED ON INVESTMENT. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO AN ADVENTUR E FOR THE LAND TRANSACTION AND THEREBY ADDED BACK RS 27 LAKHS AS I NCOME. THE ADDITION OF RS 90,000/- WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON DE POSIT OF RS 9 LAKHS IN SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH MEHSANA N AGRIK SAHKARI BANK LTD., WHICH WAS WITHDRAWN ON THE SAME DAY. WHILE M AKING ADDITION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT COPIES OF BANAKHAT ENCL OSED WERE NOT A PROOF OF ITA NO. 1095/A/2011 SHRI MANUBHAI K. PATEL, MEHSANA AY 1999-2000 - 3 - PAYMENT OF RS 9 LAKHS CASH TO SHRI GAFARBHAI. HENC E, IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED THE SAID SUM IN SOME ADVENTUR E, INCOME FROM WHICH IS NOT OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED 10% OF RS 9 LAKHS I.E. RS 90,000/- AS INCOME FROM U NDISCLOSED SOURCES. 7. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DECIDE D THE ISSUE AS UNDER: 6. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST ADDITION O F RS.27 LACS TOWARDS ALLEGED SALES CONSIDERATION RETAINED BY ASS ESSEE. 6.1 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND TH E CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, THE COPIES OF STATEMENTS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE VARI OUS DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON INCLUDING THE BANAKHAT DATED 13/12/90. THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE: A) LAND BEARING SURVEY NUMBER 1967/2, PLOT NUMBER 2 2 SITUATED AT MEHSANA HIGHWAY WAS OWNED BY FOUR BROTHERS, NAMELY SHRI JASUBHAI SHAH, SHRI ROHIT C SHAH, SHRI CHANDRAKANT C SHAH AND VIJAY C SHAH. B) THE ABOVE LAND WAS SOLD TO SHRI SHANKERLAL R THA KKER AND 10 OTHERS BY SHRI MANUBHAI PATEL POA HOLDER OF THE FOU R BROTHERS. C) IN THEIR STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 131 RECORDED ON 17-09-99, SHRI JASUBHAI SHAH, SHRI ROHIT C SHAH, SHRI CHANDRA KANT C SHAH ADMITTED THAT THE SETTLED RATE FOR SALE OF THE LAND WAS RUPEES 431 PER SQUARE FEET AS WAS MENTIONED IN THE BANAKHAT DATED 13-12-90. THEY ALSO ADMITTED THAT THEY HAVE R ECEIVED MONEY ACCORDING TO THE ABOVE RATE FROM SHRI MANUBHA I PATEL WHO HAD DEDUCTED CERTAIN EXPENSES WHILE MAKING THE PAYMENT. SHRI VIJAY C SHAH STATED THAT THE LAND WAS AGREED T O BE SOLD AT RS 431 AND WITH THE PETROL PUMP AT HIGHER RATE, BUT DENIED HAVING SIGNED THE BANAKHAT OR RECEIVING THE PAYMENT . D) SHRI JASUBHAI SHAH, SHRI ROHIT C SHAH, SHRI CHAN DRAKANT C SHAH RETRACTED FROM THEIR STATEMENTS; BY FILING AFF IDAVITS DATED 22ND SEPTEMBER 1999. E) ACCORDING TO THE REGISTERED BANAKHAT DATED 10TH DECEMBER, 1991 THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS AGREED TO BE SOLD FOR RS 28 LACS; AN AMOUNT OF RS.5 LAKHS AS PAID ON 5TH JULY, 1991 A ND FURTHER AMOUNT OF RS.10 LAKHS WAS PAID ON 10TH DECEMBER, 19 91. AMOUNT OF RS. 13 LAKH WAS PAID ON 13TH DECEMBER, 99 3, AS PER SALE DEED DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 1993 WHICH WAS SUBMITTED FOR LEGISLATION ON 13 TH DECEMBER, 1993. F) AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HON'BLE ITAT, FOUR BROTHERS WERE TO BE ALLOWED TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSEE. SH RI JASUBHAI SHAH COULD NOT BE CROSS-EXAMINED BECAUSE UNFORTUNAT ELY HE HAD EXPIRED. SHRI ROHIT C SHAH, SHRI CHANDRAKANT C SHAH RETRACTED FROM THEIR STATEMENTS GIVEN EARLIER, SAYI NG THAT THE ITA NO. 1095/A/2011 SHRI MANUBHAI K. PATEL, MEHSANA AY 1999-2000 - 4 - ORIGINAL STATEMENTS WERE UNDER DURESS AND CLAIMED T HAT THE SALE WAS MADE AT RS. 28 LACS ONLY AND THEY HAVE RECEIVED RUPEES SEVEN LACS EACH ACCORDINGLY. SHRI VIJAY KUMAR IN HI S CROSS- EXAMINATION HAS CONFIRMED THE RATES AS STATED ORIGI NALLY BY HIM, HOWEVER HE SAYS THAT NO PROOF OF SUCH RATES IS IN H IS MEMORY AND FURTHER THAT HE HAS NEITHER SIGNED THE BANAKHAT NOR RECEIVED ANY PAYMENT. FINDINGS IN THE ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS MENTIONED ABOVE, IT CA NNOT BE SAID THAT THE AO'S CASE HAS BEEN PROVED WITH EVEN CIRCUM STANTIAL EVIDENCE. THE ROUGH DOCUMENT I.E., BANAKHAT DATED 13-12-90, W AS NEITHER IN THE HANDWRITING OF THE ASSESSEE, NOR SIGNED BY HIM AND EVEN WAS NOT IMPOUNDED OR FOUND FROM HIS POSSESSION. THE FIRST S TATEMENTS OF THREE BROTHERS WHICH WERE ALSO RETRACTED BY FILING AFFIDA VITS WHICH HAVE BEEN RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE HELD A GAINST THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE: THE STATEMENTS OF THREE BROTHERS THEMSELVES WERE RE TRACTED BY FILING AFFIDAVITS; AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES CANNOT BE HELD AGAINST A THIRD PARTY WHO IS THE ASSESSEE THE TWO BROTHERS DENIED THE CONTENTS OF THE STATEME NTS IN THE CROSS-EXAMINATION; THE THIRD BROTHER UNFORTUNATELY HAS DIED. HOWEVER AS HIS AFFIDAVIT DENYING THE ORIGINAL STATE MENT IS ON RECORD AND HIS CROSS EXAMINATION COULD NOT TAKE PLA CE; NOTHING CAN BE HELD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF SU CH A RETRACTED: STATEMENT. SHRI VIJAY KUMAR IN HIS CROSS-EXAMINATION HAS CONFI RMED THE RATES AS STATED ORIGINALLY BY HIM, HOWEVER HE SAYS THAT NO PROOF OF SUCH RATES IS IN HIS MEMORY AND FURTHER THAT HE HAS NEITHER SIGNED THE BANAKHAT NOR RECEIVED ANY PAYMENT. HIS S TATEMENT CANNOT BE RELIED UPON AS IF IT WERE TRUE, HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN HIGHLY AGGRIEVED BECAUSE OF THE FRAUD ON HIM AND SH OULD LAVE FILED THE CASE AGAINST THE FRAUDULENT REGISTRY; WHI CH APPARENTLY IS NOT THE CASE. AS PER THEIR STATEMENTS, THEY HAD RECEIVED AMOUNTS MORE THAN WHAT WAS STATED IN THE REGISTERED, DEEDS, NO ADDITI ON HOWEVER HAS BEEN SUSTAINED IN HOSE CASES. FOR ARGUMENT SAKE, EVEN IF THE APPELLANT ALLEGEDLY RETAIN ANY PART OF THE AID CONSIDERATION, HE COULD AT THE BEST BE TAKEN AS A DEBTOR OF REAL OWNER TO THAT EXTENT. SUCH CO-OWNER HAS EVERY RIGHT TO RECOVER THIS ALLEGED AMOUNT. THEREFORE EVE N FROM THIS ANGLE THE AMOUNT ALLEGED TO BE RETAINED BY THE APPE LLANT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE HIS INCOME. THE PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY EVEN IF HIGHER PAY MENTS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE MADE AND RETAINED, AS ALLEGED FOR ARGUMENT SAKE; IS THAT TRANSACTION WERE COMPLETED BEFORE THE WRITTEN DOCUMENTS WERE PRESENTED FOR REGISTRY IN DEC 1993. ITA NO. 1095/A/2011 SHRI MANUBHAI K. PATEL, MEHSANA AY 1999-2000 - 5 - THEREFORE, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CASE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, NO PAYMENT OVER AND ABOVE THAT SHOWN IN THE DEED HAD B EEN PROVED TO HAVE BEEN MADE. THE CASE FOR ASSESSING HAVING RETAI NED ANY MONEY, THAT TOO AS HIS INCOME AND PARTICULARLY IN THE PERI OD RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER QUESTION; IS EVEN WEAKER AND IS LACKING ANY FOUNDATION. THE ADDITION MADE THEREFORE IS DELETED. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, A PLOT OF LAND BEARING SURVEY NU MBER 1967/2, PLOT NUMBER 22 SITUATED AT MEHSANA HIGHWAY WAS OWNED BY FOUR PE RSONS NAMELY SHRI JASUBHAI SHAH, SHRI ROHIT C. SHAH, SHRI CHANDRAKANT C. SHAH AND VIJAY C. SHAH. THEY EXECUTED A POWER OF ATTORNEY ON 29.04.1 991, EMPOWERING THE ASSESSEE TO SELL THE SAID PLOT OF LAND. IN EXERCIS E OF THE POWER SO CONFERRED BY THE LAND OWNERS, THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE SAID PLOT OF LAND TO AN AOP M/S. VEER CORPORATION. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER, THE LAND WAS SOLD TO M/S. VEER CORPORATION FOR RS 62 LAKHS AND THE ASSES SEE PAID ONLY RS 35 LAKHS TO THE LAND OWNERS. THEREFORE, THE BALANCE A MOUNT OF RS 27 LAKHS WAS TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, ACCORD ING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE INDEX COPY FROM THE REGISTERING AUTHOR ITY WAS RECEIVED IN FINANCIAL YEAR 1998-99 AND THEREFORE THE AFORESAID AMOUNT WAS TREATED BY HIM AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000. ON APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DELETED THE AF ORESAID ADDITION INTER ALIA ON THE GROUND THAT DEED FOR REGISTRATION FOR S ALE OF LAND IN QUESTION WAS PRESENTED BEFORE THE REGISTRAR ON 13.12.1993 AND TH EREFORE THE TRANSACTIONS WERE IN ALL PROBABILITY COMPLETED BEFORE THAT DATE AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE RECEIPT AND PAYMENT OF TH E CONSIDERATION AMOUNT OR THE SALE TRANSACTION TOOK PLACE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000, THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION C OULD NOT BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000. IN THE CA SE OF M/S. VEER CORPORATION IN ITA NO. 1094/AHD/2011 VIDE ORDER OF EVEN DATE, WE HAVE HELD AS UNDER: ITA NO. 1095/A/2011 SHRI MANUBHAI K. PATEL, MEHSANA AY 1999-2000 - 6 - 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED A PLOT OF LAND BEARING SURVEY NUMBER 1967/2, PLOT NUMBER 22 SITUATED AT ME HSANA HIGHWAY WHICH WAS BEFORE PURCHASE BY THE ASSESSEE OWNED BY FOUR BROTHERS, NAMELY SHRI JASUBHAI SHAH, SHRI ROHIT C. SHAH, SHRI CHANDRAKANT C. SHAH AND VIJAY C. SHAH. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME DISCLOSED THE PURCHASE OF T HE AFORESAID PLOT OF LAND FOR RS 28 LAKHS. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING O FFICER, AS PER STATEMENT RECORDED U/S. 131 FROM THE FOUR BROTHERS, THE RATE AGREED FOR THE LAND IN 1990 WAS RS 431/- PER SQUARE FEET A ND THE TOTAL AREA OF LAND WAS 1334 SQUARE METRE. THUS, THE ASSESSING OF FICER CALCULATED THE VALUE OF LAND AT RS 62 LAKHS. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE INDEX COPY FROM THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY WAS R ECEIVED IN FINANCIAL YEAR 1998-99. ON THE BASIS OF THIS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS 62 LAKHS WAS PAID IN THE P REVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 WHEREIN THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY INVESTMENT AND CONSEQUENTLY ADDED RS 62 L AKHS U/S. 69 IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 19 99-2000. 5. ON APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) DELETED THE ADDITION FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED IN HIS ORDER WHICH INTER ALIA STATES THAT THE DOCUMENT FOR REGISTRATION OF THE LA ND WAS PRESENTED BEFORE THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY ON 13.12.1993 VIDE ENTRY NO. 2660. ACCORDING TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S), IT WAS THE PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY THAT THE TRANSACTION W AS COMPLETED BEFORE THE WRITTEN DOCUMENT WAS PRESENTED FOR REGIS TRATION ON 13.12.1993. 6. BEFORE US, THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIE D UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE AUTHORIZED R EPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 7. WE FIND THAT THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS BROUGHT NO MATERIAL BEFORE US TO CONTROVERT THE FINDING OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO THE EFFECT THAT THE WRITTEN DOCUMENTS WERE PRESENTED FOR REGISTRATION ON 13.12.1993 IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF LAND IN QUESTION OR TO CONTROVERT THE FINDING TO THE EFF ECT THAT PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY WAS THAT THE ENTIRE PA YMENT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND WAS MADE BY THE SELLER BEFORE 13.12.1993. WE FIND THAT COPY OF THE RELEVANT SALE DEED WAS NOT PRODUCED BEFORE U S BY THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. FURTHER, WE ALSO FIND THAT NO MATERIAL COULD BE PRODUCED BEFORE US TO SHOW THAT ANY AMOUNT WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF AFORESAID LAND I N THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY GOOD REASON TO IN TERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). IT IS CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ITA NO. 1095/A/2011 SHRI MANUBHAI K. PATEL, MEHSANA AY 1999-2000 - 7 - THE ISSUE BEING RELATED TO THE SAME TRANSACTION, IN VIEW OF OUR FINDING IN THE CASE OF M/S. VEER CORPORATION IN RESPECT OF PURCHAS E OF LAND IN QUESTION FOR THE SAME REASON AS QUOTED ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WHICH I S CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 13. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL THE REVENUE READS A S UNDER: THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS ERR ED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS 90,000/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATION OF INVESTMENT. 14. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS D ECIDED THE ISSUE AS UNDER: 7. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST ADDITION OF RS.90,000/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME, WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ESTIMATED STATING THAT THIS MUST BE THE INCOME WHICH THE ASSESSEE MIG HT HAVE EARNED FROM THE WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT WHOSE SO URCE HAS NOT BEEN QUESTIONED. THIS ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE ORIG INAL ASSESSMENT ALSO, WHICH WAS DELETED BY MY PREDECESSOR MAKING TH E FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 'I HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE APPELLANT AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORD. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION PRESUMING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD INVESTED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 90,000/- IN SOME ADVENTU RE. THIS OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. THEREFORE ON THIS GROUND ITSELF THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 90,000/- HAS TO BE DELETED. FURTHER IN VIEW OF THE FACTUAL POSITION EXPLAINED BY THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTA TIVE AND WHICH HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AS ABOVE, THE APPELLANT HA D NOT EARNED ANY INCOME ON THIS AMOUNT WHICH STOOD ADVANC ED TO A PARTY MENTIONED ABOVE. FROM THAT ANGLE ALSO THE ADD ITION OF RS. 90,000/- MADE TO THE RETURNED INCOME BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IS DELETED.' ON THE ONE HAND, THIS ISSUE WAS ALREADY DECIDED AND NO COMMENT WAS MADE BY THE HON'BLE ITAT ON THE ABOVE DECISION OF M Y PREDECESSOR; AND ON THE OTHER NOTHING NEW HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RE CORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. I SEE ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO DI SAGREE WITH THE DECISION OF MY PREDECESSOR AS ABOVE. THE ADDITION M ADE THEREFORE IS DELETED. ITA NO. 1095/A/2011 SHRI MANUBHAI K. PATEL, MEHSANA AY 1999-2000 - 8 - 15. WE FIND THAT NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON R ECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SHOW THAT ANY REAL INCOME MUCH LESS RS 90,000/- WAS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT. IN ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH MATERIAL, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). IT IS CONFIR MED. THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 26 TH OF SEPTEMBER, 2014 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( N.S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 26/09/2014 GHANSHYAM MAURYA, SR. P.S. TRUE COPY !0 , )1 2!1& !0 , )1 2!1& !0 , )1 2!1& !0 , )1 2!1&/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '( / THE APPELLANT 2. )*'( / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 3 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 3() / THE CIT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD 5. 167 ) , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 78% 9+ / GUARD FILE. !0 !0 !0 !0 / BY ORDER, : :: :/ // / ; ; ; ; ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD