Shri Gandabhai Becharbhai Patel, Himatnagar V. The Income Tax Officer,S.K. Ward-3, Himatnagar

ITA 201/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7817 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Deduction for capital gain; Capital asset
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH BEFORE: SHR I MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI GANDABHAI BECHARBHAI PATEL ADVANCE PATHOLOGY LAB, AROGYANAGAR HIMMATNAGAR (DIST. S.K.) PAN: AARPP5126D (APPELLANT) VS THE ITO, S.K. WARD - 3, HIMMATNAGAR (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI PRASOON KABRA , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: MS. URVASHI SHODHAN , A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 11 - 06 - 2 018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10 - 07 - 2 018 / ORDER P ER : A MARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : - THIS ASSESSEE S APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2009 - 10 , ARISES FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - VIII, AHM EDABAD DATED 18 - 11 - 2013 , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISE D FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING ACTION OF AO IN DENYING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN CLAIMED ON SALE OF LAND BY THE APPELLANT AND FURTHER MAKING ADDITION OF THE SAID GAIN OF RS. 18,00, 000 / - AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOU RCES. B OTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING FACTUAL MATRIX, PROVISIONS OF LAW AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ON RECORD THAT THE APPELLANT HAVING RIGHT AND POSSESSION OF THE LAND SOLD CORRECTLY CLAIMED SALE PROCEEDS AS GAIN ARISING FROM SALE OF CAPITAL ASSET. IT BE SO HELD NOW. I T A NO . 201 / A HD/20 14 A SSESSMENT YEAR 200 9 - 10 I.T .A NO. 201 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2009 - 10 PAGE NO SHRI GANDABHAI BECHARBHAI PATEL VS. ITO 2 2. LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN DISALLOWING CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54EC(I)(B) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE BONDS OF NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUT HORITY FROM SALE PROCEEDS RECEIVED ON SALE OF LAND. LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT SINCE THE APPELLANT FULFILLED THE REQUISITE CONDITIONS FOR MAKING THE CLAIM. IT BE SO HELD NOW. 3. LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 23 4 A/23 4B & 23 4C OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 4. INITIATION OF PENALTY U/S 271 (1 )(C) OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 3. THE BRIEF FACT OF THE CASE IS THAT RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 1 , 83 , 446/ - WAS FILED ON 19 TH NOV, 2009. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WA S SELECTED UNDER S CRUTINY BY ISSUING OF NO TICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT ON 3 0 TH AUGUST, 2010. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT , THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE H AS CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S. 54EC(1)(B) OF THE ACT FOR RS . 16 LACS ON LONG TE RM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 18 LACS ARISING FROM SALE OF NON - AGRICULTURAL PLOT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ON VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS OF OWNERSHIP OF THE PLOT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE S OLD PROPERTY WITH DESCRIPTION OF PLOT NO. 12 OF SURVEY NO. 113 APPROXIMATELY 344.65 SQ. METER WAS SHOWN AS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE F R OM SHRI KIRITKUMAR KH O DABHAI PATEL ON 30 TH MAY, 198 4 FOR RS. 25000/ - UNDER SALE AGREEMENT ( V ACHAN KAR AR) . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FURTHER NOTICED THAT THIS SALE AGREEMENT WAS MADE ON PLAIN PAPER AND THIS DOCUMENT WAS NOT REGISTERED WITH ANY SUB - REGISTRAR. HE HAS FURTH ER NOTICED THAT SECOND PROPERTY AT PLOT NO. 13 OF SURVEY NO. 113 APPROXIMATELY 19 5 SQ. METER WAS SHOWN AS PURCHASED FOR RS . 19 , 500/ - ON 13 TH JULY , 1990. HOWEVER , ON SCRUTINY OF THE DOCUMENT IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE SECOND PROPERTY W A S PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF SHRI KIRITKUMAR PATEL AND N OWHERE ON THE DOCUMENT THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS MENTIONED AS PURCHASER OF THE LAND. ON 2 ND DEC, 2008 BOTH T HESE PROPERTIES WERE SOLD TO SHRI DIVYESH DINESHKUAMR JOSHI OF BARODA FOR RS. 18 LACS. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE SELLER OF BOTH TH ESE PROPERTY WAS SHRI KIRITKUMAR PATEL OF HIMMATNAGAR AS PER DOCUMENT REGISTERED WITH THE SUB - REGISTRAR OF HIM MATNAGAR. IN SPITE OF GIVING A NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE OWNERSHIP OF THE I.T .A NO. 201 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2009 - 10 PAGE NO SHRI GANDABHAI BECHARBHAI PATEL VS. ITO 3 PROPERTY WITH RELEVANT EVIDENCES . T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT ON VERIFICATION OF THE PURC HASE DOCUMENT FI L E D , IT WAS SEEN THAT THE PROPERTIES AT PLOT NO. 12 OF SURVEY NO. 113 WAS PURCHASE D FROM SHRI KIRITKUMAR PATEL ON 30 TH MAY, 1994 FOR RS . 25000 / - ON A PLAIN PAPER AND DOCUMENT WAS NOT REGISTERED WITH ANY SUB - REGISTRAR AND T HE SECOND PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY SHRI KIRITKUMAR PATEL OF HIMMATNAGAR AND NOWHERE IN THE DOCUMENT THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS MENTIONED AS PURCHASER OF THE LAND. N ON E OF T HE PROPERTIES WAS PURC HASED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE .THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED RELEVANT EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERT IES WERE BELONGED TO HIM . THEREFORE , THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED T O EXPLAIN WHY NOT THE CAPITAL GAIN EXEMPTION SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AND ENTIRE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY HIM SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS I NCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE HAS RESPONDED BY STATING THAT ONE PLOT WAS PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF SHRI RAMANLAL SHANGHVI ON HIS BEHALF. AND THE OTHER PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY SHRI KIRITKUMAR PATEL ON HIS BEHALF ON 1 3 TH JULY, 1990 FOR RS. 19 , 50 0/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS: - A. THE FIRST DOCUMENT MADE / ENTERED BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND SHRI KIRTIKUMAR KHODABHAI PATEL IS NOT REGISTERED IN ANY OF THE GOVT. DEPARTMENT / AGENCIES. IT IS MADE ON A PLAIN PAPER WHICH HAS NO LEGAL AUTHENTICITY AND WEIGHT AGE. B. NO PURCHASER OF LAND WOULD WAIT FOR ALMOST 5 YEARS TO MAKE A REGISTERED DOCUMENT OF THE PROPERTY PURCHASED BY HIM JUST FOR THE REASONS THAT HE WANTED TO PURCHASE THE ADJOINING LAND (PLOT). C. THE ADJOINING LAND (PLOT) WAS OWNED BY OTHER PARTY THAT IS BY SHRI RAMANLAL ZAVERI. IF AT ALL THE ADJOINING LAND WAS OWNED BY SHRI KIRTIKUMAR PATEL THEN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN REASONABLE, RATIONALE AND JUSTIFIED TO WAIT F OR SUCH A LONG PERIOD OF TIME IN MAKING THE DOCUMENT AND TRANSFERRING THE PURCHASED PROPERTY IN THE ASSESSEE'S NAME. D. THE ADJOINING LAND IS PURCHASED BY SHRI KIRTIKUMAR KHODABHAI PATEL, THOUGH IT IS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE WAS NEGOTIATING FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND. IF AT ALL THE LAND WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SHRI RAMANLAL THEN THE PURCHASE DOCUMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN \ MADE BETWEEN THE ASSESSES AND SHRI RAMANLAL ZAVERI. THERE WAS NO NEED TO MAKE A DOCUMENT BETWEEN KIRTIKUMAR PATEL AND RAMANLA L ZAVERI. E. WHEN THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT WAS EXECUTED BETWEEN SHRI KIRTIKUMAR PATEL AND SHRI RAMANLAL ZAVERI, FOR THE ADJOINING SECOND PLOT, ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE EXECUTED THE PURCHASE DOCUMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND BY HIM FROM KIRTKUMAR PATEL ON 30/5/ 1984. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S. 54EC(1 )(B) OF THE ACT AND ASSESSED THE INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. I.T .A NO. 201 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2009 - 10 PAGE NO SHRI GANDABHAI BECHARBHAI PATEL VS. ITO 4 4. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 4.3 DECISION: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT, IN THE STATEMENT OF INCOME FILED WITH THE RETURN, HAD CLAIMED LONG - TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 18 LAKH ON SALE OF PLOTS AND HAD ALSO CLAIMED EX EMPTION UNDER SECTION 54EC(1)(B) . THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 21,243/ - WAS OFFERED TO TAX. THE AO AFTER EXAMINING THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS, CAME TO CONCLUSION THAT SINCE THE PROPERTIES WHICH HAVE BEEN SOLD WERE NOT OWNED BY THE APPELLANT, HE WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR ANY EXEMPTION AND TREATED THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE APPELLANT ON THE OTHER HAND HAS SUBMITTE D THAT THOUGH THE PROPERTIES WERE NOT REGISTERED IN HIS NAME BUT HE WAS THE FACTUAL OWNER AND HAS RECEIVED THE CONSIDERATION FROM THE BUYER AND ACCORDINGLY CLAIM OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS WELL AS EXEMPTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED. THE FACTS SHOW THAT THE APPE LLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT HE PURCHASED ONE PROPERTY AT PLOT NUMBER 12 OF SURVEY NUMBER 113 FROM SHRI KIRIT KUMAR KHODABHAI PATEL ON 30/05/1984 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 25,000 UNDER SALE % AGREEMENT. THE SALE DOCUMENT WAS NOT REGISTERED BUT THE AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED ON A STAMP PAPER OF RS. 10. THE SECOND PROPERTY OF PLOT NUMBER 13 SURVEY NUMBER 1 13 WAS PURCHASED FOR RS. 19,500/ - ON 13/07/1990. THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN PURCHASED THROUGH A REGISTERED DOCUMENT BUT THE OWNER OR THE BUYER OF THE PROPERTY AS PER THE DO CUMENTS WAS SHRI KIRIT KUMAR KHODABHAI PATEL. FURTHER IN THIS PURC HASE DEED THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT AS THE PURCHASER. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE P URCHASE CONSIDERATION FOR BOTH THE PLOTS WAS IN CASH. THE ABOVE PLOTS WER E SOLD TO SHRI DIVYESH DINESH KUMAR JOSHI FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 18 LAKH. AS PER THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT THE SELLER OF THE PLOTS WAS SHRI KIRIT KUMAR KHODABHAI PATEL AND THE DOCUMENT WAS REGISTERED WITH SUB REGISTRAR HIMMATNAGAR. ANOTHER POINT WHICH IS ALSO RELEVANT AND WORTH NOTING IS THAT IN THE SALE OF THE PLOTS DATED 29/1 1/2008 IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ORIGINAL OWNER OF THE LAND AND THE POSSESSION OF PLOTS HAS BEEN HANDED OVER BY HIM TO THE BUYER ON PAYMENT OF A CHEQUE OF RS. 18 LAKH . AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND THE CLEAR FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE AO, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE CONSIDERATION RECEIV ED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE APPELLANT HAS NEVER OWNED T HESE PLOTS. THE FIRST PLOT WAS ALLEGEDLY PURCHASED BY AN AGREEMENT ON A STAMP PAPER OF RS. 10 WAS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN PURCHASED FOR A CASH CONSIDERATION FOR WHICH THERE IS NO CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT TO SHOW T HAT THE POSSE SSION OF THE PROPERTY UNDER SECTION 53A OF THE TRANS FER OF PROPERTY ACT. THE OTHER PLOT WHICH HAS ALLEGEDLY BEEN SOLD BY APPELLANT IS ALSO CLEARLY IN THE NAME OF SHRI KIRIT KUMR KODABHAI PATEL AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE PLOT W AS OWNED BY THE APPELLANT OR THE PAYMENT, WHICH WAS IN CASH, WAS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT IS CLAIMING CERTAIN FACTS WHICH WERE IN HIS EXCLUSIVE KNOWLEDGE WITHOUT ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OR ANY 'CONTEMPORARY PROOF. I AM IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT W ITH THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE AO IN PARA - 6.2, 6.3, 6.4 AND 6.5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE FINDINGS OF THE AO ARE VERY CLEAR AND THERE IS NO NEED TO REPE AT THE SAME. THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN SOLD, HAVE BEEN BOUGHT MANY YEAR S BACK AND H AD IT BEEN ACTUALLY OWNED BY THE APPELLANT, THERE MUST HAVE BEEN SOME EVIDENCE SUCH AS MUNICIPAL RECORD OR ELECTRICITY CONNECTION ETC. TO ESTABLISH T HAT THE PROPERTY WAS ACTUALLY OWNED BY THE APPELLANT. THE MENTION OF THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT IN THE SALE DEED STATING THAT HE WAS ACTUAL OWNER IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE AS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WAS SHRI KIRIT KUMAR KHODABHAI PATEL AND THE BUYER WAS NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE OTHER FACTS WHICH ARE NOT RELEVANT I.T .A NO. 201 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2009 - 10 PAGE NO SHRI GANDABHAI BECHARBHAI PATEL VS. ITO 5 THE BUYER GOT THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY AND MADE THE PAYMENT. THE REGISTRAR ALSO IS NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE OTHER NARRATIONS IN THE SALE DEED HE IS ONLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE OWNER OF THE PLOT, THE SALE CONSIDERATION AND THE STAMP DUTY WHICH IS TO BE COLLECTED ON THE TRANSACTION. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE ACTION OF THE AO IN ASSESSING THE INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS UPHELD. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 5. DURING THE SOURCE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL HAS FURN ISHED PAPER BOOK CONTAINING DETAIL OF SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A) DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. SHE HAS CONTENDED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DENYING E XEMPTION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS ASSESSEE HAS CORRECTLY CLAIMED THE EXEMPTION . ON OTHER HAND, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT EN TITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 54EC(1 )(B) OF THE ACT AS ASSESSEE HAS FAILED T O SUBSTANTIATE THAT BOTH THE LAND WERE OWNED BY HIM WITH RELEVANT SUPPORTING MATERIAL. HE HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS I.E. SURAJ LAMP & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF HARIYANA (2011) 14 TAXMANN.COM 103(SC) , BA LDEVSINGH JAS UBHAI PARMAR VS. A CIT TAX APPEAL NO. 433 OF 2017 AND ITA NO. 2614 /AHD/2013 IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. BALDEV SINH J PARMAR VIDE ORDER DATED 14 - 02 - 2017. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF C.S.ARWAL V. CIT, LUDHIANA (2015) 59 TAXMANN.COM. 359 OF PUN JAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD CAREFULLY. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S. 54EC(1)(B) OF THE ACT CLAIMING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF PLOT OF LAND. D URING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS DISCERNED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE PLOT NO. 12 WHICH WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE PURCHASED ON 30 TH MAY, 1984 FOR RS. 25,000/ - WAS NOT SUPPORTED WITH PROPER REGISTERED AGREEMENT. REGARDING OWNERSHIP OF PLOT NO. 13, THE PLOT OF LAND WAS REGISTERED WITH THE NAME OF SHRI KIRITKUMAR PATEL AND ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY SHRI KIRITKUMAR ON HIS BEHALF AND ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS OWNERSHIP WITH ANY DOCUMENT REGISTERED WITH THE SUB - REGISTRAR. IN SPITE OF GIVING A NUMBER I.T .A NO. 201 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2009 - 10 PAGE NO SHRI GANDABHAI BECHARBHAI PATEL VS. ITO 6 OF OPPORTUNITIES, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE OWNERSHIP OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WITH REGISTERED DOCUMENT. T HE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE HIS CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP WITH RECOGNIZED DOCUMENT AS REQU IRED IN THE CASE OF PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. WE OBSERVE THAT A NY OF THE RIGHT RELATING TO IMMOVABLE PROPERTY , BE IT A SALE, EXCHANGE OR RELINQUISHMENT OR EXTINGUISHMENT OF ANY RIGHTS OR COMPULSORY ACQUISITION RELATE TO CAN BE TRANSFERRED SUBJECT T O THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN REGISTRATION ACT, 1908. SECTION 17 OF THE INDIAN REGISTRATION ACT LAYS DOWN VERY CLEARLY THAT THE DOCUMENTS WHICH PURPORTS OR OPERATES TO CREATE, DECLARE, ASSIGN, LIMIT OR EXTINGUISH, WHETHER IN THE PRESENT OR IN FUTURE, ANY RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST, WHETHER VESTED OR CONTINGENT, TO OR IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY SHALL BE REGISTERED. WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HOW THE AFORESAID PROPERTIES UNDER THE REGISTERED OWNERSHIP OF OTHER PERSONS CAN BE CONSIDERED AS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. W E OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE HIS CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP WITH RECOGNIZED DOCUMENT AS REQUIRED IN THE CASE OF PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER OWNED THESE PLOTS. THERE IS NO EVID ENCE TO PROVE THAT THE PLOT WAS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING CERTAIN FACTS WHICH WERE IN HIS EXCLUSIVE KNOWLEDGE WITHOUT ANY RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE S. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND FINDINGS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO I NTERFERE IN THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT , THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 1 0 - 07 - 201 8 SD/ - SD/ - ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 10 /07 /2018 I.T .A NO. 201 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2009 - 10 PAGE NO SHRI GANDABHAI BECHARBHAI PATEL VS. ITO 7 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,