DCIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai V. C Nilavathy, Tuticorin

ITA 131/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6699 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 14-01-2019
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , , [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./I.T.A. NOS.124, 130 & 131/CHNY/2019 ! / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, MADURAI. VS. C. NILAVATHY, NO.137A, PUDURPANDIAPURAM, TUTICORIN 628 002. [PAN ABJPN 6222H] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) ./I.T.A. NOS.164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169 & 170/CHNY/2019 ! / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-2015. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, MADURAI. VS. LATE SHRI. D. CHANDRAN, L/H. OF SMT. C. NILAVATHY, NO.137A, PUDURPANDIAPURAM, TUTICORIN 628 002. [PAN ABQPC 5981R] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) '# $ % / APPELLANT BY : DR. S. BHARATH, IRS, CIT &' '# $ % /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. K.G. RAGHUNATH, ADV ITA NO.124, 130-131, 164- 170/19 :- 2 -: ( ) $ * /DATE OF HEARING : 27-06-2019 +,! $ * /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31-07-2019 / O R D E R PER BENCH:- THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED AGA INST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS)-19, CHENNAI (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS CIT(A)) DATED 04. 10.2018 IN RESPECT OF SMT. V. NILAVATHY AND LATE D. CHANDRAN, L/H OF SMT. V. NILAVATHY RESPECTIVELY. 2. SINCE, THE IDENTICAL FACTS AND ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE THE SAME VIDE THIS C OMMON ORDER. 3. THERE IS A DELAY OF THIRTEEN DAYS IN FILING THE PRE SENT APPEALS BY THE REVENUE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FILED PETITION PRAYING FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY STATING THAT DELAY HAD OCCURR ED ON ACCOUNT OF DELAY IN TRANSMISSION OF ASSESSMENT RECORDS FROM H IGHER AUTHORITIES AND DELAY IS NEITHER WILLFUL NOR WANTON AND THEREFO RE PRAYED FOR CONDONING THE DELAY. LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT RAISE ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION FOR CONDONING THE DELAY. IN THE C IRCUMSTANCES, WE ITA NO.124, 130-131, 164- 170/19 :- 3 -: CONDONE THE DELAY OF THIRTEEN DAYS IN FILING THE AP PEALS AND ADMIT THE APPEALS FOR ADJUDICATION. 4. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND CLARITY THE FACTS R ELEVANT IN ITA NO.165/CHNY/2019 IN THE CASE OF LATE SHRI. D. CHAND RAN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ARE STATED HEREIN. 5. THE REVENUE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS ON FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, 2. THE EARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT AC RELYI NG ON THE UNREGISTERED SALE AGREEMENT, WHICH WAS NOT ON LY ENTERED IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES WITH SEVERAL R IDERS, BUT HAS ALSO NOT MATERIALIZED EVEN TODAY AND FINALL Y GIVEN-UP, IS NOT JUSTIFIED WITHOUT APPRECIATING THA T THE REMAINING 75 CENTS OF LAND AS MENTIONED IN THE SEIZ ED SALE AGREEMENT FROM THE SON OF THE SAME SRI.P.RAMASWAMY AND REGISTERED ON THE SAME DAY I.E.,16.09.2010 VIDE DOCUMENT NO. 6881 OF 2010. 2.1 THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT THE 25 CENTS OF LAND WAS MEANT FOR PATHWAY AND THEREFORE A HIGHER PRICE WAS OFFERED, BUT THE SAID LAND HAD NOT ACTUALLY BEEN REGISTERED, WHEREAS WITHOUT REGISTERING THE SAID PI ECE OF LAND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE PROMOTED THE LAND PROJECT ARUN HIGH TECH CITY AND SOLD PLOTS IN THE PROJECT IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. 2.2 THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED TH E FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MAINTAINED DUPLICATE SET S OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND HENCE, EXCESS CONSIDERATION WOULD HAVE PASSED TO THE VENDOR. 3. FOR THESE GROUNDS AND ANY OTHER GROUND INCLUDING AMENDMENT OF GROUNDS THAT MAY BE RAISED DURING THE ITA NO.124, 130-131, 164- 170/19 :- 4 -: COURSE OF THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE ORDER OF LEAR NED CIT(APPEALS) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 6. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DIRE CTOR IN M/S.NILA SEA FOODS GROUP OF CONCERNS. SEARCH AND SE IZURE OPERATIONS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WERE CONDUCTED ON 17.12.2013 IN THE SAID GROUP OF CONCERNS AND ALSO RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE. SUBSEQUENTL Y, NOTICE U/S.153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT-AS SESSEE ON 02.01.2014 BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE I, TUTICORIN. IN RESPONSE TO WHICH RESPONDENT-ASSESSE E HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME ADMITTING I,6,77,528/- WHICH IS SAME AS THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. AGAINST THE SAID RETURN OF INCO ME, THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE AT TOTAL INCOME OF I10,89,88,170/- VIDE ORDER DATED 31.03.2016 PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 153A OF THE AC T. WHILE DOING SO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF I10,83,10,64 0/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF 17.75 ACRES OF LAND AT SIRUDHOOR VILLAGE, MADURAI. 7. THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE RE SPONDENT- ASSESSEE PURCHASED 17.75 ACRES OF LAND AT SIRUDHOOR VILLAGE, MADURAI DURING THE PERIOD 2008-09 TO 2012-2013 AND DEVELOP ED THE SAME ITA NO.124, 130-131, 164- 170/19 :- 5 -: LANDS INTO PLOTS IN TWO PHASES IN THE NAME OF ARU N HITECH CITY. OBVIOUSLY, THE LANDS WERE PURCHASED FOR THE PURPOS E OF ITS BUSINESS AND THE PLOTS WERE SOLD DURING THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2011-12, 2012-13 AND 2013-14. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZU RE OPERATIONS, THE DEPARTMENT AUTHORITIES HAD SEIZED MATERIAL NUMBER ED ANN/RK/NSF/B&D/D-3, DATED 29.01.2014, WHICH IS A SA LE AGREEMENT ENTERED BY SMT. C. NILAVATHY, ON 16.09.2010 FOR P URCHASE OF 25 CENTS OF LAND IN SIRUDHOOR VILLAGE, MADURAI FROM ONE SHR I. P. RAMASAMY AND OTHERS AT I84,000/- PER CENT OF LAND. BASED ON THIS INFORMATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PROPOSED TO ADOPT SAME AM OUNT OF CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF 17.75 ACRES OF LAND PUR CHASED AT SIRUDHOOR VILLAGE. ACCORDINGLY, RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE WAS ASKE D TO EXPLAIN VIDE LETTER DATED 17.12.2015 AS TO WHY PURCHASE CONSIDER ATION AT THE RATE OF I84,000/- PER CENT SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED IN RES PECT OF ENTIRE PURCHASE OF LANDS. IN REPLY TO THE SAME, RESPONDEN T-ASSESSEE FILED DETAILED REPLY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE LETTER DATED 15.02.2016 STATING THAT THE LAND IN THE AGREEMENT WAS INTEND ED FOR PROVIDING PASSAGE TO THE LAND ALREADY PURCHASED AND PLOTTED A ND IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DEAL HAD NOT COME THROUGH FOR TH E REASON THAT THE LAND WAS HELD IN THE NAME OF MINOR. HOWEVER, THE A SSESSING OFFICER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT RESPONDENT- ASSESSEES WIFE SMT. C. NILAVATHY HAD BOUGHT THE LAND FROM THE SONS OF SAME SHRI. P. ITA NO.124, 130-131, 164- 170/19 :- 6 -: RAMASAMY ON 16.09.2010 VIDE DOCUMENT NO.6881 OF 201 0 AND ALSO PREVAILING PRACTICE IN REAL ESTATE BUSINESS OF PA YING ON-MONEY FOR PURCHASE OF LAND, ESTIMATED COST OF LAND AT THE RAT E OF I70,000/- PER CENT AND WORKED OUT THE CONSIDERATION OF LAND BOUG HT AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT AT I12,42,50,000/- AS AGAINST DISCLOSED INVESTMENT OF I1,59,39,360/- AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF I10,83,10, 640/- WAS BROUGHT TO TAX AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS. 8. BEING AGGRIEVED, BY THE ABOVE ADDITION AN APPEAL W AS PREFERRED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER CONS IDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO EXTRA MONEY WA S PAID FOR PURCHASE OF LANDS OVER AND ABOVE THE CONSIDERATION SHOWN IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED AND REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE FACT THAT NO DIRECT EVIDENCE WAS FOUND SUGGESTING PAYMENT OF ON- MONEY TOWARDS PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES AND ALSO FAC T THAT IN THE HANDS OF GROUP CONCERNS WHICH BELONGS TO RESPONDENT-ASSE SSEE, THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION DETERMINED UNDISCLOSED INCOM E OF I152 CRORES PURSUANT TO THE APPLICATION MADE BEFORE BY IT BY THE SAID GROUP OF COMPANIES FOR SETTLEMENT OF INCOME TAX CASES HELD T HAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ON-MONEY PAYMENT FOR PURC HASE OF PROPERTIES. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. ITA NO.124, 130-131, 164- 170/19 :- 7 -: 9. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE CIT( A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US IN THE PRESENT APP EAL. THE LD CIT- DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE CONTENTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION SINCE THERE IS A PREVAI LING PRACTICE IN REAL ESTATE BUSINESS OF PAYING ON-MONEY FOR PURCHASE O F LAND. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WITHOUT BUYING THE PATHWAY TO THE LAYOUT PLOTS, CANNOT BE SOLD. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIV E SUBMITTED THAT ADDITION WAS MADE MERELY ON SURMISES AND PRE SUMPTIONS AND THE SEIZED MATERIAL WHICH IS ONLY IN THE NATURE OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATIO N U/S.132 OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS DOES NOT BELONG TO THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE BUT WIFE OF THE RESPOND ENT-ASSESSEE. IN ANY EVENT THE SALE AGREEMENT WAS NEVER ACTED UPON A ND THE CONSIDERATION MENTIONED IN THE SALE AGREEMENT HAD NO EVIDENTIAL VALUE. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMON CAUSE (REGISTERED SOCI ETY) VS. UNION OF INDIA, 394 ITR 220. 11. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL RELATES TO THE ADDITION ON ITA NO.124, 130-131, 164- 170/19 :- 8 -: ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS IN PURCH ASE OF LANDS. THESE LANDS WERE BOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AGAINST STATE D CONSIDERATION OF I1,59,39,360/-. HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF SEAR CH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS, THE DEPARTMENT HAS FOUND ONE SALE AG REEMENT DATED 16.09.2010 ENTERED BY WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE NAMELY SMT. C. NILAVATHY FOR PURCHASE OF 25 CENTS OF LAND IN SIRUDHOOR VILL AGE, MADURAI WITH SONS OF SHRI. P. RAMASAMY AT THE RATE OF I84,000/- PER CENT. BASED ON THIS MATERIAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXTRAPOLAT ED THE COST FOR PURCHASE OF THE LANDS AT THE RATE OF I70,000/- PER CENT AND ACCORDINGLY, TREATED THE DIFFERENCE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS AND BROUGHT TO TAX. THEREFORE THE QUESTION THAT ARISES FOR DETERMINATION IS WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS JUSTIFIED IN DOIN G SO, THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE SAID AGREEMENT WAS NEVE R ACTED UPON AND FURTHER THE SUBJECT LAND IS SITUATED AT MAIN ROAD I NTENDED TO BE USED FOR THE PASSAGE OF THE LAYOUT REMAINS UNCONTROVERTE D. THEREFORE, IN THESE BACKDROP OF FACTS THE ISSUE THAT ARISES FOR DETERMINATION IS WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS JUSTIFIED IN EXTR APOLATING THE COST OF INVESTMENT SO AS TO ENABLE HIM TO MAKE ADDITION AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS. THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IT IS NORMAL PRACTICE IN REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TO PAY ON -MONEY GOES TO SUGGEST THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER IS BASED ON ITA NO.124, 130-131, 164- 170/19 :- 9 -: MERE SURMISES AND PRESUMPTIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAD NOT EVEN ATTEMPTED TO BRING CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE PRESUMPTION DRAWN BY HIM. THE ASSESSEE THE LAND BY WAY OF REGISTERED SALE DEED AND THE CONSIDERATION SHOWN IN THE SALE DEEDS HAVE BEEN DULY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT . THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT EVEN CHOSEN TO CROSS EXAMINE THE VENDOR IN ORDER TO FIND OUT THE REAL CONSIDERATION PASSED ON IN THE TRANSA CTION. THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PARAMJIT SINGH VS. ITO, (2010) 323 ITR 588 CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 91 AND 92 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 HELD THAT IN CASE WHERE THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY WAS EVIDENCED BY DULY REGISTERED WR ITTEN SALE DEED, THE SAME COULD NOT BE DISBELIEVED EVEN ON ANY ORAL SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OR ANY OTHER PERSONS. SIMILARLY, THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. P.V. KALYANASUN DARAM, (2006) 282 ITR 259, WHERE THE ADDITION OF INCOME WAS MADE BA SED ON A STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE SELLER, HELD THAT IN THE A BSENCE OF INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELATING TO THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY PURCHASED, THE ADDITION CANNO T BE MADE. THIS DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WAS CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN (2007) 294 ITR 49. THE FA CTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE MUCH MORE ON STRONGER FOOTING AS THERE WAS NO STATEMENT RECORDED FROM THE VENDOR THAT HIGHER CONSIDERATION THAN SHOWN IN THE ITA NO.124, 130-131, 164- 170/19 :- 10 -: SALE DEED WAS PAID. EVEN, THE HONBLE SUPREME CO URT IN THE CASE OF K.P. VARGHESE VS. ITO, (1981) 131 ITR 597 HAD LAI D DOWN THE PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT THE BURDEN OF PROVING UNDE RSTATEMENT OF CONSIDERATION IS ALWAYS ON THE REVENUE. SIMILARLY, THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SURAJ DEVI, (20 10) 328 ITR 604 HELD THAT PRIMARY BURDEN OF PROOF TO PROVE UNDERSTATEMEN T OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME IS ON THE REVENUE. ONLY WHEN SUCH BURDE N IS DISCHARGED IT WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE TO RELY UPON THE EXTERNAL E VIDENCE LIKE DVO REPORT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH OPERATIONS SUGGESTING THAT PAYMENT OF CONS IDERATION OVER AND ABOVE CONSIDERATION SHOWN IN THE REGISTERED DEE D. ADDITION MERELY BASED ON THE AGREEMENT ENTERED BY THIRD PART Y CANNOT BE THE BASIS OF ADDITION. SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE PU NJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PCIT VS. KULWINDER SINGH, (2019) 415 ITR 49. THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT ADDITION IS NOT WARRANTED ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS IF ANY TELESCOPI NG THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETERMINED BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IN T HE HANDS OF THE GROUP CONCERNS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE REMAINS UN CONVERTED. THE SIGNIFICANT MATERIAL THAT TO BE NOTED IS THAT THE S EIZED MATERIAL DOES NOT BELONG TO THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE AND NOR IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IT WAS FOUND DURING THE COUR SE OF SEARCH OPERATION IN THE CASE OF THE RESPONDENT- ASSESSEE. IN THE BACKDROP OF ITA NO.124, 130-131, 164- 170/19 :- 11 -: THE FACTS THE ISSUE THAT MAY ARISE FOR CONSIDERATIO N IS WHETHER IN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED PURSUANT TO NOTICES ISSUED U/S.1 53A OF THE ACT AN ADDITION CAN BE MADE DEHORSE THE SEIZED MATERIAL. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CONTINENTAL WAREHO USING CORPORATION, 374 ITR 645 HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH PROCEEDING NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE. SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY T HE NUMEROUS HIGH COURTS NAMELY PR.CIT V. MEETA GUTGUTIA [2018] 96 TAXMANN.COM 468/257 TAXMAN 441 (SC) ; II) PR. CIT V. SAUMYA CONSTRUCTION (P.) LTD. [2016] 387 ITR 529/[2017] 81 TAXMANN.COM 292 (GUJ); III) PR. CIT V. DEVANGI [2017] 88 TAXMANN.COM 610/394 ITR 184 (GUJ.) IV) PR. CIT V. JAY INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROPERTIES (P.) LTD. [TAX APPEAL NO. 740 OF 2016, DATED 10-10-2016] AND CIT V. KABUL CHAWLA [2015] 61 TAXMANN.COM 412/234 TAXMAN 300/[2016] 380 ITR 573 ( DELHI), CIT VS. MURALI AGRO PRODUCTS, 49 TAXMANN.COM 172. IN TH E LIGHT OF ABOVE FACTUAL LEGAL POSITIONS, THE ADDITION CANNOT BE MA DE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES CA NNOT BE SUSTAINED IN THE EYES OF LAW. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.124, 130-131, 164- 170/19 :- 12 -: 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.165/CHNY/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 IN R ESPECT OF LATE SHRI. D. CHANDRAN STANDS DISMISSED. ITA NOS. 164 AND 166 /CHNY/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2008-09 AND 2010-2011 OF LATE SHRI. D. CHANDRAN. 13. SINCE, THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE IDENTIC AL TO THE FACTS IN ITA NO.165/CHNY/2019, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 2010, FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED THEREIN, WE DISMISS THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ON THE ABOVE LINES INDICATED IN APPEAL ITA NO.165/ CHNY/2019 SUPRA. HENCE, THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEALS FILED BY THE REV ENUE ARE DISMISSED. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NOS.164 & 166/CHNY/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2010-2011 OF LATE SHRI. D. CHANDRAN STAND DISMISSED. ITA NOS. 124, 130 AND 131/CHNY/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-2011, 2011-12 AND 2013-2014 OF SMT. C. NILAVA THY. 15. SINCE, THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE IDENTIC AL TO THE FACTS IN ITA NO.165/CHNY/2019, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2 010 IN RESPECT ITA NO.124, 130-131, 164- 170/19 :- 13 -: OF LATE SHRI. D. CHANDRAN FOR THE REASONS MENTIONE D THEREIN, WE DISMISS THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ON THE ABOVE LI NES INDICATED IN ITA NO.165/CHNY/2019 SUPRA. HENCE, THE ABOVE CAPTIO NED APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NOS.124, 130 AND 131/CHNY/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-20 11, 2011-12 AND 2013-2014 IN RESPECT OF SMT. C. NILAVATHY ARE DISMISSED. 17. NOW, WE TAKE UP APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.169/CHNY/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 IN RES PECT OF LATE SHRI. D. CHANDRAN FOR ADJUDICATION. 18. THE REVENUE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS ON FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN LAW. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT AO RELY ING ON THE UNREGISTERED SALE AGREEMENT, WHICH WAS NOT ON LY ENTERED IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES WITH SEVERAL R IDERS, BUT HAS ALSO NOT MATERIALIZED EVEN TODAY AND FINALL Y GIVEN- UP, IS NOT JUSTIFIED WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE REMAINING 75 CENTS OF LAND AS MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED SALE AGREEMENT FROM THE SON OF THE SAME SRI.P.RAMASWAMY AND REGISTERED ON THE SAME DAY I.E.,16.09.2010 VIDE DOCUMENT NO. 6881 OF 2010. 2.1 THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT THE 25 CENTS OF LAND ITA NO.124, 130-131, 164- 170/19 :- 14 -: WAS MEANT FOR PATHWAY AND THEREFORE A HIGHER PRICE WAS OFFERED, BUT THE SAID LAND HAD NOT ACTUALLY BEEN RE GISTERED, WHEREAS WITHOUT REGISTERING THE SAID PIECE OF LAND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE PROMOTED THE LAND PROJECT ARUN HIGH TECH CITY AND SOLD PLOTS IN THE PROJECT IN TH E SUBSEQUENT YEARS. 2.2 THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED TH E FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MAINTAINED DUPLICATE SETS OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND HENCE, EXCESS CONSIDERATION WOULD H AVE PASSED TO THE VENDOR. 3 THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE FOLLOWED DECISION OF THE HON JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.RANGROOP CHAND CHORDIA (241 TAXMANN 221) THAT LO OSE SHEETS CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTS U/S. 132 OF THE ACT. 3.1 THE LD.CRT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE SCR IBBLINGS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH U/S.132 ARE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS RIGHTLY MADE AN ADDITION BASED ON THE NOTINGS IN TH E SEIZED MATERIAL AND ARRIVING AT THE SALE PRICE ACCO RDINGLY. 3.2 THE ID.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FAC T THAT AS PER THE SCRIBBLINGS THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS FIX ED THE SALE PRICE AT RS.3,80,000/-(13.2.2013) PER CENT FOR THE ASST. YEAR 13-14 WHICH ALSO SEEMS IN CONSONANCE WIT H THE PURCHASE RATE ADOPTED BY AO OF RS.60,000 FOR AY 200 8-09, RS.70,000/- FOR AY 2009-10, RS.84,000/- PER CENT FO R ASST. YEAR 2011-12 TO 2013-14 AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS RIGHTLY ADOPTED THE SAME. 4. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ENTIRETY. 4.1 THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AC ON THE VERACITY OF THE NEW EVIDENCE FUR NISHED BY ASSESSEE AS HE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE EXPENSE WAS TOWARDS FILLING THE LAKE AND SEEMS TO HAVE FURNISHE D THE DETAILS OF THE EXTENT OF THE LAKE AND THE EXPENSES INCURRED THEREON BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). ITA NO.124, 130-131, 164- 170/19 :- 15 -: 5. FOR THESE GROUNDS AND ANY OTHER GROUND INCLUDING AMENDMENT OF GROUNDS THAT MAY BE RAISED DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE ORDER OF LEAR NED CIT(APPEALS) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 19. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT RESPONDENT- AS SESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DIRECTOR IN M/S.NILA SEA FOODS GROU P OF CONCERNS. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2013-14 WAS FILED ON 1 8.06.2014 DISCLOSING TOTAL INCOME OF I66,55,150/- SUBSEQUE NTLY, SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS WAS CONDUCTED U/S.132 OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF NILA GROUP OF CONCERNS AS WELL AS RESPONDENT-ASSES SEE. NOTICE U/S.153A OF THE ACT DATED 02.01.2014 WAS ISSUED BY THE ACIT, CIRCLE I, TUTICORIN. IN RESPONSE TO WHICH RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE SAME RETURN OF INCOME SAME AS ORIGINAL RETURN OF I NCOME. AGAINST THE SAID ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, MADURAI VIDE ORDER DATED 31.03.2016 PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT AT TOTAL INCOME OF I1,29,57,930/-. WHILE DOING SO, THE ASSESSING O FFICER MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNDERSTATEMENT OF C ONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON SALE OF PLOTS IN ARUN HI-TECH CITY. 20. THE FACTS LEADING TO THE ADDITION ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATIONS IN THE CASE OF M/S.NILA SEA FOOD S GROUP OF CONCERN A NOTEBOOK WAS SEIZED AND NUMBERED AS ANN/KJ/NSF/B &D/S-4, ITA NO.124, 130-131, 164- 170/19 :- 16 -: DATED 17.12.2013, WHEREIN CERTAIN NOTING WERE MADE RELATING TO THE SALE OF PLOTS STATED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE RES PONDENT-ASSESSEE. NOTING WERE EXTRACTED VIDE PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER. BASED ON THIS NOTING AND STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.133A OF THE ACT FROM THE MARKETING MANAGER OF ARUN HI-TECH CITY, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER INFERRED THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED OVER AND ABOVE WHAT WAS STATED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED WHICH WERE UNACCOUNTED AND THE SAME WAS UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKIN G FIXED DEPOSITS OF I3,35,00,000/-, WHOSE DETAILS WERE GIVEN AT PAGE 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INFERRED THAT HIGHER SALE CONSIDERATION OF I3,80,000/- PER CENT WAS RECEIVED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR SALE OF 26 CENTS OF LAND AND THEREFORE COMPUTED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SALE CONSIDERATION SHOWN IN THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS AND THE SALE CONSIDERATION ADOPTED AT I3,80,000/- PER CENT AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT WAS BROUGHT TO TAX AS SUPPRESSED SA LE CONSIDERATION. 21. BEING AGGRIEVED, AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER HELD THAT SEIZED MATERIAL IN THE FORM OF NOTING AND SCRIBBLING FOUND AT THE PREMISES OF M/S . NILA SEA FOODS P. LTD HAS NO EVIDENTIAL VALUE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. FURTHER, HE HELD THAT THE FIXED DEPOSITS ARE MADE OUT OF ITA NO.124, 130-131, 164- 170/19 :- 17 -: ACCOUNTED INCOME, DISCLOSED, AND ON THE KNOWN SO URCE OF INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO D ELETE THE ADDITION. 22. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS ), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US IN THE PRESENT APPEA L. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 & 5 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE THEREFORE, DO ES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION . 23. GROUND NO.2 CHALLENGES THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL DOES NOT EMANATE FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE FIND THAT FROM THE AS SESSMENT ORDER THAT NO ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON A CCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS. THUS, GROUNDS OF APPEAL N O.2 STANDS DISMISSED. 24. GROUND NO.3 CHALLENGES THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. CI T(A) TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED SUPPRESSED SALE CONSIDERATION OF I63,02,785/-. THE LD. CIT-DEPART MENTAL REPRESENTATIVE CONTENTED THAT THE SEIZED MATERIAL FOUND IN THE FORM OF NOTING AND SCRIBBLING CONSTITUTES INCRIMINATING MATERIAL AND THEREFORE THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT HAVE DELETED TH E ADDITION. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONA L HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. T. RANGROOPCHAND CHORDIA, (2016) 24 1 TAXMAN 221. ITA NO.124, 130-131, 164- 170/19 :- 18 -: 25. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIV E PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 26. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. THE SOLE BASIS ON WHICH THE ADDITION WAS M ADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED SUPPRESSED SALE CONSIDERATION IS IN THE FOR M OF NOTING AND SCRIBBLING SEIZED IN THE PREMISES OF M/S. NILA SEA FOODS (P) LTD IN WHICH THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE IS A DIRECTOR AND S TATEMENT RECORDED FROM THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE AND MARKETING MANAGER OF ARUN HI-TECH CITY. WHEN THE NOTING IS CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, RE SPONDENT-ASSESSEE NOW WHERE STATED THAT THESE NOTING REPRESENTS THE SUPPRESSED SALE CONSIDERATION. EVEN FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE NOTING EXTRACTED AT PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE ARE UNABLE TO DISCERN A NYTHING WHICH INDICATES THAT ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED B Y THE RESPONDENT- ASSESSEE IS SUPPRESSED NOR IS THERE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD BROUGHT ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. T HE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF P.V. KALYANASUNDARAM , 294 ITR 49 HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL, THE LOOSE SHEETS AND NOTING IN THE DIARIES DOES NOT FORM BASIS FOR MAKING ADDITION. EVEN FROM THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM THE DIRECTOR, IT IS CLEAR THAT FIXED DEPOSITS ARE MADE OUT OF THE KNOWN SOURCES OF INCOME AS IT IS ITA NO.124, 130-131, 164- 170/19 :- 19 -: APPARENT THAT FIXED DEPOSITS ARE MADE BY DEBITING T HE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER THAT THESE BANK ACCOUNTS ARE UNDISCLOSED. THUS, THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IN THE FORM OF SWORN STATEMENTS FROM THE DIRECTOR ESTABLISH THE FACTUM RECEIPT OF H IGHER CONSIDERATION ON SALE OF PLOTS IS CONTRADICTORY TO THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD. SIMILARLY, THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SURAJ DEVI, (SUPRA) HAD HELD THAT PRIMARY BURDEN OF PROOF TO PROVE UNDERSTA TEMENT OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME IS ON THE REVENUE. EVEN, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF K.P. VARGHESE (SUPRA ) HAD LAID DOWN THE PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT THE BURDEN OF PROVING UNDERSTATEMENT OF CONSIDERATION IS ALWAYS ON THE REVENUE. IN THE LI GHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND LEGAL POSITIONS, THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF SUPPRESSION OF SALE CONSIDERATION CANNO T BE FAULTED AND THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WI TH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.3 OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 27. GROUND NO.4 CHALLENGES THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. CI T (A) IN ALLOWING DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASS ESSEE. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, A SSESSEE CLAIMED DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE OF I94,31,500/-. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING ITA NO.124, 130-131, 164- 170/19 :- 20 -: OFFICER APPORTIONED THE DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE TO THE EXTENT OF 28.85 ACRES OF LAND, WHICH IS I3,269/- PER CENT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED PROPORTIONATE EXPENDITURE. WHEREAS IT WAS CONTENDED THAT EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED ONLY IN RESPECT OF 2 .358 ACRES OF LAND WHICH REQUIRED FILING AS IT WAS LAKE AND SUBSTANT IAL EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE I MPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AND 26 CENTS OF LAND OUT 2.358 ACRE S OF LAND WAS SOLD AND THEREFORE A SUM OF I10,39,944/- WAS CLAIMED AS DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 AND BAL ANCE OF EXPENDITURE SHOWN IN THE CLOSING STOCK. HENCE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 4.3.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION S CAREFULLY. AS COULD BE SEEN FROM DETAILS OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME FROM THE SALE OF PLOTS IN A.Y.2013-14, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE DEVE LOPMENTAL EXPENSES OF RS.94,31,500/-, AGAINST THE LAND OF 2.3 58 ACRES OF LAND AND NOT IN RELATION TO THE ENTIRE 28.85 ACRES OF LA ND. HENCE THE EXPENSES PERTAIN TO 2.358 ACRES ONLY, AND ACCORDING LY TO BE APPORTIONED FOR 2.358 ACRES. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR A.Y.2013-14, CLAIMED ONLY RS. 10,3 9,944/- AS DEVELOPMENTAL EXPENSES AGAINST THE SALES OF 26 CENT S SOLD IN THE YEAR, AND BALANCE OF RS.83,91,556/- WAS TAKEN TO TH E CLOSING STOCK OF 2.098 ACRES (I.E. 2.358 ACRES 0.26 ACRES). HENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SPREADING THE EXPENSES TO THE ENTIRE LAND OF 28.85 ACRES OF LAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIREC TED TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENTAL EXPENSES AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE I N HIS RETURNS. ITA NO.124, 130-131, 164- 170/19 :- 21 -: AND THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS BASED ON PROP ER APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE DO NOT FIND ANY R EASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.4 IS DISMISSED. 28. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.169/CHNY/2019, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014 STA NDS DISMISSED. 29. NOW, WE TAKE UP APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NOS. 167 AND 168/CHNY/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 AND 2012 -2013 IN RESPECT OF LATE SHRI. D. CHANDRAN FOR ADJUDICATION. 30. IN BOTH THE APPEALS, THE REVENUE RAISED FOLLOWING C OMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS ON FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN LAW. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT AD RELY ING ON THE UNREGISTERED SALE AGREEMENT, WHICH WAS NOT ONLY E NTERED IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES WITH SEVERAL RIDERS, BUT HAS ALSO NOT MATERIALIZED EVEN TODAY AND FINALLY GIVEN-UP, I S NOT JUSTIFIED WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE REMAINING 7 5 CENTS OF LAND AS MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED SALE AGREEMENT FROM THE SON OF THE SAME SRI.P.RAMASWAMY AND REGISTERED ON THE S AME DAY I.E.,16.09.2010 VIDE DOCUMENT NO. 6881 OF 2010. 2.1 THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT THE 25 CENTS OF LAND WAS MEANT FOR PATHWAY AND THEREFORE A HIGHER PRICE WAS OFFERED, BUT THE SAID LAND HAD NOT ACTUALLY BEEN REGISTERED, WHEREAS WITHOUT REGISTERING THE SAID PIECE OF LAND THE ASSE SSEE COULD ITA NO.124, 130-131, 164- 170/19 :- 22 -: NOT HAVE PROMOTED THE LAND PROJECT ARUN HIGH TECH CITY AND SOLD PLOTS IN THE PROJECT IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEA RS. 2.2 THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED TH E FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MAINTAINED DUPLICATE SETS OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND HENCE, EXCESS CONSIDERATION WOULD HAVE PASSED TO THE VENDOR. 3 THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE FOLLOWED DECISION OF THE HON JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.RAN GROOP CHAND CHORDIA (241 TAXMANN 221) THAT LOOSE SHEETS CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTS U/S.132 OF THE ACT. 3.1 THE LD.CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE SCR IBBLINGS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH U/S.132 ARE INCRI MINATING DOCUMENTS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY MAD E AN ADDITION BASED ON THE NOTINGS IN THE SEIZED MATERIA L AND ARRIVING AT THE SALE PRICE ACCORDINGLY. 3.2 THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FAC T THAT AS PER THE SCRIBBLINGS THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS FIXED THE SALE PRICE AT RS.3,80,000/-(13.2.2013) PER CENT FOR THE AY 13-14 WHICH ALSO SEEMS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE PURCH ASE RATE ADOPTED BY AO OFRS.60,000 FOR AY 2008-09, RS.7 0,000/- FOR AY 2009-10, RS.84,000/- PER CENT FOR ASST. YEAR 2011-12 TO 2013-14 AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY AD OPTED THE SAME. 4. FOR THESE GROUNDS AND ANY OTHER GROUND INCLUDING AMENDMENT OF GROUNDS THAT MAY BE RAISED DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 31. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 & 4 ARE GENERAL IN NATUR E THEREFORE, DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION . 32. GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE PRESENT GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS MA DE TOWARDS PURCHASE OF LANDS. THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED AGAINST T HE REVENUE IN ITA ITA NO.124, 130-131, 164- 170/19 :- 23 -: NO.165/CHNY/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 IN RESPECT OF LATE SHRI. D. CHANDRAN AT PARA 11 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THE GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN B OTH THE APPEALS. 33. GROUND NO.3 CHALLENGES THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. CIT (A) TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED SALE OF L AND. THIS ISSUE IS ALSO DECIDED AGAINST THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.169/CH NY/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014 IN RESPECT OF LATE SHRI. D. CHANDRAN AT PARA 26 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIS MISS THE GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN BOTH THE APPEALS. 34. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN ITA N OS.167 AND 168/CHNY/2019, FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 AND 20 12-13 STAND DISMISSED. 35. NOW, WE TAKE UP APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.170/CHNY/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 IN RES PECT OF LATE SHRI. D. CHANDRAN FOR ADJUDICATION. 36. THE REVENUE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS ON FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN LAW. 2 THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BASED ON THE NOTEBOOK WITH SCRIBB LING. 2.1 THE ID.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE FOLLOWED DECISION O F THE HON JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT ITA NO.124, 130-131, 164- 170/19 :- 24 -: VS.RANGROOP CHAND CHORDIA (241 TAXMANN 221) THAT LO OSE SHEETS CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTS U/S.132 OF THE ACT. 2.2 THE LD.CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE SCR IBBLINGS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH U/S.132 ARE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS RIGHTLY MADE AN ADDITION BASED ON THE NOTINGS IN TH E SEIZED MATERIAL AND ARRIVING AT THE SALE PRICE ACCO RDINGLY. 2.3 THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FAC T THAT AS PER THE SCRIBBLINGS THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS FIX ED THE SALE PRICE AT RS.3,80,000/-(132.2013) PER CENT FOR THE ASST. YEAR 13-14 WHICH ALSO SEEMS IN CONSONANCE WIT H THE PURCHASE RATE ADOPTED BY AO OF RS.60,000 FOR AY 200 8-09, RS.70,000/- FOR AY 2009-10, RS.84,000/- PER CENT FO R ASST. YEAR 2011-12 TO 2013-14 AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS RIGHTLY ADOPTED THE SAME. 3. FOR THESE GROUNDS AND ANY OTHER GROUND INCLUDING AMENDMENT OF GROUNDS THAT MAY BE RAISED DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE ORDER OF LEAR NED CIT(APPEALS) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 37. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 & 3 ARE GENERAL IN NATUR E THEREFORE, DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION . 38. GROUND NO.2 CHALLENGES THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. CIT (A) TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED SALE OF L AND. THIS ISSUE IS ALSO DECIDED AGAINST THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.169/CH NY/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014 IN RESPECT OF LATE SHRI. D. CHANDRAN AT PARA 26 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIS MISS THE GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. ITA NO.124, 130-131, 164- 170/19 :- 25 -: 39. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.170/CHNY/2019, FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2014-15 ST ANDS DISMISSED. 40. TO SUMMARIZE THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NOS.124, 130, 131/CHNY/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 20 10-11, 2011-12 AND 2013-2014 IN RESPECT OF SMT. C. NILAVATHAY STAN D DISMISSED AND APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN RESPECT OF LATE D.CHANDRA N IN ITA NOS.164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169 & 170/CHNY/2019 FOR ASSESSM ENT YEARS 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-1 4 & 2014-2015 ARE ALSO STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2019, AT CH ENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER - ) / CHENNAI . / DATED:31ST JULY, 2019. KV $ &*01 21!* / COPY TO: 1 . '# / APPELLANT 3. ( 3* () / CIT(A) 5. 16 &*7 / DR 2. &' '# / RESPONDENT 4. ( 3* / CIT 6. 8 9) / GF