The DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Soham Builders, Ahmedabad

ITA 2122/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9035 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-09-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 03-07-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: GAURAV NAHTA CA SHRI S
• Keywords: Loose papers; Document seized; Documents seized; Set aside
• Section: 153A; 64

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.C.AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF HEARING : 02/09/09 DRAFTED ON: 09/09 /09 APPEAL(S) BY SL. NOS. ITA NOS ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1. 2122/AHD/2009 2007-08 THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) M/S.SOHAM BUILDERS 404/E, SAHAJANAND SHOPPING CENTRE OPP.SWAMINARAYAN MANDIR SHAHIBAUG AHMEDABAD PAN AAWFS 6518 D 2. 2121/AHD/2009 2006-07 -DO- M/S.SOHAM CORPORATION, 404/E, SAHAJANAND SH.CEN. AHMEDABAD PAN AAXFS 8914 J 3. 2136/AHD/2009 2006-07 -DO- M/S.SOHAM CONSTRUCTION, 404/E, SAHAJANAND SH.CEN. AHMEDABAD PAN AAXFS 8915 K ASSESSEE BY : SHRI GAURAV NAHTA, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI S.S. PANWAR, CIT-DR O R D E R PER D.C.AGRAWAL , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- THESE ARE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINS T THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-III, AHMEDABAD DATED 3 0/03/2009 ITA NOS.2122, 2121 & 2136/AHD/2009 DCIT VS. SOHAM CONSTRUCTION AHMEDABAD ASST.YEARS 2007-08, 2006-07 & 200-07 (RESPECTIVELY) - 2 - PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08, 2006-07 & 2006 -07 RESPECTIVELY. SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED ARE SAME A ND THE THREE ASSESSEES BELONGED TO THE SAME GROUP, THEY ARE DISP OSED OF TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE COMMON GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER:- (FROM REVENUES APPEAL, ITA NO.2122/AHD/2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08) (I) THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN DELET ING ADDITION OF RS.2,00,39,671/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION MADE OF RS.2,48,96,582/- (IN THE CASE OF SOHAM BUILDERS), ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT FROM UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT OF EXTRA WORK DO NE BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM. (II) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. (III) IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF TH E LD. CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE R ESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A FIRM ENGAGED IN BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS AND RESIDENTIAL BUNGALOWS. THERE WAS A SEARCH/SURV EY U/S.132/133A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AT DIFFERENT PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. IN ITA NOS.2122, 2121 & 2136/AHD/2009 DCIT VS. SOHAM CONSTRUCTION AHMEDABAD ASST.YEARS 2007-08, 2006-07 & 200-07 (RESPECTIVELY) - 3 - CONSEQUENCE THERETO, A NOTICE SECTION 153A WAS ISS UED. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON AN INCOME OF RS.1,42,91,910/ -. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS MARKED AS AN NEXURE A-19 AT PAGE NO.8; ANNEXURE A-16 AT PAGE NOS.4 & 24 AND A NNEXURE A-39 AT PAGE NOS.2, 13, 54, 55, 56, 66, 67, 68 &69. T HE ENTRIES RECORDED IN THESE DOCUMENTS RELATED TO BUNGALOW NOS.1 TO 12, 12-A, 14, 17 & 18 OF DEV PREET BUNGALOWS AND PLOT NO.20 OF DEV PRE ET COMPLEX IN TWO SCHEMES DEVELOPED BY THE ASSESSEE. FROM THESE SCHEMES ASSESSEE HAD MADE COLLECTION OF RS.2,78,96,582/- WH ICH WERE NOT ACCOUNTED FOR. ON THESE COLLECTIONS AND PROFIT EA RNED FROM THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION CARRIED OUT IN THESE SCHEM ES, THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.30 LACS WHICH W ORKED OUT AT 10.75% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS OF RS.2,78,96,582/-. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE ABOVE O FFER ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PROVIDE ANY EVIDEN CE FOR UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES INCURRED FOR DOING WORK IN THE SE SCHEMES. NO ITA NOS.2122, 2121 & 2136/AHD/2009 DCIT VS. SOHAM CONSTRUCTION AHMEDABAD ASST.YEARS 2007-08, 2006-07 & 200-07 (RESPECTIVELY) - 4 - EVIDENCE WAS ALSO FOUND IN THE SEARCH RELATING TO T HESE EXPENSES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALSO, NO EVIDENCE OF SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS FURNISHED. BUT THE ASSESSEE O FFERED HIMSELF TO BE TAXED ON NET PROFIT BASIS AND HAD RELIED ON FOLL OWING JUDGEMENTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTIONS:- SL.NO(S) IN THE CASE OF.. REPORTED IN . 1. ABHISHEK CORPORATION 63 TTJ 651 2. GURUBHACHANSINH JUNEJA 216 ITR 99 3. PRESIDENT INDUSTRIES 258 ITR 654 4. KISHORE MOHANLAL TELI 64 TTJ 543 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THIS OFFER AND TAXED ENTIRE SUM OF RS.2,48,96,582/- AS ADDITIONAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. AGAINST THIS, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HELD THAT IF ENTIRE RECEIPT IS TREATED AS INCOME, THEN IT WILL RESULT I N ABNORMAL HIGH PROFIT OF 59.7% WHICH IS IN EXCESS OF THE ACCEPTED PROFIT IN THIS LINE OF PROFIT. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THIRD MEMBER, ITAT IN THE CASE OF WALL STREET CONSTRUCTI ON LTD., 75 TTJ (MUMBAI) (THIRD MEMBER) 653. THEREAFTER, HE APPLIE D NET PROFIT ON TOTAL WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED IN THE ITA NOS.2122, 2121 & 2136/AHD/2009 DCIT VS. SOHAM CONSTRUCTION AHMEDABAD ASST.YEARS 2007-08, 2006-07 & 200-07 (RESPECTIVELY) - 5 - BOOKS FOR EARLIER YEARS. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) , WHILE GIVING RELIEF, OBSERVED AS UNDER:- THE FACTS IN CASE OF THE APPELLANT ARE APPARENTLY SIMILAR. THUS, ON A HOLISTIC CONSIDERATION, IT WOULD BE APPR OPRIATE TO ESTIMATE THE PROFITS ON THE EXTRA WORK DONE IN RESP ECT OF THE RESIDENTIAL BUNGALOWS AND COMMERCIAL SHOPS @ 25% ON EXTRA WORK OF RS.1,90,68,926 I.E. RS.47,67,231/- AND @ 35 % ON THE EXTRA WORK OF 88,27,656/- I.E. RS.30,89,680/- I.E. IN LINE WITH THE BOOK RESULTS ACCEPTED BY THE AO . THUS THE TOT AL ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IS RESTRICTED TO RS.78,56,911/- (RS.47,67,231/- + RS.30,89,680/-). SINCE THE DISC LOSURE OF RS.30 LAKHS HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE A.O; THE NET SUSTAINED ADDITION WOULD BE RS.48,56,911/- AND THE BALANCE IS DELETED. THE RELATED GROUND OF APPEAL IS ADJUDICA TED ACCORDINGLY. 6. AGAINST THIS, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL(S) BEFORE US BY RAISING FOLLOWING COMMON GROUNDS:- (I) THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN DELET ING ADDITION(S) OF RS.2,00,39,671/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDI TION MADE OF RS.2,48,96,582/- (IN THE CASE OF SOHAM BUILDERS ), AND RS.20,54,695/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION MADE OF RS.21, 23,700/- (IN THE CASE OF SOHAM CORPORATION ) ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT FROM UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT OF EXTRA WORK DONE BY THE ASSES SEE FIRM AND ADDITION OF RS.8,25,000/- (IN THE CASE OF SOHAM ITA NOS.2122, 2121 & 2136/AHD/2009 DCIT VS. SOHAM CONSTRUCTION AHMEDABAD ASST.YEARS 2007-08, 2006-07 & 200-07 (RESPECTIVELY) - 6 - CONSTRUCTION ) ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT FOR ALLOTMENT OF BUNGLOW NO.15 IN DEVSHRUSHTI-1 SCHEME OF THE ASS ESSEE- FIRM. (II) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. (III) IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF TH E LD. CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE R ESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 7. THE DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODU CED ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT IT HAS I NCURRED EXPENDITURE ON CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ON ABOVE REFERRED BUNGAL OWS. SECONDLY AND IN THE ALTERNATIVELY, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME INVESTMENTS OUTSIDE THE BOOKS FOR FLOATING THE SE SCHEMES AND CARRYING OUT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES BEFORE THE ASS ESSEE RECEIVES ANY DEPOSITS FROM THE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS. 8. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASS ESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE DO ES NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, YET ENTIRE RECEIPTS CANNOT BE HIS INCOM E. IT IS A FACT THAT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES CANNOT BE CARRIED OUT WITHO UT PURCHASE OF CEMENT, STEEL, BRICKS AND ENGAGING LABOUR. THE ASS ESSEE HAS BEEN ITA NOS.2122, 2121 & 2136/AHD/2009 DCIT VS. SOHAM CONSTRUCTION AHMEDABAD ASST.YEARS 2007-08, 2006-07 & 200-07 (RESPECTIVELY) - 7 - CARRYING OUT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, LIKE, IN OTHE R SCHEMES, WHICH HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS AND INCOME THEREFRO M HAS BEEN DECLARED IN THE RETURN. IT WILL BE UNFAIR TO PRES UME THAT BUNGALOWS COULD BE CONSTRUCTED AND SOLD TO THE RESPECTIVE DEP OSITORS WITHOUT INCURRING ANY EXPENDITURE ON CONSTRUCTION. REGARDI NG INITIAL INVESTMENT, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE I S CARRYING OUT GROUP ACTIVITIES AND FINANCES ARE ARRANGED WITHIN T HE GROUP ITSELF. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY DECLARED HIGH NET PROFIT. IT SHOULD COVER THE INITIAL INVESTMENT ALSO. FURTHER, THE LEARNED AUTH ORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS STARTED MAKING INVESTMENT IN THE SCHEME ONLY AFTER RECEIVIN G DEPOSITS FROM THE BUYERS. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED TH E ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THERE IS NO CASE FOR MAKING FURTH ER ADDITION TO WHAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS CONFIRMED. THE REASON S ARE THAT ENTIRE COLLECTION FROM THE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS CANN OT BE TREATED AS INCOME AS THE ASSESSEE HAS TO CONSTRUCT PROPERTIES IN RETURN OF ITA NOS.2122, 2121 & 2136/AHD/2009 DCIT VS. SOHAM CONSTRUCTION AHMEDABAD ASST.YEARS 2007-08, 2006-07 & 200-07 (RESPECTIVELY) - 8 - MONEY RECEIVED FORM THE DEPOSITORS. SO, IN CONS TRUCTING THESE PROPERTIES ASSESSEE HAS TO INCUR EXPENDITURE WHICH CANNOT BE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SHOWING IN THE REG ULAR BOOKS IN RESPECT OF OTHER DECLARED PROJECTS. THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THERE WOULD SOME INIT IAL INVESTMENT FORM THE POCKET OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ASSESSEE REC EIVES DEPOSITS FROM THE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS. THIS COULD BE SHOWN BY EXAMINING THE SCHEME IN DETAIL. IF ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED ANY MOD EL FLAT OR BUNGALOW ON THE BASIS OF WHICH A SCHEME HAS BEEN ANNOUNCED, IT COULD BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE INVESTED UNACCOUNTED M ONEY IN CONSTRUCTION OF MODEL FLAT/BUNGALOW AND ON THE BAS IS OF SUCH MODEL BUNGALOW/FLAT, ASSESSEE(S) HAVE STARTED RECEIVING D EPOSITS FROM PROSPECTIVE BUYERS IN THE SCHEME. 10. SINCE THERE IS NO MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PRESUME THAT THERE W AS ANY INITIAL INVESTMENT IN THE SCHEME. EVEN IF, THERE WAS, GIV ING THE MARGIN TO THE PROFIT RATE OF 25% AND 35% SUSTAINED BY THE L EARNED ITA NOS.2122, 2121 & 2136/AHD/2009 DCIT VS. SOHAM CONSTRUCTION AHMEDABAD ASST.YEARS 2007-08, 2006-07 & 200-07 (RESPECTIVELY) - 9 - CIT(APPEALS), THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING HAS TO BE ALLOWED, WHICH WOULD COVER INITIAL INVESTMENT ALSO. 11. AS A RESULT, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNE D CIT(APPEALS) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF SOHAM BUILDERS. ITA NO.2121/AHD/2009 - FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 (IN THE CASE OF SOHAM BUILDERS AHMEDABAD) 12. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUND IN ITS APPEAL:- (I) THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN DELET ING ADDITION OF RS.20,54,695/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION MADE OF RS .21,23,700/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED PROFIT FROM EXTRA WORK DO NE BY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM. 13. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE SAME AS IN THE CASE OF SOHAM BUILDERS(SUPRA). THE UNDISCLOSED RECEIPT IN THIS CASE WAS WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOC UMENTS AT RS.21,23,700/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED AN ADDITI ONAL INCOME OF RS.7,50,000/- ON THE COLLECTION OF RS.21,73,700/-, AFTER GIVING MARGIN ITA NOS.2122, 2121 & 2136/AHD/2009 DCIT VS. SOHAM CONSTRUCTION AHMEDABAD ASST.YEARS 2007-08, 2006-07 & 200-07 (RESPECTIVELY) - 10 - TO THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNE D CIT(APPEALS) SUSTAINED A PROFIT RATE OF 28.5% AS UNDER AND, THUS , SUSTAINED ADDITION OF RS.69,005/- ONLY, BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- THE FACTS IN CASE OF THE APPELLANT ARE APPARENTLY SIMILAR. THUS, ON A HOLISTIC CONSIDERATION, IT WOULD BE APPR OPRIATE TO ESTIMATE THE PROFITS ON THE EXTRA WORK DONE IN RESP ECT OF THE RESIDENTIAL BUNGALOWS @ 28.5% ON EXTRA WORK OF RS.28,73,700/- I.E. RS.8,19,005/- I.E. IN LINE WITH THE BOOK RESULTS ACCEPTED BY THE AO IN CASE OF SOHAM BUILDE RS. THUS THE TOTAL ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IS RESTRICTED T O RS.8,19,005/-. SINCE THE DISCLOSURE OF RS.7.5 LAKH S HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE A.O.; THE NET SUSTAINED ADDI TION WOULD BE RS.69,005/- AND THE BALANCE IS DELETED. THE DEL ETED GROUND OF APPEAL IS ADJUDICATED ACCORDINGLY. 14. ON THE BASIS OF ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES AND O UR REASONS IN THE CASE OF SOHAM BUILDERS(SUPRA), WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE RE VENUE. ITA NO.2136/AHD/2009 - FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 (IN THE CASE OF SOHAM CONSTRUCTION AHMEDABAD) 15. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUND IN ITS APPEAL:- ITA NOS.2122, 2121 & 2136/AHD/2009 DCIT VS. SOHAM CONSTRUCTION AHMEDABAD ASST.YEARS 2007-08, 2006-07 & 200-07 (RESPECTIVELY) - 11 - (I) THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN DELET ING ADDITION OF RS.8,25,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED RECEIP T FOR ALLOTMENT OF BUNGALOW NO.15 IN DEVSHRUSHTI-1 SCHEME OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM 16. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE REPORTED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE AS UNDER:- 16.1 DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE RESIDE NCE OF SHRI NARENDRA J.PATEL, PARTNER OF ASSESSEE FIRM, ON 10/5/2006, SO ME LOOSE PAPERS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. PAGE NO.18 OF THE FILE MAR KED A/1 IS ALLOTMENT LETTER DATED 5/5/2005 IN THE NAME OF SHR NARENDRA J.PATEL. AS PER THIS ALLOTMENT LETTER, BUNGALOW NO.15 IN DEV SHRUSHTI-I SCHEME OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS BEEN ALLOTTED TO SH RI NARENDRA J.PATEL AT A PRICE OF RS.8,25,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR THIS RECEIPT IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT HAS BEEN CONTE NDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ALLOTMENT LETTER HAS BEEN ISSUED TO S HRI NARENDRA J.PATEL, PARTNER, ONLY FOR ADDRESS PURPOSES FOR TAKING DELIV ERY OF HIS NEW INNOVA CAR, AND NO PAYMENT HAS BEEN ACTUALLY RECEIV ED FROM HIM. IN FACT, BUNGALOW HAS BEEN ALLOTTED TO SOME OTHER PER SON. ASSESSEES CONTENTION WAS ACCEPTED FOR THE REASON THAT THE A LLOTMENT LETTER HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THE LETTER HEAD OF THE CO.OP.HOUSING SOCIETY. THE AMOUNT OF RS.8,25,000/- IS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE ALLOTMENT LETTER. THUS, ON THE FACE OF THIS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, ASS ESSEES STATEMENT WAS REJECTED. 16.2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY ADDED A S UM OF RS.82,5000/- IN THE TOTAL INCOME. 17. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION O N THE GROUND THAT NO PAYMENT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN RECEIVED FROM SHR I NARENDRA J.PATEL AND THIS BUNGALOW HAS BEEN ALLOTTED TO SOME OTHER PERSON. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO MADE ADDITION ON SIM ILAR AMOUNT IN ITA NOS.2122, 2121 & 2136/AHD/2009 DCIT VS. SOHAM CONSTRUCTION AHMEDABAD ASST.YEARS 2007-08, 2006-07 & 200-07 (RESPECTIVELY) - 12 - THE CASE OF SHRI NARENDRA PATEL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S.153A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE L EARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS HELD THAT ALLOTMENT LETTER WAS ISS UED BY THE SOCIETY WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING THE ADDRESS TO SHRI NARENDRA PATEL FOR ENABLING HIM TO TAKE DELIVERY OF A NEW CAR. 18. THE DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT NO E VIDENCE HAS BEEN PROVIDED AS TO WHOM THIS BUNGALOW NO.15 IN D EV SHRUSHTI-I SCHEME HAS BEEN ALLOTTED ACTUALLY AND WHETHER MONEY FROM THAT PERSON HAVE BEEN RECEIVED SO AS TO PROVE THAT SUBSE QUENT ISSUANCE OF ALLOTMENT LETTER TO SHRI NARENDRA J. PATEL, THE PAR TNER OF THE FIRM WAS ONLY ON PRETENCE. 19. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED TH E ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. WE RESTORE THIS MATTER TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIV E AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW AS TO WHOM BUNGALOW NO.15 IN D EV SHRUSHTI-I SCHEME WAS ACTUALLY ALLOTTED AND WHEN AND HOW THE P AYMENTS WERE RECEIVED FROM THAT ALLOTTEE AND WHETHER THE BUNGAL OW CONTINUED TO BE IN THE NAME OF THAT ALLOTTEE ONLY EVEN AT THE T IME WHEN PRETENDING ITA NOS.2122, 2121 & 2136/AHD/2009 DCIT VS. SOHAM CONSTRUCTION AHMEDABAD ASST.YEARS 2007-08, 2006-07 & 200-07 (RESPECTIVELY) - 13 - LETTER WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF SHRI NARENDRA PATE L AND, IN FACT, THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP DURING THIS PERIOD. 20. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, I.E. ITA NO.2136/AHD/2009 IS TREATED AS ALLOWED BUT FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES. 21. AS A RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN I TA NO.2122 & 2121/AHD/2009 ARE DISMISSED, WHEREAS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.2136/AHD/2009 IS TREATED AS ALLOWED BUT F OR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER SIGNED, DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 18/09/2009. SD/- SD/- ( MAHAVIR SINGH ) ( D.C.AGRAWAL ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 18/09/2009 T.C. NAIR COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED. 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-I II, AHMEDABAD 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH. 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR), ITAT, AHMEDABAD PRONOUNCED BY US ON 18/09/2009 SD/- SD/- (T.K.SHARMA) (D.C.AGR AWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER