The ITO, Ward-9(3), Surat V. Shri Maganbhai Gordhanbhai Bhalani, Surat

ITA 2589/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1277 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 24-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R P MAURYA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 11

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD - , , BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.2589/AHD/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) THE ITO WARD-9(3) SURAT / VS. SHRI MAGANBHAI GORDHANBHAI BHALANI NO.278, BAHUCHAR NAGAR- TENEMENT NO.5, KAMAL PARK SOCIETY LH ROAD, SURAT 395 006 $ ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AIIPB 4503 B ( $' / APPELLANT ) .. ( ()$' / RESPONDENT ) $' * / APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.P. MAURYA, SR.DR ()$' + * / RESPONDENT BY : -NONE- ,- + . / DATE OF HEARING 09/09/2015 /0 + . / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 24/09/2015 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-V, SURAT [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 28/06/2011 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2008-09. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - ITA NO.2589/AHD /2011 ITO VS. SHRI MAGANBHAI GORDHANBHAI BHALANI ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 2 - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 41,00,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON A/C. OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT U/S.6 9 OF THE ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE A.O . 3. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.C IT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. BE RESTORED. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE WAS REOPENED FOR ASSESSMENT AND THE RE-ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) R.W .S.147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 27/12/2010, THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO IN SHORT) MADE ADDITION OF RS.41 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAIN ED INVESTMENT. AGAINST THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PRE FERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUB MISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION, TH EREBY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), T HE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND IN THIS REVENUES APPE AL IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.41 LACS. 3.1. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSE SSEE. HOWEVER, WRITTEN SUBMISSION HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. ITA NO.2589/AHD /2011 ITO VS. SHRI MAGANBHAI GORDHANBHAI BHALANI ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 3 - 3.2. THE LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITIO N. HE SUBMITTED THAT ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED THE INVE STMENT IN HIS BOOK OF ACCOUNT. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.SR.DR, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW AS WELL AS THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE WRIT TEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- DEAR SIR, THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF EMBROIDE RY HAND WORK ON CLOTH. DURING THE YEAR CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN TOTAL RE CEIPTS OF RS. 11,99,895 AND DECLARED NET PROFIT OF RS. 1,59,723. THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROP ERTY (LAND ALONG WITH BUNGLOW) BUNGLOW NO. 2 IN I.T. NAGAR, SURAT IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. FOR RS. 12,35,000 FROM AMU LAKBHAI GATORBHAI PATEL. THE SALE DEED WAS REGISTERED ON 8 TH JULY, 2008. NO TRANSACTION WAS MADE IN THE A.Y. 2008-09 RELATING TO ACQUISITION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUS E PROPERTY. THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT MADE IN CASH TO THE SELLER ARE AS FOLLOWS: DATE AMOUNT (RS.) 06-08-2008 90,000 07-02-2009 300,000 09-02-2009 400,000 10-02-2009 300,000 28-02-2009 145,000 TOTAL 12,35,000 ITA NO.2589/AHD /2011 ITO VS. SHRI MAGANBHAI GORDHANBHAI BHALANI ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 4 - THE ASSESSEE HAD ACTUALLY PURCHASED ALREADY CONSTRU CTED RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPERTY AND NOT ONLY LAND. BUT, IT WAS DISCLOSED THAT ONLY LAND IS PURCHASED WHILE PROPERTY IS BEING CONSTRUCTED AFTER ACQUISITION OF LAND. THIS W AS AN ARRANGEMENT DONE SO AS TO GET HOUSING LOAN BECAUSE HOUSING LOAN WAS NOT AVAIL ABLE OTHERWISE. THIS CAN ALSO BE CROSS VERIFIED FROM THE SANCTION LETTER OF THE CENT RAL BANK OF INDIA FROM WHERE LOAN WAS TAKEN. !T IS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE LETTER TH AT LOAN IS GIVEN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE. !F CONSTRUCTION WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SHOWN THAN BANK LOAN WAS NOT AVAILABLE ON THE PROPERTY. ALSO, AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OF HOUSE PROPERTY THE VALUATION OF THE LAND AS PER STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY WAS RS. 1,103 PER SQ. MTRS. THE TOTAL AREA OF THE LAND PURCHASED WAS 78.04 SQ. MTRS. HENCE, TOTAL VALUE OF THE LAND AS PER STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE COMES TO RS. 86,078 (78.04*RS. 1,103) ONLY. FURTHER, AS OF NOW, THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY ( LAND ALONG WITH CONSTRUCTED RESIDENTIAL HOUSE) AS PER STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY IS RS. 13,500 PER SQ. MTRS. SO, TOTAL VALUE OF PROPERTY COMES TO RS. 10,53,540 (78. 04*RS. 13,500). SO, IN NO CASE VALUE OF PROPERTY CAN BE RS.41,00,000. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS. 41,00,000 IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND DEMANDED TAX THE REON, JUST ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE TRANSFEROR AMULAKHBHAI PATEL WITHOUT GIVING ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINING OF THE SAID DETAILS MENTIONED IN THE STATEMENT FROM THE TRANSFEROR SHRI AMULAKHBHAI PATEL. THIS IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE. MOREOVER, THE SELLER SHRI. AMULAKHBHAI MATHOLIYA HA S GIVEN THE STATEMENT TO THE AO UNDER COERCION. AND FOR THAT HE HAS GOT AFFIDAVIT D ONE AND ALSO NOTARISED IT. SHRI AMULAKHBHAI MATHOLIYA HAS GOT AFFIDAVIT PREPARED TW ICE, ONCE ON 21 ST FEB, 2011 AND SECOND TIME ON 11 TH NOVEMBER, 2013. COPY OF BOTH THE AFFIDAVIT IS ENCL OSED HEREWITH FOR YOUR READY REFERENCE. THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF THE DISCUSSION HELD ABOV E AND ON THE BASIS OF FACTS HELD UNDER, THE ADDITION MADE MAY BE DELETED. 1) THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE LAND ALONG WITH B UILDING FOR RS.12,35,000 IN F.Y. 2008-09 FROM SHRI AMULAKHBHAI PATEL AND THAT PROPER TY WAS PROPERLY DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF SHRI MAGANBHAI BHALANI (ASS ESSEE). 2) THE AGREEMENT WAS MADE ONLY OF LAND JUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING LOAN FROM THE BANK AND NOT FOR EVASION OF TAX. ITA NO.2589/AHD /2011 ITO VS. SHRI MAGANBHAI GORDHANBHAI BHALANI ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 5 - 3) THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS PER STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY AS ON DATE COMES TO RS. 13,500 SQ. MTRS. FOR LAND ALONG WITH CONSTRUCTION A ND TOTAL AREA IS 78.04 SQ.MTRS. HENCE, THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY (LAND ALONG WITH CONSTRUCTION) AS ON DATE COMES TO RS. 10,53,540. THEREFORE, THE VALUE TAKEN BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS. 41,00,000 IS EXTREMELY HIGH, IMPOSSIBLE, UNBELIEVAB LE, WITHOUT ANY LAWFUL BASIS AND UNJUSTIFIED. 4) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINING THE TRANSFEROR SHRI. AMULAKHBHAI PATEL FOR THE DETAILS GIVEN IN THE STATEMENT BY THE TRANSFEROR AND WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE. THIS IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. SO, ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE FACTS WE AGAIN MAKE A PLEA BEFORE YOUR GOODSELF THAT ADDITIONS PLEASE MAY BE DELETED. THANKING YOU, REGARDS, SD/- SHRI MAGANBHAI BHALANI DATE: 02/09/2015 PLACE: SURAT 4.1. THE AO HAD MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS THAT THE CONTRACTOR FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE GOT HOUSE CONSTRU CTED HAD NOT WORKED ANYWHERE ELSE AND SHRI AMULLAKHBHAI MATHOLIA THE VENDOR IN HIS OWN STATEMENTS HAD STATED THAT THE PLOT WAS PUR CHASED BY HIM FOR RS.54,628/- AS PER DOCUMENT REGISTERED ON 22/03/200 5. THEREAFTER, HE HAD MADE CONSTRUCTION ON THIS PLOT 2 YEARS AGO. AS PER THE AO, THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED FULLY CONSTRUCTED BUNGALOW F ROM THE VENDOR. THE AO, THEREFORE, CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS NO NEED FOR MAKING FURTHER CONSTRUCTION AND AS SUCH NO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY W AS CARRIED OUT. THE ITA NO.2589/AHD /2011 ITO VS. SHRI MAGANBHAI GORDHANBHAI BHALANI ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 6 - TRANSACTION WITH THE SO-CALLED CONTRACTOR TO BE NOT GENUINE. THE AO HAD GIVEN FINDINGS IN PARAS-5.10 TO 5.15 OF HIS ORDER WHICH READ AS UNDER:- 5.10. TO ASCERTAIN THE VERACITY, THIS OFFICE HAS C ALLED FOR THE COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT OF FOLLOWING- A. SHRI BRIJESHKUMAR JARSANIYA, WITH BANK OF BARODA, KHAND BAZAR, SURAT SB A/C.NO.07390100011624. THE BANK STATEMENT IS FOR THE PERIOD OF 09.02.2007 TO 13.03.2009 AND IT CLOSED ON 13.03.2009. ON 06.02.2009, IN HIS ACCOUNT A CHEQUE OF RS.10,00,000/- WAS DEPOSITED WHICH RESULTED IN CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.10 ,08,371/- BUT THE ACCOUNT WAS DEBITED BY WITHDRAWING CASH RS.3,00,000/- ON 07.02 .2009, RS.4,00,000/- BY SELF CHEQUE ON 09.02.2009 AND RS.3,00,000/- AGAIN BY SEL F CHEQUE ON 10.02.2009 WHICH RESULTED IN CREDIT BALANCE AT RS.4,871/- ONLY . THEREAFTER, WITHIN ONE MONTH I.E. ON 13.03.2009, THIS ACCOUNT HAS BEEN CLOSED. B. SHRI MAHANBHAI G.BHALANI (THE ASSESSEE) WITH CENTRA L BANK OF INDIA, GHOD DOD ROAD, SURAT LOAN ACCOUNT NO.3039060282. THE ACCOUNT WAS OPENED ONLY ON 03.02.2009 BY DEBITI NG RS.10,000/- PLUS RS.1240 PROCESSING CHARGES. IN THIS ACCOUNT THIRD PARTY CHEQUE IN THE NAME OF BRIJESHKUMAR BABULAL WAS DEBITED TO RS.10,00,000/-. THEREAFTER, FROM 03.02.2009 TO 06.10.2010, CREDIT ENTRY OF AVERAGE R S.13,000/- MADE EVERY MONTH AND DEBIT BALANCE APPEARING AS ON 06.10.2010 AT RS. 8,76,792/-. C. SHRI MAHANBHAI G.BHALANI (THE ASSESSEE) WITH CENTRA L BANK OF INDIA, GHOD DOD ROAD, SURAT SB ACCOUNT NO.3037746670. THE ACCOUNT WAS OPENED ON 15.01.2009 BY DEPOSITING CASH OF RS.7,000/-. THERE IS ONLY ONE DEBIT ENTRY OF RS.2,889/- ON 03.02.2009 RESULTED INTO CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.4191/-. THE CLOSING BALANCE WITH INTEREST ON 30 .11.2010 IS RS.4,466/- ONLY. 5.11. FROM THE PERUSAL OF ABOVE BANK STATEMENTS, IT IS PROVED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO THE AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTIO N OF A BUNGLOW ON 05.01.2009 WITH SHRI BRIJESHKUMAR BABULAL JARSANIYA, THE TRANS ACTIONS ARE NOT MATCHED WITH THE COPY OF BANK STATEMENTS. BESIDES, IT IS NOT MENTIO NED IN THE AGREEMENT AS TO WHETHER UPTO WHAT PERIOD THE CONSTRUCTION WILL BE COMPLETED . THE MODE OF PAYMENT AND OTHER CONDITIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN NOT CLEARLY MENTIONED. 5.12. THE AMOUNT OF HAVING LOAN TAKEN AT RS.10,00,0 00/- ON 03.02.2009 AT ALL NOT UTILIZED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BUNGLOW BECAUSE, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, ASSESSEE PURCHASED FULLY CONSTRUCTED BUNGLOW FROM SHRI AMULA KHBHAI GATORBHAI MATHOLIA ON 31.03.2008. ITA NO.2589/AHD /2011 ITO VS. SHRI MAGANBHAI GORDHANBHAI BHALANI ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 7 - 5.13. THE ASSESSEE COULD NTO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM BY FURNISHING COGENT EVIDENCES IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO STATE AS TRUE BY VAGUE REPLY. 5.14. NEITHER THE SELLER, SHRI AMULAKHBHAI GATORBHA I MATHOLIA NOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE CONSTRUCTED BUNGLOW IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 5.15. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS AND EVID ENCES/DOCUMENTS ETC. COLLECTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AS DISCUSSED ABO VE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECORDED THE INVESTMENT OF RS.41,00,000/- TOWARDS P URCHASE OF BUNGLOW IN HIS BOOK OF ACCOUNT AS WELL AS NOT DISCLOSED THE SAME IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FILED. BESIDES, THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION IS AT ALL NOT SATISFACTO RY. THEREFORE, THE VALUE OF THE INVESTMENT OF RS.41,00,000/- IS DEEMED TO BE THE IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE. AS SUCH, AN ADDITION OF RS.41,00,000/- HAS BEEN MADE IN THE TOT AL INCOME AS HIS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S.69 OF THE I.T.ACT. 4.2. THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVIN G AS UNDER:- DECISION 7. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, REMAN D REPORT, THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APP AND SANCTION LETTER FOR HOUS ING LOAN OF RS.10,00,000/- FROM CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APP THAT THERE WAS AN ARRAN GEMENT DONE SO AS TO GET HOUSING LOAN BECAUSE HOUSING LOAN WAS NOT AVAILABLE OTHERWISE. IF CONSTRUCTION WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SHOWN THEN BANK LO AN WOULD NOT AVAILABLE ON THE PROPERTY, APPEARS TO BE CORRECT. FURTHER, NO ADVERSE COMMENTS AGAINST THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APP HAVE BEEN MADE B Y THE A.O. IN HIS REMAND REPORT AS MENTIONED ABOVE. EVEN OTHERWISE FACTUALLY ALSO THE TRANSACTIONS RELA TES TO A.Y. 2009-10 NOT TO A.Y. 2008-09 WHICH IS IN QUESTION. HENCE, LOOKING INTO THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT O ADDITION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE AS THE SUBMI SSIONS OF THE APP IS SELF EXPLANATORY AND SUPPORTED WITH EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT MADE TO SHRI AMULAKHBHAI. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE IS HEREB Y DELETED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ITA NO.2589/AHD /2011 ITO VS. SHRI MAGANBHAI GORDHANBHAI BHALANI ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 8 - 4.3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND PERUSAL OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE CON SIDERED VIEW THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING IN HIS ORDER ON THE AOS OBSERVATIONS CONTAINED IN PARAS-5.10 TO 5.15 OF TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER. WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS GIVEN A FINDING IN PARA-5.1 2 OF HIS ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED FULLY CONSTRUCTED BUNGALOW F ROM SHRI AMULAKHBHAI GATORBHAI MATHOLIA ON 31/03/2008. HOWE VER, THE AO PROCEEDED TO MAKE ADDITION OF RS.41 LACS TREATING T HE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR(FY) RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. IF THE FINDING OF THE AO IS CORRECT THAT THE SALE-DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 31/03/2008 FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS.41 LACS, IN THAT EVENT, THE TRANSACTION WAS MADE DURING FY 2007-08 RELEVANT TO AY 2008-09. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT HE HAD OBTAINED BANK LOAN OF RS.10 LACS ON 03/02/2009. THE ASSESSMENT IS BASED SOLELY ON T HE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF THE VENDOR RECORDED BY THE AO. HOWEVER, CROS S-EXAMINATION OF THE SAID PERSON WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO. THE LD.CIT(A) PROCEEDED ON THE ASSUMPTION AS IF THE HOUSING LOAN OF RUPEES TEN LACS WAS OBTAINED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE. NO MATE RIAL HAS BEEN PLACED IN RESPECT OF THE HOUSING LOAN OBTAINED FROM CENTRA L BANK OF INDIA AND WHETHER THE AMOUNT WAS UTILIZED FOR RENOVATION OF T HE HOUSE OR CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING IS NOT CLEAR. THE ASSESS EE HAS ALSO NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL WITH REGARD TO PRESENTATION OF HOUSE C ONSTRUCTION PLAN TO THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND APPROVAL THEREOF TO SUBSTANTIAT E HIS CLAIM THAT HE HAD ITA NO.2589/AHD /2011 ITO VS. SHRI MAGANBHAI GORDHANBHAI BHALANI ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 9 - ONLY PURCHASED VACANT PIECE OF LAND. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD AFFIDAVITS OF THE VENDOR IN GUJARATI AND THE VERACI TY OF THE CONTENTS NEEDS VERIFICATION AT THE END OF THE AO. UNDER THESE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE LD.CIT(A) AND HEREBY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER AND RESTORE THE APPEAL TO THE FILE OF AO FOR DE NOVO ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO PL ACE ALL THE EVIDENCES RELATING TO PURCHASE AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION TO AO WHO WOULD MAKE FURTHER INQUIRIES IF SO NEEDED. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE AO WOULD GRANT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNI TY TO THE ASSESSEE AND COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT PREFERABLY WITHIN SIX MONTH S FROM THE RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER. THUS, GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON THURSDAY, THE 24 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. ( ) ( ) ( MANISH BORAD ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 24/ 09 /2015 4..., ,.../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO.2589/AHD /2011 ITO VS. SHRI MAGANBHAI GORDHANBHAI BHALANI ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 10 - !'#$%&' &$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. $' / THE APPELLANT 2. ()$' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 56 7 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 7 ( ) / THE CIT(A)-V, SURAT 5. 8,9 (56 , . 560 , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 9;< =- / GUARD FILE. ! / BY ORDER, )8 ( //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 21.9.2015 (DICTATION-PAD 5 + PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER ..21.9.15 3. OTHER MEMBER... 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.24.9.15 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 24.9.15 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER