DCIT, Jaipur V. GRASS FIELD FARMA & RESORTS P LTD., Jaipur

ITA 406/JPR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 40623114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAGHUBIR SINGH DAGUR
• Keywords: Loose papers
• Section: 133A

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH B JAIPUR (BEFORE SHRI R.K.GUPTA AND SHRI N.L.KALRA) ITA NO. 406/ JP/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 PAN: AACCG 3874 D D.C.I.T. CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR V M/S GRASS FIELD FARM S AND RESORTS (P) LTD. K-107, CLUB LANE, JANPPATH, SHYAM NAGGAR, JAIPUR (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI RAGHUBIR SINGH DAGUR ASSESSEE BY: SHRI P.C. PARWAL DATE OF HEARING: 10-10-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14 -10-2011 ORDER PER N.L. KALRA, AM:- THE REVENUE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)- I, JAIPUR DATED 08-02-2011. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD. C.I.T(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 39,23,278/- MADE BY THE AO U/S 69B OF THE ACT AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTM ENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND. 2. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS A PROJECT OF DEVELOPING FARM HOUSES SCHEME ON NH8 NEAR VILLAGE MEHALA DISTT JAIPUR. S URVEY U/S 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE REGISTERED OFFICE, CORPORA TE OFFICE AND SITE OFFICE OF THE COMPANY. CERTAIN INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WE RE FOUND AND THESE 2 WERE IMPOUNDED U/S 133A(3) OF THE ACT. AS A RESULT OF SURVEY, UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURE LAND AND OTHE R DISCREPANCIES WERE NOTICED AND ADMITTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY . LOOSE PAPERS CONTAINED THE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF AGR ICULTURE LAND AND THE ACTUAL PURCHASE CONSIDERATION PAID THEREON. SOME COPIES OF REGISTRIES CONTAINED ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION PAID AND THE CONSIDERATIO N SHOWN IN THE SALE DEED. STATEMENT OF SOME PARTIES WERE RECORDED. THESE STA TEMENTS REVEALED THAT THE COMPANY HAS PURCHASED AGRICULTURE LAND AT HIGHER VA LUE AND SALE DEEDS HAVE BEEN EXECUTED AT LESSER VALUE. THE AO IN HIS ORDE R HAS REFERRED TO THE STATEMENT OF SHRI NAGESH BHASKAR AND SHJRI RAM KISH OR JAT. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, STATEMENT OF SHRI SUNIL BANSAL, DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY WAS RECORDED. INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND FROM T HE SITE OFFICE AND OTHER BUSINESS PLACES WERE CONFRONTED TO HIM. HE WAS ALSO CONFRONTED WITH THE STATEMENT OF SHRI RAM KISHORE JAT AND SHRI NAGESH B HASKAR. THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY ADMITTED THE FACT THAT THE COMPANY H AS MADE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURE LAND WHEREIN REAL TRANSACTION WAS RECORDED AT A LESSER VALUE IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THIS FACT WAS ADMITTED BY OTHER DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY NAMELY S HRI ATMA RAM GUPTA AND SHRI VIMAL SINGHVI. THE DIRECTOR SURRENDERED R S. 5,57,72,494/- FOR 3 FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED IN VESTMENT TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF LAND. 3. THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 7.12.2009 VIDE WHICH THE ASSESSE E WAS INTIMATED OF THE FACTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AND WAS ALS O INTIMATED THAT THE COMPANY ADMITTED THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT OF RS. 55772494/- WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 69B OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE, THE ASSESSEE FIELD THE REPLY VIDE LETTER DATED 15.12.20 09. THE ASSESSEE INTIMATED THAT THERE WAS A TOTALING MISTAKE OF RS. 1.00 CROR ES IN THE STATEMENT OF AMOUNT SURRENDERED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND THE SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE RECTIFIED. THE AO AFTER THE EXAMINING THE DETAI LS CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SURRENDERED AMOUNT FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2006 -07 WILL COME TO RS. 45772494/-. ACCORDING TO THE AO THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE MENTIONED TOTALING MISTAKE TO THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES WITHI N THE REASONABLE TIME. THE AO, THEREFORE, ISSUED ANOTHER SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 15.12.2009 TO THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE ASSESSEE TOOK SO LONG TIME I N BRINGING THE ERROR OF THE TOTALING MISTAKE TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEPARTMENT . THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REPLY VIDE LETTER DATED 18.12.2009. ACCORDING TO T HE ASSESSEE, THE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLL OWING DECISIONS:- 4 PULLLANGODE RUBBVER PRODUCE CO. LTD. V. STATE OF KE RALA , 91 ITR 18 (S.C) AISHWARYA K. RAI V. DCIT, 104 ITD 166 (MUM)(TM) THE AO HAS REPRODUCED CERTAIN EXTRACTS OF THE STATE MENTS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL ASPECT, THE AO ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SURRENDER VALUE SHOULD BE TAKEN AT RS. 45772494/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO ON EXAMINATION OF IN CRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IMPOUNDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY NOTICED THAT ON THE FOLLOWING REGISTRIES THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED PER BIGHA PURC HASE VALUE WHICH WAS MORE THAN THE PURCHASE VALUE SHOWN IN THE BOOKS. T HE DETAIL OF THE REGISTRY ARE AS UNDER:- REGISTRY NO. DETAIL OF LAND AND AREA REGISTERED VALUE PER BEEGHA ACTUAL PURCHASE VALUE DISCLOSED DURING THE SURVEY ON INDIVIDUAL REGISTRY TOTAL PURCHAE VALUE AS PER BEEGHA SURRENDER ON INDIVIDUAL REGISTRY PURCHAE VALUE PAID OVER REGISTERED VALUE AS ACCEPTED IN PER BEEGHA DISCLOSURE IN INDIVIDUAL REGISTRIES 1 2 3 4 4 (6) I.E. (5)-(3) 2006000787 (A) KHASRA NO. 1/1 MIN 3 5 BEEGHA (B) KHASRA NO. 6/5 (C) 6 BEEGHA (E) KHASRA NO. 19/1 15 RS. 24,00,000/- RS. 2,95,605/- 26 BEEGHA 1 BISWA X 295605=77,00,510/- RS. 53,00,510/- 5 BEEGHA TOTAL 26 BEEGHA 1 BISWA RS. 20,00,000 2006001614 (A) KHASRA NO. 429/4 5 BEEGHA 10 BISWAS (B KHASRA NO. 432/1 4 BEEGHA 13 BISWA TOTAL 3 BISWA RS. 20,00,000 RS. 18,02,955/- 10 BEEGHA 3 BISWAS X 18,02,955/- = 1,82,99,993/- RS. 1,62,99,993/- IN RESPECT OF REGISTRY NUMBERS 2006000787, THE PURC HASE VALUE PAID OVER AND ABOVE THE CONSIDERATION SHOWN IN THE DEED IS RS. 53,00,510/- WHILE IN ANNEXURE PREPARED BY DIRECTOR, EXCESS CONSIDERAT ION IS RS. 27,15,249/-. IN RESPECT OF OTHER REGISTRY NO. 2006001614, THESE AMOUNTS ARE OF RS. 1,62,99,993/- AND RS. 40,60,976/-. THE AO, THEREFOR E INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN LESS SURRENDER OF RS. 1,48,24,27 8/- IN HIS SURRENDERED STATEMENT. THE AO ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 21.12.2009 AND IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REPLY. ME ANWHILE THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE ADDL CIT, JAIPUR U/S 144A OF THE ACT. THE ADDL CIT ISSUED DIRECTIONS U/S 144A. THESE DIRECTIONS A RE AS UNDER:- I HAVE EXAMINED THE RECORDS INCLUDING THE ANNEXUR E A-1. THE SURRENDER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS IN RESPEC T OF 121 SALE DEEDS WHEREAS THE IMPOUNDED MATERIAL PERTAINS TO ON LY 5 SALE DEEDS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. I HAVE ALSO CONS IDERED THE FACT THAT DESPITE THERE BEING NO EVIDENCE EXCEPT ACCEPTANCE O F ON-MONEY ON UNDISCLOSED INCOME ARISING OUT OF ON MONEY PAYMENT TO SELLERS. HAVING CONSIDERED ALL THESE AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT AS RECORDED AGAINST THESE ALLEGED SELLERS VIZ. SHRI RA J KISHORE GOTWAL 6 AND SHRI GOPAL HAVE BEEN SHOWN AS AN ADJUSTMENT ENT RY BY DEBITING THE LAND ACCOUNT ON 28.2.2008 I.E. THE DATE AFTER T HE SURVEY THE AO IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO GIVE CREDIT FOR RS. 1,09,01,000/ - AS THESE HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS ADVANCE AGAINST T HESE TWO SELLERS IN CASE ADDITION IS MADE ON THE BASIS OF IMPOUNDED MAT ERIAL PERTAINING TO THE COST OF LAND SHOWN ON THE IMPOUNDED SALE DEEDS. SINCE THE ADJUSTMENT ENTRY HAD ALREADY BEEN PASSED AND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, THE DIRECTORS HAD INCLUDED THESE AMOUNTS AS HAVING BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE AO CANN OT ACCEPTED THE ANNEXURE A-1 IN PART AND REJECT THE PART WHICH IS F AVORABLE TO THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. THEREFORE IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, CREDIT FOR AMOUNT SHOWN AS ADVANCES THESE TWO SELLERS SHOULD BE GIVEN AS AGAIN ST THE PROPOSED AMOUNT OF REGISTERED SALE DEED. THE OTHER POINT OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT A TOTALING ERROR IS THERE IN THE ANNEXURE A-1. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE ARI THMETICAL TOTAL OF ANNEXURE A-1, PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND RECTIFY MISTAKE, IF ANY. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT ON TH E ABOVE MENTIONED ISSUES ACCORDINGLY. 4 LOOKING TO THE DIRECTIONS U/S 144A OF THE ACT, TH E AO GAVE CREDIT OF RS. 1,09,01,000 AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 392327 8/-. 5 BEFORE THE LD. C.I.T. (A) IT WAS STATED THAT NOTI NG ON THE REGISTRIES WERE MADE BY THE ACCOUNTANT DURING THE COURSE OF SU RVEY IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING DISCLOSURE BY THE DIRECTORS. THE WRITTEN SU BMISSIONS WERE FORWARDED TO THE AO BY THE CIT(A) AND THE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT REITERATED AS WHAT WAS STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER. REGARDING THE ISSUE OF QUESTIONING BY THE SURVEY TEAM, IT WAS STATED BY TH E AO THAT IMPOUNDED MATERIAL CAN BE EXAMINED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS, THE AO HAS 7 GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT SHRI MAHESH GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT HAS MADE THE ENTRY ON THE REGISTRY. PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THA T THE NOTING ON PHOTOCOPY OF REGISTRY IS UN-NATURAL IS AN AFTER THOUGHT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY PREPARE D A STATEMENT INDICATING THE DETAILS OF VARIOUS LANDS PURCHASED, SALE CONSID ERATION AS PER SALE DEED, THE AMOUNT SHOWN IN THE BOOKS AS ADVANCE AGAINST TH ESE LANDS OVER AND ABOVE THE SALE CONSIDERATION AND THE AMOUNT PAID OU T OF THE BOOKS. THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO BUY PEACE, OFFERED RS. 14.28 C RORES FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 TO 2008-09. DURING SURVEY, THE SURVEY TEAM REQUIRED SHRI MAHESH GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT OF THE COMPANY TO MENTION THE RAT E OF LAND PER BIGHA ON THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGISTRY. ON TWO REGISTRIES S UCH RATES WERE MENTIONED BY HIM UNDER SIGNATURE BUT THE PRACTICE WAS DIS-CON TINUED AS SHRI SUNIL BANSAL MADE OUT A COMPUTERIZED STATEMENT OF UNRECOR DED CONSIDERATION. IN THIS COMPUTERIZED STATEMENT, THE RATE OF LAND PER B IGHA WAS NOT MENTIONED. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY A NUMBER OF REGISTRIES WERE IMPOUNDED AND NONE OF THE REGISTRY INDICATED ANY NOTING OF RATE PER BIGHA MENTIONED BY SHRI MAHESH GUPTA. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASS OCIATE ENTERPRISE BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN COOPERATING W ITH THE DEPARTMENT AND HAS SURRENDERED UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT THOUGH THE S ALE DEEDS OF ALL THE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT FOUND TO BE INDICATING CONSIDERA TION OVER AND ABOVE THE CONSIDERATION SHOWN IN THE DEED. THE LD. CIT(A) AF TER CONSIDERING THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 39,23,278/- AFTER OBSERVING AS UNDER:- CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR IS CONSIDERED. DURING TH E SOURCE OF SURVEY SOME INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AT THE SITE OFFICE OF THE COMPANY WHICH INCLUDES SOME COPIES OF REGISTRIE S. FROM THE ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS STATEMENT OF THE DIRECTOR REC ORDED NOWHERE IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE DISCLOSURE/SURRENDER WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF 8 SOME SPECIFIC ENTRY OR UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTIONS. T HE ANNEXURE A PREPARED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY GIVES DESCRIP TION OF SELLER OF THE LAND, LAND KHASRA NUMBER AND ITS AREA, ITS PURCHASE VALUE AND CONSIDERATION RECORDED IN BOOKS. THE BALANCE WAS S URRENDERED. THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS INCLUDES TWO REGISTRIES WHI CH WERE MADE AS BASIS FOR ADDITION DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S. THE LIST WAS PREPARED BY THE SURVEY TEAM AND WHATEVER THE DIFFER ENCE IN THE VALUE OF LAND UNRECORDED WAS FOUND WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DI RECTOR AND SURRENDERED. THE AO HAS MADE AN ADDITION ON THE BA SIS OF SOME NOTING WRITTEN BY SHRI MAHESH GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT OF THE COMPANY ON THE ZEROX COPY OF THE REGISTRIES. CONTENTION OF TH E LD. AR THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY BEFORE MAKING SURRENDER ON THE BASIS OF REAL COST OF LAND MULTIPLIES BY THE AREA MINUS AMOUNT SHOWN IN THE BOOKS. THE NOTING WERE MADE ON THESE TWO REGISTRIES BY THE ACC OUNTANT WITH THE CONSENT OF SURVEY TEAM BUT THE PRACTICE WAS STOPPED IN BETWEEN AND SEPARATE LIST WAS PREPARED AS PER ANNEXURE A AND U NDISCLOSED AMOUNT WAS WORKED OUT. WHEN THE DOCUMENT WAS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY AND STATEMENT OF SHRI MAHESH GUPTA AND SHRI SUNIL BANSAL WERE RECORDED, IT IS SURPRISING THAT THEY WERE NOT CONFRONTED WITH THESE NOTINGS ON THE REGISTRIES. THE DISCLOSURE WAS NOT MADE ON THE BASIS OF INDIVIDUAL REGISTRY BUT KHASRA WISE AMOUNT WAS WORK ED OUT AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. NO OTHER DOCUMENT ABOUT UNRECORDED PAYMENT WAS FOUND AND THE DISCLOSURE IS MADE ON WORKING GIVEN BY THE DIRECTOR. AS THE DISC LOSURE IS NOT BASED ON THE EVIDENCE FOUND DURING SURVEY BUT STATEMENT R ECORDED OF THE DIRECTOR AND SURRENDER MADE BY HIM, THERE APPEARS N O JUSTIFICATION IN CHANGING THE BASIS FOR ADDITION THAT TOO ONLY FOR T WO OF THE REGISTRIES IMPOUNDED OUT OF SEVERAL SUCH REGISTRIES IMPOUNDED. WHEN ON OTHER REGISTRIES THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE ACTUAL CONSID ERATION PAID OVER AND ABOVE WHAT HAS BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS STILL SUR RENDER WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF THESE REGISTRIES AND, THEREFORE, THERE I S NO JUSTIFICATION FOR CONSIDERING ONLY TWO REGISTRIES FOR ADDITION OVER A ND ABOVE SURRENDER MADE. NOT ONLY SHRI MAHESH GUPTA WAS NOT CONFRONTE D BY THE SURVEY TEAM ON THE ENTRIES MADE BUT HE WAS NOT EVEN CONFRO NTED BY THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IF THE ENTRIES MADE BASIS FOR ADDITION THEN OTHER REGISTRIES IMPOUNDED WHICH HAVE NO SUCH NOTING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR DETERMINING UND ISCLOSED INVESTMENT AS NO EVIDENCE WAS AVAILABLE ON THE REGI STRIES REGARDING UNACCOUNTED PAYMENTS MADE IN RESPECT OF THOSE TRANS ACTIONS. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND HENCE THE SAME IS HEREBY 9 DELETED. THE AO IS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO DELETE T HE ADDITION OF RS. 3923278/- MADE AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT U/S 69B. WITH THIS, FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELL ANT. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD EXAMINED THE DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , IT W AS NOTED THAT THE AMOUNTS SPENT IN ACQUIRING THE AGRICULTURAL LAND VIDE REGIS TRY NO. 2006000787 AND 2006001614 WAS AS COMPARED TO THE AMOUNT DECLARED B Y THE DIRECTOR. ONCE IT IS NOTICED THAT A DECLARATION IS UNDER STATED TH EN THE ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE DEDUCED EVIDENT IN SUPPORT OF ACTU AL AMT PAID. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT NOTED BY THE A CCOUNTANT AT THE REGISTRY WAS WRONG. 7. DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL, THE LD. AR HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS:- 1. THE ONLY BASIS FOR MAKING THIS ADDITION IS THE W RITING BY SHRI MAHESH GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT OF THE COMPANY ON THE REGI STERED DOCUMENT. ON THIS BASIS ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE FO R THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- (A) THERE IS NO SUCH NOTING ON THE ORIGINAL PAPERS OF T HE REGISTRY. IT IS ONLY ON THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGISTRY. I.T. ACT IS UNNATURAL THAT ANY PERSON WOULD MENTION THE ACTUAL RATE OF PU RCHASE OF THE LAND ON A DOCUMENT OF A REGISTRY. (B) STATEMENT OF SHRI MAHESH GUPTA WAS RECORDED IN SURVEY. HE WAS NOT CONFRONTED WITH SUCH NOTING ON THE TWO REGI STRIES AS IS EVIDENT FROM HIS STATEMENT. 8 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIRST PAGE OF THE REGISTRY NO. 2006001614 IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 55 OF THE PAPER BOOK FIELD BY 10 THE LD. AR.. ON THIS IT HAS BEEN WRITTEN IN HINDI THAT THE AMT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND WAS MADE AT A PRICE (NOT LEGIBLE) PER BIGHA BY THE PERSON WHO HAS MADE THE SIGNATURE. THE WRITING IN HINDI IS ALSO OF SHR I MAHESH GUPTA. THE SIGNATURES ARE OF MR. MAHESH GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT OF T HE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. THE ACCOUNTANT IS A CONFIDENT PERSON OF THE DIRECTO R OF THE COMPANY BECAUSE CERTAIN LANDS WERE ALSO PURCHASED IN THE NA ME OF THE ACCOUNTANT. THERE IS PRESUMPTION IN RESPECT OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S AND DOCUMENTS FOUND CURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AS PER SECTION 292C OF THE ACT. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT MR. MAHESH GUPTA ON THE REQUEST O F THE SURVEY TEAM MADE ENTRY ON THE TWO REGISTRIES TO INDICATE THE PURCHAS E RATE PER BIGHA. HOWEVER, IT HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY T HAT THE RATE GIVEN BY SHRI MAHESH GUPTA WAS WRONG OR INCORRECT. ONCE THE RE IS A DOCUMENT AND THERE IS PRESUMPTION IN LAW THAT THE ONUS WAS ON TH E ASSESSEE TO HAVE REPRESENTED SUCH PRESUMPTION. NO EFFORT HAS BEEN M ADE TO SHOW THAT THE PRICE PAID IN RESPECT OF TWO PURCHASE OF THE LAND I N THE REGISTERED DEEDS REFERRED TO ABOVE IS AS PER ANNEXURE PREPARED BY TH E DIRECTOR AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. THE FACT THAT ADVANCE OF RS. 1,09,01,000/- WAS SHOWN AND IT MEANS THAT CONSIDERATION OVER AND ABOVE THE CONSIDERATION SHOWN IN DEED AND REFLECTED IN THE STATEMENT PREPARED BY DIRECTOR IS NOT CORRECT. THE ADDL COMMISSIONER IN HIS DIRECTIONS HAS REFERRED THAT AN ADJUSTMENT ENTRY WAS MADE ON 28.2.2008 I.E. AFTER THE SURVEY. IT CLEARL Y SHOWS THAT SURRENDER IN RESPECT OF THESE TWO LANDS AS PER STATEMENT WAS DOU BTFUL. IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT THE AO HAS ALSO NOT MADE ANY EFFORT TO INQUIRE ABOU T THE RATE OF LAND PER BIGHA WHICH WAS PURCHASED. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN G IVEN A CREDIT OF RS. 1,09,01,000/- AS THE SAME WAS DISCLOSED IN THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS. WE, THEREFORE, FEEL THAT THE ISSUE IS REQUIRED TO BE RE CONSIDERED BY THE AO AND THE ASSESSEE WILL GET OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT THE DOCUMENT S FOUND AT THE TIME OF 11 SURVEY. ON THE DOCUMENTS THERE IS NOTING BY THE AC COUNTANT AND HE HAS ALSO PUT THE SIGNATURES AND IS STATED THAT THE AMOUNT WA S PAID BY HIM AND THEREFORE, THE AO WILL ALSO MAKE AN INQUIRY FROM TH E PERSON FROM WHOM SUCH LANDS WERE PURCHASED. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS SET ASIDE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 -10-2011 SD/- SD/- (R.K. GUPTA) (N.L. KALRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR DATED: 14/10/2011 SURESH COPY FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE D.C.I.T. CIRCLE2, JAIPUR 2. M/S GRASS FIELD FARMS AND RESORTS (P) LTD 3. THE LD. CIT 4. THE LD. CIT(A) 5. THE LD.DR 6. THE GUARD FILE (ITA NO.39/JP /11) A.R, ITAT, JAIPUR 12 13 14 15 16 17