The ACIT, Circle-8, Surat V. Shri Rajeshkumar Kantilal Patel, Surat

ITA 1498/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8657 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 26-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: OM PRAKASH PATHAK
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 69; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE, SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1498/AHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 2007-08) ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2), ROOM NO.410, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURAGATE, SURAT APPELLANT VS. SHRI RAJESHKUMAR KANTILAL PATEL M-102, SOMESHWARA BUNGLOW, VESU ROAD, SURAT-395008 RESPONDENT PAN: ADLPP7211J /BY REVENUE : SHRI OM PRAKASH PATHAK, SR. D.R . /BY ASSESSEE : NONE /DATE OF HEARING : 08.08.2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.08.2017 ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS REVENUES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 A RISES AGAINST THE CIT(A)-3, SURATS ORDER DATED 13.03.2015, PASSED IN CASE NO. CAS/3/TRFD/V/99/2014-15, REVERSING ASSESSING OFFICE RS ACTION MAKING SECTION 69 UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT ADDITION OF RS.37 ,05,000/- IN ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26.12.2011, IN PROCEEDINGS U/S. 144 R. W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. ITA NO. 1498/AHD/15 (ACIT VS. SHRI RAJESHKUMAR KA NTILAL PATEL) A.Y. 2007-08 - 2 - 2. CASE CALLED TWICE. NONE APPEARS ON ASSESSEES BE HEST. THE REGISTRY HAS ALREADY SENT AN RPAD NOTICE DATED 11.07.2017. WE THEREFORE PROCEED EX PARTE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 3. WE NOW ADVERT TO THE REVENUES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE SEEKING TO REVIVE UNACCOUNTED ON MONEY INVESTMENT ADDITION OF RS.37,05,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE SAID ADDITION IN ASSESSM ENT ORDER DATED 26.12.2011 KEEPING IN MIND THE FACT THAT HE HAD SHO WN TO HAVE PURCHASED THE LAND IN QUESTION FOR RS.4,95,000/- WHEREAS HIS VEND OR SHRI POPATBHAI HAD PURCHASED THE SAME ON 02.01.1997 FOR RS.12LACS AND THE SAME LAND HAD BEEN SOLD BY ONE SOLANKI FAMILY TO SHRI PINAKIN JOSHI FO R RS.42LACS AS ON 31.08.2001. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE ADOPTE D THE IMPUGNED SALE PRICE AS RS.42LACS THEREBY MAKING THE IMPUGNED UNAC COUNTED INVESTMENT ADDITION OF RS.37,05,000/- BEING MADE IN ASSESSEES HANDS. 4. THE CIT(A) REVERSES ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION A S UNDER: 7. AS REGARDS GROUND NO, 2 THE INVESTIGATION WING DETECTED CERTAIN SATAKHATS FOR A PIECE OF LAND BEARING REVENUE SURVEY NO 69/2 , BLOCK NO. 90 VESU, SURAT. AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE APPELLANT HAD PURCHAS ED THIS PIECE OF LAND FOR RS. 4,95,000 FROM MR. POPATBHAI RUDABHAI DOGAR IYA VIDE SALE DEED REGISTERED ON 1610.2004. HOWEVER, THE SATAKHAT F OUND BY THE INVESTIGATION WING, DETECTED THAT ORIGINAL OWNER MR. BHAGABHAI SOLANKI HAD EXECUTED A SATAKHAT ON 02.01.1997 WITH MR. POPATBHAI RUDABHAI DOGAR IYA FOR RS. 12 LAKHS AND AFTER THAT HE EXECUTED ANOTHER SATAKHAT FOR THE SALE OF SAME LAND WITH ANOTHER PERSON MR.P.INAKIN V JOSHI FOR RS 42 LAKHS, VIDE SATAKHAT DATED 31.08.2001. 7.1 THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FURTHER MENTIONS THAT MR. PINAKIN V JOSHI SOLD THE SAME LAND TO MR. JERAM NARIA AND MR. BHIMABHAI PATE L FOR RS. 60,00,000/- AND MR. JERAM NARIA AND MR. BHIMABHAI PATEL HAVE AC CEPTED THE SAID TRANSACTION. IN THIS BACKGROUND, IT WAS CONCLUDED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER THAT SINCE MR. BHAGABHAI SOTANKI HAD ENTERED INTO A SATAKHAT W ITH MR. PINAKIN V JOSHI FOR THE SAME LAND FOR RS. 42,00,000/- ON 31.08.20 11, THE SAME LAND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT, FROM MR. POPAT R D OGARIA FOR RS. 4,95,000/-. THE DIFFERENT OF RS. 37,05,000 WAS THEREFORE, ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. 7.2 DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT MR. POPATBHAI RUDABHAI DOGARIYA PURCHASED THIS PIEC E OF LAND, FROM THE ITA NO. 1498/AHD/15 (ACIT VS. SHRI RAJESHKUMAR KA NTILAL PATEL) A.Y. 2007-08 - 3 - ORIGINAL OWNER MR. BHAGABHAI SOLANKI VIDE REGIS TERED SALE DEED DATED 16.10.2004 FOR RS. 4, 50,000/-. THE SAME LAND WAS P URCHASED BY THE APPELLANT VIDE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 25.04.2006 FOR RS. 4,92,000/- (THE FIGURE OF RS 4,95,000/- MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER APP ARENTLY INCLUDES STAMP DUTY). THE APPELLANT SOLD THE SAID LAND ON 29.03.2008 I.E. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 TO M/S RAWANI DEVELOPERS FOR RS.36,65,000/- AND ALL TH ESE THREE REGISTERED SALE DEEDS WERE EXECUTED AT THE JANTRI RATE (AS PER THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT). IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THE SO CALLED SATAKHAT OF RS. 4 2,00,000/- BETWEEN ORIGINAL OWNER AND MR. PINAKIN V JOSHI., AND THEN THE C LAIMED SALE OF LAND BY MR. PINAKIN V JOSHI TO MR. JERAM NARIA AND BHIMABHAI PA TEL FOR RS. 60,00,000/- HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLAN T. 7.3 AS REGARDS THE SATAKHAT BETWEEN MR. POPAT R DOG ARIA AND THE ORIGINAL OWNER FOR RS. 12,00,000/- THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED T HAT HE HAD PURCHASED LAND FROM MR. POPATBHAI RJAABHAI DOGARIYA FOR RS. 4, 92,0007- VIDE REGISTERED SALE DEED AND THE SAID SATAKHAT HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE, AS FAR AS PURCHASE BY THE APPELLANT, FROM MR. POPATBHAI RUDABHAI DOGARIYA IS CONCERNED. 8. TO SUMMARIZE THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION IS THAT WHEN THE APPELLANT PURCHASED THE SAID LAND VIDE REGISTERED DEED DATED 25.04. 2006, FROM MR. POPATBHAI RUDABHAI DOGARIYA, AND THE PURCHASE WAS A T JANTRY VALUE, THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY ADDITION ON THE PRESUMPTION OF ON MONEY ON THE BASIS OF THREE SATAKHATS REFERRED TO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS NOT A PARTY. THE APPELLANT FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PRO PERTY UNDER REFERENCE WAS SUBJECT TO LITIGATION AND ALSO FILED A COPY OF THE ORDER OF ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE IN SPECIAL CIVIL SUIT NO. 38 - 2005 DATED 10:03.2006. THOUGH THE APPELLANT IS NOT A PARTY IN THE SAID CIVIL SUIT, AND THE CIVIL SUIT IS BETWEEN ORIGINAL OWNERS AND SOME OTHER PARTIES, WITH WHOM SOME AGREEMENTS FOR SALE / SATAKHATS WERE EXECUTED, THE ORDER IN THE SUIT DOES REFER TO THE A GREEMENT TO SALE/ SATAKHAT DATED 02.01.1997, IN FAVOUR OF MR. POPATBHAI RUDABHAI DO GARIYA, FOR RS. 12,00,000/- AND THE REGISTERED SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF MR. PO PATBAHI RUDABHAI DOGARIYA FOR RS. 4, 50,000/-. THOUGH IT DOES RAISE A QUESTION AS TO WHY MR. BHAGABHAI SOLANKI SOLD THE SAID LAND TO MR. POPATBHAI R DOGARIYA FOR RS. 4,50,000/- WHEN THE EARLIER SATAKHAT WAS MADE FOR RS. 12 LAKHS, THI S ISSUE DOES NOT HAVE ANY BEARING AS FOR AS ASSESSMENT OF APPELLANT IS CONCER NED, WHO PURCHASE THIS LAND FROM MR. POPATBHAI RUDABHAI DOGARIYA. 8.1 SINCE THE ORDER OF THE CIVIL COURT ALSO CONF IRMS THESE FACTS AND ACCEPTS THE TITLE OF MR. POPATBHAI RUDABAI DOGARIYA AND PUR CHASE BY HIM FOR RS. 4,50,000/-, THE DECISION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER I S CONTRARY TO THE SAID FINDINGS OF THE COURT. THE VALIDITY OF SALE OF LAND BY ORIGINA L OWNER MR. BHAGAPHAI SOLANKI TO MR. POPATBHAI RUDABHAI DOGARIYA FOR RS 4,50,000 CAN NOT BE QUESTIONED IN THESE PROCEEDING. THE APPELLANT PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY FOR RS. 4,92,000 FROM MR. POPATBHAI RUDABHAI DOGARIYA AND THE ADDITION ON P RESUMPTION OF 'ON MONEY PAID BY THE APPELLANT TO MR. POPATBHAI RUDABHAI DO GARIYA CANNOT BE MADE WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE. THE SATAKHAT WITH MR. PINAKI N V JOSHI, AND THE SO CALLED SALE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN MR. PINAKIN V JOSHI AND JERAM NARIA / BHIMABHAI PATEL CANNOT ESTABLISH THE TRANSACTION OF ON MONEY' BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND MR. POPATBHAI RUDABHAI DOGARIYA, AS THE APPELLANT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH THOSE PERSONS AND THE; SO CALLED SATAKHATS. THIS PROPERTY WAS APPARENTLY SUBJECT ITA NO. 1498/AHD/15 (ACIT VS. SHRI RAJESHKUMAR KA NTILAL PATEL) A.Y. 2007-08 - 4 - TO LITIGATION DUE TO MULTIBLE SATAKHATS EXECUTED BY THE ORIGINAL LAND OWNER MR. BHAGABHAI SOLAAKI, WHICH LED TO LEGAL DISPUTES. 8.2 CONSIDERING THE SAME, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.37,05,000/- IS DELETED AND THE GROUND NO.2 OF TH E APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. 5. WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E STRONGLY ARGUING IN FAVOUR OF IMPUGNED ADDITION. THE ASSESSING OFFI CERS SOLE REASON FOR MAKING ADDITION IN QUESTION IS THAT THE VERY LAND H AD BEEN SOLD FOR RS.42LACS SO AS TO ARRIVE AT THE ON MONEY CONCLUSION IN QUEST ION. WE FIND FROM THE CIT(A)S ABOVE EXTRACTED REASONING THAT LEARNED CIV IL COURT HAS ALREADY ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE THAT ASSESSEES VENDOR IN FAC T PAID PURCHASE PRICE OF RS.4,50,000/- ONLY INSTEAD OF RS.42LACS. THE REVEN UE FAILS TO REBUT THIS CLINCHING FINDING OF FACT BY PINPOINTING ANY COGENT EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD. THERE IS NO OTHER MATERIAL IN ASSESSMENT ORDER AS R ELIED UPON AT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITYS BEHEST APART FROM IMPUGNED ADDITION BEI NG MADE FROM PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. WE THEREFORE SEE NO REASON TO A CCEPT REVENUES INSTANT GRIEVANCE. 6. THIS REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. [PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 29 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017.] SD/- SD/- ( MANISH BORAD ) (S. S. GOD ARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL M EMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 29/08/2017 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- / REVENUE 2 / ASSESSEE ! / CONCERNED CIT 4 !- / CIT (A) ITA NO. 1498/AHD/15 (ACIT VS. SHRI RAJESHKUMAR KA NTILAL PATEL) A.Y. 2007-08 - 5 - ( )*+ ,--. . /0 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1 +23 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / . // . /0