The ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad V. Shri Dinesh Jasraj Jain L/h. of late Jasraj Multanmal Jain, Ahmedabad

ITA 2076/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9728 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 24-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 23-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SONIA KUMAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH BEFORE: S H RI G. D. AGRAWAL , VICE PRESIDENT AND SHR I RAJPAL YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) VS LATE SHRI JASRAJ MULTANMAL JAIN, THROUGH L/H. SHRI DINESH JASRAJ JAIN. SWAGAT BUNGLOWS, OPP. PARIMAL GARDEN, ELLISBRIDGE, AHMEDABAD (RESPO NDENT) REVENUE BY: S MT. SONIA KUMAR , SR. D.R. ASSESSEE BY: S HRI DEEPAK SONI , A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 24 - 06 - 2 015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 - 07 - 2 015 / ORDER P ER : RAJPAL YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER : - THE PRESENT APPEAL IS DIRECTED AT THE INSTANCE OF REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 27 TH JUNE, 2011 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04. I T A NO . 2076 / A HD/20 11 A SSESSMENT YEAR 200 3 - 04 I.T.A NO. 2076 /AHD/20 11 A.Y. 2003 - 04 PAGE NO ACIT VS. LATE SHRI JASRAJ MULTANMAL JAIN, THROUGH L/H. SHRI DINESH JASRAJ JAIN 2 2. THE SOLITARY GRIEVA NCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 27,85,000/ - WHICH WAS ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE AID OF SECTION 69B OF INCOME TAX ACT. 3 . WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIV ES, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THE SOLE ISSUE FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER ASSESSEE HAS MADE UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT OF RS. 57,85,000/ - IN PURCHASE OF A LAND MEASURING 5160 METER SITUATED AT SURVEY NO. 731 MAKARBA. IT EMERGES OUT FROM THE RECORD THAT SMT. S HANTABEN V. SWADIA AND SHRI RAJESH V. SWADIA (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS SWADIA) HAD PURCHASED A PIECE OF LAND COMPRISING IN SURVEY NO. 731 MAKARBA MEASURING 5160 METER. THIS LAND WAS PURCHASED BY SWADIA ON 30 TH DECEMBER, 1997 FOR A SALE CONSID ERATION OF RS. 3,50,000/ - . SWAD IA S ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR SALE OF THIS LAND ON 21 ST JANUARY, 2003 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 7,15,000/ - . THE SALE DEED WAS ULTIMATELY EXECUTED AND ASSESSEE BECAME OWNER AND IN POSSESSION OF THIS LAND BY VIRTUE OF THE SALE DE E D EXECUTED ON 21 ST JANUARY, 2013. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT AHMEDABAD MERCANTILE CO - OPERATIVE BANK (AMCO) HAD SANCTIONED A LOAN OF RS. 205 LACS TO M/S. AKAR ORGANIZER AND M/S. RA NJIT ELE. PVT. LTD. THIS P ROPERTY WAS MORTGAGED WITH THE BANK. BEFORE SALE OF THIS PROPERTY , A SUM OF RS. 65 LACS WAS DEPOSITED BY THE VENDO RS IN ORDER TO GET THE PROPERTY RELEASED FROM THE BANK. IT ALSO EMERGES OUT THAT THE VENDO RS HAVE EARLIER TRIED TO SELL THIS PROPERTY BUT T H E BANK HAD OBTAINED AN INJUNCTION ORDER FRO M THE GUJARAT STATE CO - OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL BECAUSE A DISPUTE FOR RECOVERY OF OUTSTANDING LOAN AMOUNT WAS PENDING BEFORE THE BOARD OF N OMINEE BEARING ARBITRATION CASE NO. 131 7/2000. THE VENDO RS HAVE PAID RS. 65 LACS TO THE BANK AND GET RELEASED THE PROPERTY. THE I.T.A NO. 2076 /AHD/20 11 A.Y. 2003 - 04 PAGE NO ACIT VS. LATE SHRI JASRAJ MULTANMAL JAIN, THROUGH L/H. SHRI DINESH JASRAJ JAIN 3 ASSESSING OFFICER HARBOURED A BELIEF THAT ASSESSEE MUST HAVE PAI D UNACCOUNTED MONEY TO THE VENDO RS WHICH WAS ULTIMATELY DEPOSITED IN BANK AND GOT RELEASED THE LAND. HE FURTHER FORMED AN OPINION THAT BANK SA NCTIONED LOAN AGAINST THE MORTGAGE OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY UP TO 80% OF ITS VALUE. THEREFORE, HE CONSTRUED THAT ASSESSEE MUST HAVE PAID A SUM OF RS. 57,85,000/ - OVER AND ABOVE THE CONSIDERATION STATED IN THE SALE DEED. HE MADE AN ADDITION OF THIS AMOUN T IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 . ON APPEAL, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ANALYZED A LETTER WRITTEN BY ASSISTANT GENERAL M ANAGER OF THE AMCO AND ALSO THE BANK STATEMENT. IT I S WORTH TO MAKE REFERENC E OF THE FINDING RECORDED BY LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 3.2 FROM THE CASE RECORDS, IT IS NOTICED THAT A LETTER DATED 12/11/2010 HAS BEEN WRITTEN BY THE AHMEDABAD MERCANTILE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD. TO MR SAURABH SINGH, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), THE CONTENTS OF WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: AMCO - 738 - 2010 - 11 NOVEMBER 12, 2010 TO, MR. SAURABH SINGH ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), AHMEDABAD ROOM NO.309, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD. DEAR SIR, SUB : FURNISHING OF INFORMATION U/S.133(6) OF THE I.T.ACT - 1961 IN THE CASE OF SHRI JASHRAJ MULTANMAL JAIN THIS HAS REFERENCE TO YOUR LETTER DATED 20.10.2010 ON THE AB OVE CITED SUBJECT. IN THIS CONNECTION WE FURNISH THE DETAILS AS HERE UNDER: I.T.A NO. 2076 /AHD/20 11 A.Y. 2003 - 04 PAGE NO ACIT VS. LATE SHRI JASRAJ MULTANMAL JAIN, THROUGH L/H. SHRI DINESH JASRAJ JAIN 4 BANK HAS SANCTIONED THE LOAN TO M/S AKAR ORGANISER & M/S. RANJEET ELE. PVT. LTD. TOTAL AMOUNT RS. 205/ - LACS. BANK HAS AVAILED THE STAY ORDER FROM THE BOARD OF NOMINEES COURT, AH MEDABAD ON DT. 14.02.2001 ON THEIR IMMOVABLE PROPERTY SURVEY NO.731/2 DIST. SUB DIST. AHMEDABAD - 4 (PALDI) MOJE MAKARBA TOTAL 5160 SQ. MTRS. THE REPAYMENT OF THE NPA A/C. HAS BEEN RECOVERED BY THE BANK WHICH REFLECT IN THE STATEMENT OF A/C. WHICH WE ENCLOS ED HEREWITH FOR YOUR NEED AND INFORMATION. THANKING YOU, YOURS FAITHFULLY, SD/ - (M.C. SHAH) ASSTT. GENERAL MANAGER.' 3.3 IN OTHER WORDS, AS PER THE LETTER OF THE BANK, THE LOAN AMOUNT WAS NOT RUPEES 65 LACS SANCTIONED TO AKAR ORGANISERS AND RANJEET ELEC TRIC PRIVATE LIMITED. AS PER THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ACCOUNT NUMBER 066016354000016 OF AKAR ORGANISERS IT IS SEEN THAT AS ON 29/11/1999 THE BANK HAS GIVEN LOAN OF RS. ONE CRORE TO AKAR ORGANISERS. THERE ARE MANY DEBIT ENTRIES AND ALSO CREDIT ENTRIES IN T HIS ACCOUNT. THE .MAXIMUM DEBIT BALANCE OF RS.1,34,06,165/ - IS APPEARING AS ON 30/6/1998. AS PER THIS ACCOUNT, THE LOAN HAS BEEN REPAID BY THE PARTY AKAR ORGANISERS ON 31/3/2005 WHEN THE CREDIT BALANCE IN THIS ACCOUNT FOR THE FIRST TIME IS APPEARING AT RS. 80 ,701.96. SIMILARLY THE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF RANJIT ELECTRIC PRIVATE LIMITED WAS FURNISHED BY AHMEDABAD MERCANTILE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD IN RESPECT OF THE ACCOUNT NUMBER 066016331000153 FOR THE PERIOD 1/1/2001 TO 29/3//2005. AS PER THIS ACCOUNT T HERE IS A MAXIMUM DEBIT BALANCE OF RS. 37,27,725/ - AS ON 27/3/2001. AS ON 1/2/2003 THE LOAN HAS BEEN REPAID BY THIS PARTY BY MAKING THE CREDIT ENTRY, OF RS.1,53,469/ - . AS O N 1/2/2003, THE CLOSING BALANCE IS SHOWN AT RS. NIL. THE BANK HAS ALSO GIVEN THE BAN K STATEMENT OF THE ACCOUNT NUMBER 0660163320 00153 FOR THE PERIOD 1/1/2001 TO 22/1/2003 IN THE CASE OF RANJIT ELECTRIC PRIVATE LIMITED. AS PER THIS ACCOUNT THE MAXIMUM BALANCE OF RS. 10,37,060/ - HAS BEEN PAID BY THE PARTY ON 22/1/2003 WHEN THE CLOSING BALAN CE AS PER THE ACCOUNT IS SHOWN AT NIL. 3.4 FROM THE ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LOAN SANCTIONED TO AKAR ORGANISERS AND RANJIT ELECTRIC PRIVATE LIMITED BY I.T.A NO. 2076 /AHD/20 11 A.Y. 2003 - 04 PAGE NO ACIT VS. LATE SHRI JASRAJ MULTANMAL JAIN, THROUGH L/H. SHRI DINESH JASRAJ JAIN 5 THE AHMEDABAD MERCANTILE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD WAS RS. 205 LACS. AS PER THE BANK STAT EMENT OF AKAR ORGANISERS THE LOAN OF RS. 66 LACS APPROXIMATELY WAS OUTSTANDING IN THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 2002. AS ON 22/1/2003 THE DEBIT BALANCE IN T HE ACCOUNT IS RS. 55 LACS. THE DEBIT BALANCE IN THE ACCOUNT OF RANJIT ELECTRIC PRIVATE LIMITED AS ON 31/1/2 003 IS APPROXIMATELY RS. 1.50 LACS' AND THE DEBIT BALANCE AS ON 30/1/2003 IS RS. 11.43 LAKHS APPROXIMATELY. IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THESE TWO BANK STATEMENTS THAT THE DEBIT BALANCE IN THE ACCOUNT OF AKAR ORGANISERS AND RANJIT ELECTRIC PRIVATE LIMITED AS ON 22/ 1/2003 (THE AFFIDAVIT IS DATED 21/1/2003 ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE AO HAS PRESUMED THAT THE COST OF THE PLOT WAS NOT LESS THAN RS.65.LACS) IS RS. 55 LACS PLUS RS. 21.33 LACS= RS. 76 LACS APPROXIMATELY. SINCE THE LOAN WAS SANCTIONED BY THE BANK AGAINST THE MORTGAGED OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES INCLUDING THE PLOT BEARING SURVEY NUMBER 731, MAKARBA AND SINCE THE COUR T HAS ORDERED FOR THE RESTRAINT OF ITS TRANSFER BY SWADIAS AND THEY WANTED TO SELL THIS PROPERTY TO THE APPELLANT, IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE SWADIAS TO TR ANSFER TH E PLOT OF LAND, THEY HAD TO PAY THE BALANCE AMOUNT WHICH WAS COMPUTED BY THEM AT RS. 65 LACS. AF TER PAYMENT OF THIS AMOUNT, THE BANK AGREED TO REMOVE ITS ATTACHMENT ORDER AND ALLOW THE SWADIAS TO TRANSFER THE SAID PLOT OF LAND. THE AO HAS WRONGLY PRESUMED THAT RS. 65 LAKH WAS THE MORTGAGED VALUE OF THE PLOT OF LAND. IN OTHER WORDS THE AO HAS PRESUMED THAT RS. 65 BANK LOAN WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AGAINST THE MORT GAGED OF THE SAID PLOT OF LAND. IN MY OPINION, THE PRESUMPTION OF THE AO IS NO T CO RRECT PARTICULARLY WHEN THE LOAN SANCTIONED BY THE BANK TO THE CONCERNS OF SWA DIAS NAMELY AKAR ORGANISERS AND R ANJIT ELECTRIC PRIVATE LIMITED WAS RS. 205 LA CS AND NOT 65 LACS AS OBSERVED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE, I AM NOT CONVINCED WITH THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO THAT SWADIAS OBTAINED THE LOAN OF RS. 65 LACS AGAINST THE MORTGAGE OF THE SAID PLOT. 3.5 FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAS PURCHASED T HE SAID PLOT FROM SWADIAS AT RS.7,15,000/ - . THERE IS NO INDICATION IN THE SEIZED MAT ERIAL OR AS PER THE ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED BY THE AO WHICH SUGGEST THAT THE APPELLANT HAS PAID MORE AMOUNT THAN RS. 7,15,000/ - TO SWADIAS. FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING ADDITION UNDER SECTION 69B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, IT HAS TO BE PROVED FIRST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS. IF THE SOURCE OF SUCH UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS IS NOT EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEN ONLY, THE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 69B CAN BE MADE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER WHICH EVEN REMOTELY SAYS THAT THE APPELLANT I.T.A NO. 2076 /AHD/20 11 A.Y. 2003 - 04 PAGE NO ACIT VS. LATE SHRI JASRAJ MULTANMAL JAIN, THROUGH L/H. SHRI DINESH JASRAJ JAIN 6 HAS MADE INVESTMENT OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNT OF RS.7,15,000/ - . IT IS POSSIBLE THAT IN THE LAND TRANSACTIONS, THERE IS SOME ELEMENT OF ON MONEY OVER AND ABOVE THE CHEQUE AMOUNT. B UT THE AO CANNOT MAKE ADDITION OF ON MONEY IN ALL THE CASES OF LAND TRANSACTIONS ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT CASH IS ALSO PAID OVER AND ABOVE THE CHEQUE AMOUNT. FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION, THE AO HAS TO ESTABLISH THAT THERE HAS BEEN SOME EVIDENCE IN HIS POSSESSION WHICH INDICATES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENTS OVER AND ABOV E WHAT HAS BEEN SHOWN IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN MY VIEW, IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH EVIDENCE, NO ADD ITION UNDER SECTION 69B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT CAN BE MADE EVEN IN THAT CASE , IF SWADIAS HAD MORTGAGED THE LAND WITH THE BANK FOR RUPEES 65 LACS. 3. 6 FURTHE R, AS STATED BY THE AR, THE SAID PLOT OF LAND WAS PURCHASED BY SWADIAS IN DECEMBER 1997 FOR RS.3,50,000/ - WHICH WAS SOLD BY THEM TO THE APPELLANT IN JANUARY 2003 FOR RS. 7,15,000/ - . IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE CONTRARY TO THIS FACT, THERE CANNOT BE MORE THAN 100 PERCENT RETURN IN FIVE YEARS PARTICULARLY WHEN THE LAND PRICES IN AHMEDABAD WENT DOWN SUBSTANTIALLY AS A RESULT O F EARTHQUAKE IN 2000 - 2001. 7 . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED DISCUSSION, I HAVE NO HESITATION IN DELETING TH E ADDITION OF RS. 57,8 5,000/ - MADE BY THE AO A S UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT UNDER SE CTION 69B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 5 . AT THIS STAGE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO MAKE REFERENCE OF SECTION 69B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IT READS AS UNDER: - [AMOUNT OF INVESTMENTS, ETC., NOT FULLY DISC LOSED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 69B. WHERE IN ANY FINANCIAL YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS OR IS FOUND TO BE THE OWNER OF ANY BULLION, JEWELLARY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE, AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINDS THAT THE AMOUNT EXPENDED ON MAKING SUCH INVESTMEN TS OR IN ACQUIRING SUCH BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT RECORDED IN THIS BEHALF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE I.T.A NO. 2076 /AHD/20 11 A.Y. 2003 - 04 PAGE NO ACIT VS. LATE SHRI JASRAJ MULTANMAL JAIN, THROUGH L/H. SHRI DINESH JASRAJ JAIN 7 ASSESSEE FOR ANY SOURCE OF INCOME , AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT SUCH EXCESS AMOUNT OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT, IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SATISFACTORY, THE EXCESS AMOUNT MAY BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSSESSEE FOR SUCH FINANCIAL YEAR. 6. A PERUSAL OF THE SECTION WOULD REVEAL THAT SECTION 69B OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, AUTHORIZES THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DEEM UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT, IF HE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENTS OR OWNER OF ANY BULLION, JEWELLERY, OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE, AND THE AMOUNTS EXPENDED ON MAKING SUCH INVESTMENTS OR IN ACQUIRI NG SUCH BULLION JEWELL E RY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT RECORDED IN THIS BEHALF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD CALL FOR AN EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE ABOUT SOURCE OF INCOME FOR MAKING S UCH INVESTMENT, AND IF EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT , IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SATISFACTORY, THEN, THE EXCESS AMOUNT WOULD BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH FINANCIAL YEAR. THUS THE BASIS CONDITION FOR APPLYING UNDE R SECTION 69B IS THAT IT SH OULD BE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OR THE ASSESSEE FOUND TO BE OWNER OF THE MONEY, BULLION AND JEWELLERY. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO HAVE MADE INVESTMENT F OR PURCHASE OF PLOTS. THE NEXT QUESTION IS WHETHER THE ASSES S EE HAS MADE INVESTMENT EXCEEDING THE AMOUNT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS. THIS IS A CRUCIAL QUESTION, WHICH DEMONSTRATES FACTUAL POSITION. IT IS TO BE PROVED WITH THE HELP OF EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESEE, HE WAS M ADE INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PLOT EQUIVALENT TO THE ONE DISCLOSED IN THE SALE DEED. IT IS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO IS DISPUTING AND HARBO U RING A BELIEF THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS MADE INVESTMENTS, OVER AND ABOVE, THE AMOUNT SO I.T.A NO. 2076 /AHD/20 11 A.Y. 2003 - 04 PAGE NO ACIT VS. LATE SHRI JASRAJ MULTANMAL JAIN, THROUGH L/H. SHRI DINESH JASRAJ JAIN 8 DISCLOSED IN THE SALE DEED. H IS BELIEF IS BASED ON THE BASIS OF LOAN LIABILITY DISCHARGED BY THE VE NDOR. THIS TYPE OF EVIDENCE POS S E SSE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OF NOT SUCH A NATURE, WHICH EMPOWERS HIM TO INVOKE SECTION 69B OF THE ACT. 7 . THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASSUMED TH AT ASSESSEE HAS MADE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASING THE PROPERTY. HOWEVER, HE FAILED TO MAKE REFERENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE WHICH DEMONSTRATE THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. THE ASSUMPTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BASED ON THE FACT THA T VENDORS HAVE DISCHARGED THEIR LOA N LIABILITY MEANING THEREBY THEY WOULD HAVE NOT SOLD THE PROPERTY BELOW THE LIABILITY THEY HAVE DISCHARG ED. TO OUR MIND, THIS IS A FAR FETCHED INFERENCE . T HE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ANALYZED THE BANK STATEMENT AND INFER RED THAT LOAN TAKEN BY THE VENDO RS WAS OF RS. 205 LACS, THEY HAVE MORTGAGED OTHER PROPERTIES ALSO. THEY HAVE P AID OTHER AMOUNTS ALSO. THE POSITION OF THE LOAN IN THEIR LOAN ACCOUNT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN PARA 3.3 OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) S ORDER EXTRACTED (SUPRA). ACCORDING TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , THERE ARE MANY DEBIT ENTRIES AND ALSO CREDIT ENTRIES IN THIS ACCOUNT. THE MAXIMUM DEBIT BALANCE OF RS. 1,34, 0 6,165/ - IS APPEARING AS ON 30 TH JUNE, 1998. IN T HE ACCOUNT OF AKAR ORGANIZER, THE CREDIT BALANCE CAME FIRST TIME ON 31 ST MARCH, 2005 I.E. AFTER SALE OF THIS PLOT. THUS, THERE IS NO DIRECT CO - RELATION BETWEEN THE DISCHARGE OF LOAN LIABILITY VIS - - VIS SALE OF THIS PLOT. THE ONLY CONNECTION BETWEEN THE B ANK AND THIS PROPERTY WAS THAT IT WAS UNDER MORTGAGE. VENDO RS HAVE GOT IT RELEASED FROM THE BANK AND IT IS SOLD TO THE ASSESSEE. NO ADDITION AGAINST HIGHER CAPITAL GAIN HAS BEE N MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE VENDORS. IT IS FOR THE VENDO RS TO EXPLAIN THE SOUR CE OF WHAT AMOUNT WHICH THEY HAVE DISCHARGED TOWARDS THEIR LOAN LIABILITY. IT CANNOT I.T.A NO. 2076 /AHD/20 11 A.Y. 2003 - 04 PAGE NO ACIT VS. LATE SHRI JASRAJ MULTANMAL JAIN, THROUGH L/H. SHRI DINESH JASRAJ JAIN 9 BE PRESUMED THAT IT MUST BE TAKEN FROM THE ASSESSEE IN CASH OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNTS STATED IN THE SALE DEED. IN OUR OPINION, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS APPRECIATED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUGGEST THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL. IT IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 - 07 - 2015 SD/ - SD/ - ( G.D. AGRAWAL ) ( RAJPAL YADAV ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 17 /07 /2015 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,