The DCIT, Central Circle - 1(2), Ahmedabad V. Shri Manubhai P. Patel, Ahmedabad

ITA 596/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8532 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N P PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: G C PIPARA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Value adopted by valuation officer; Capital asset; Loose papers; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 69C; 50C; 69

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., , BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.596/AHD/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2) AHMEDABAD / VS. MANUBHAI P.PATEL G-1, SWAGAT COMPLEX CG ROAD NAVRANGPURA AHMEDABAD $ ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAXPP 0794 K ( $' / APPELLANT ) .. ( ($' / RESPONDENT ) $') / APPELLANT BY : SHRI N.P. PATEL, SR.DR ($' *) / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G.C. PIPARA, AR +,*- / DATE OF HEARING 23/01/2018 ./0*- / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 06/ 04 /2018 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTAN CE OF THE REVENUE AGAINST THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-11, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 04/11/2015 ARISING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER S.143(3) R.W. S.153A OF THE ITA NO.596/AHD/ 2016 DCIT VS. MANUBHAI P.PATEL ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 2 - INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'T HE ACT') DATED 25/03/2014 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2011-12 . 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE RE AD AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND/OR ON FACTS IN D ELETING THE ADDITION MADE U/S.69 OF THE ACT OF RS.69,57,175/- W ITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 2. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND/OR ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE T O PURCHASE THE LAND IS MORE THAN THE VALUE DISCLOSED BY HIM IN SAL E DEED AND THE DIFFERENCE WAS PAID BY HIM AS ON-MONEY. 3. THE LD.CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE DVO ALSO ESTIMATED THE VALUE OF THE LAND WHICH IS MORE THAN THE VALUE DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SALE DEED. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN THE C ASE OF MARTUI SAVVY GROUP AND CONSEQUENTLY ON THE ASSESSEE ON 27/04/201 1. PURSUANT THERETO, PROCEEDINGS UNDER S.153A OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER S.143(3) R.W.S.153A OF THE ACT. IN THE COURSE OF THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED CERTAI N PARCELS OF LAND AT OGNAJ, AHMEDABAD FROM KADI BASED SELLERS SHRI RASIK BHAI PATEL, SHRI SANJAY K.PATEL AND SHRI RAMESH C.PATEL. IT WAS O BSERVED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO MADE UNACCOUNTED INVESTM ENTS IN THIS DEAL OVER ITA NO.596/AHD/ 2016 DCIT VS. MANUBHAI P.PATEL ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 3 - AND ABOVE THE DOCUMENTED PRICE. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT THE DOCUMENTATION WAS CARRIED OUT AT RS.7,50,000/- PER VIGHA AS AGAINST THE SALE PRICE OF RS.10,11,000/-. THE LAND DEALS PERTA INED TO PERIOD APRIL- 2010 TO NOVEMBER-2010. THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS ADMITTED IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED UNDE R S.132(4) ON 21/06/2011 THAT HE HAD PURCHASED LANDS AT OGNAJ ADM EASURING 59.2 VIGHAS ALONG WITH CO-OWNER SHRI HASMUKH GADECHA FRO M THE SELLERS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO STATED THAT HE HOLDS 50% SHARE IN THE CO-OWNED PROPERTY. THE AO THEREAFTER OBSERVED THAT THE UNAC COUNTED CASH ON- MONEY WAS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SUCH LAND DEA L BUT THE DOCUMENTATION WAS PREPARED AT RS.7,99,446/- VIGHA O NLY (AND NOT RS.7,50,000/). THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY ADMITTED D IFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF RS.62,95,847/- TOWARDS HIS SHARE OF UNDISCLOSED INV ESTMENT IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. THE AO EXAMINED THE DO CUMENTS OF VARIOUS PARCEL LAND DETAILED IN PARA 3.5. OF HIS ORDER AND ALSO TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF THE ON-MONEY AMOUNTING TO RS.62,95,847/- DECLARED IN THE RETURN AS HIS SHARE OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. THE AO FINALLY OB SERVED THAT THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION DISCLOSED BY THE CO-OWNERS FOR PURCHA SE OF 59.52 VIGHAS COMES TO RS.6,01,42,781/- (INCLUDING THE ON-MONEY) AS AGAINST JANTRI VALUE OF RS.11,66,89,913/-. HAVING REGARD TO THE CONSIDERABLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE JANTRI VALUE AND THE PURCHASE PRICE DIS CLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DVO UNDER S.142A OF THE ACT FOR VALUATION OF THE LAND PURCHASED. THE DVO ESTIMATED THE FAIR MARKET ITA NO.596/AHD/ 2016 DCIT VS. MANUBHAI P.PATEL ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 4 - VALUE OF THE IMPUGNED LANDS AT RS.7,40,58,048/- AS AGAINST THE DISCLOSED CONSIDERATION OF RS.6,01,42,781/-. HAVING REGARD T O THE VALUATION REPORT FROM THE DVO, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE VALUE DISCLO SED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOWHERE NEAR THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. THE AO ACCO RDINGLY ADOPTED THE ESTIMATED VALUATION ARRIVED AT BY THE DVO AND COMPU TED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DVO VALUATION AND THE TOTAL VALUE OFFER ED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT AND ADDED THUS RS.69,57,175/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS HIS PROPORTIONATE SHARE WITH THE AID OF S.69B OF THE ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF AO, THE ASSESSEE PREF ERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 5. THE CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE ISSUE IN DETAIL AND FO UND MERIT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DELETION OF THE ADDITIONS SO MADE TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS UNDER S.69B OF THE ACT. TH E RELEVANT OPERATIVE PARA OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED HEREU NDER FOR READY REFERENCE. 6. THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL WAS RELATED TO ADD ITION OF RS.69,57,175/- ON THE BASIS OF THE REPORT OF THE DVO. THIS DIFFERENC E WAS ON THE BASIS OF THE VALUATION OF RS.740,58,048/- ESTIMATED BY THE DVO. THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE LAND DECLARED BY THE BUYERS WAS OF RS.60143698/-. FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED LA ND AT OGANJ, TALUK DASKROI IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2010-11. COPY OF THE CONVEYANCE DEED ITA NO.596/AHD/ 2016 DCIT VS. MANUBHAI P.PATEL ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 5 - WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO. THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.62,95,847/- OVER AND ABOVE THE COST SHOWN IN THE BOOKS. THUS, THE ASSESSEE ADOPTED TOTAL PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF THE LAND AF TER INCLUDING THE SAID ADDITIONAL INCOME. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND WAS UNDEVELOPED AND LOCATED IN JUNGLE. THE APPROACH OF THE LAND WAS ALSO THROUGH OTHER VILLAGES. THUS, THERE WAS NO DIR ECT EXCESS TO THE LAND. THE LAND WAS ON SLOPPING TOPOGRAPHY AND NO BASIC AMENIT IES WERE AVAILABLE IN THE AREA. THESE FACTS WERE MENTIONED IN THE REPORT OF T HE DVO. THE PHYSICAL VERIFICATION BY THE DVO WAS CONDUCTED IN JUNE 2014 WHEREAS THE LAND WAS PURCHASED IN THE MONTH OF JUNE 2010. THEREFORE, IT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE TO APPLY THE VALUE ESTIMATED BY THE DVO IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASS ESSEE MADE ADDITION WITH THE FINDING THAT IT WAS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE C ONSIDERATION MENTIONED IN THE CONVEYANCE DEED WAS LESS THAN THE CONSIDERATION ACT UALLY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAD ADMITTED IN S TATEMENT RECORDED U/S. 132(4) THAT UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS.6295847/- WAS MA DE OVER AND ABOVE THE VALUE MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED. HE MENTIONED THAT THE DVO RELIED ON COMPARABLE INSTANCES AND ESTIMATED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND. THUS, HE CONCLUDED THAT THE VALUE ESTIMATED BY THE DVO AS FA IR MARKET VALUE WAS JUSTIFIED FOR DETERMINING THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMEN T OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LAND. ACCORDINGLY, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONSIDERATI ON ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN U/S.153A AND THE VALUE ESTIMATED BY T HE DVO WAS ADDED INTO INCOME. IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE APPELLANT THAT IT WAS SUBMI TTED BEFORE THE AO THAT, IN THE SEARCH ACTION CARRIED OUT IN THE RESIDENTIAL PR EMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, NO INCRIMINATING LOOSE PAPERS OR ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS H AVING ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID ANY CONSIDERATION OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THE CONVEYANCE DEED WERE FOUND. THE AO ALSO DID NOT HAVE ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO REBUT THE SUBMI SSION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPELLANT FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C WERE MEANT FOR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF THE SELLER AND NOT I N THE CASE OF THE BUYER. HE RELIED ON DECISIONS IN THE CASES OF MEGHJIBHAI POPA TBHAI VIRANI (2013) 35 TAXMANN.COM 100 (GUJ.), VALLABHBHAI (2012) 27 TAXMA NN.COM 306 (AHD), ITA NO.596/AHD/ 2016 DCIT VS. MANUBHAI P.PATEL ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 6 - HARTEY STREET PHARMACEUTICALS LTD (2010) 38 SOT 486 (AHD.), VIRJIBHAI KALYANBHAI KUKADIA(2012) 26 TAXMANN.COM 13 (AHD), C HANDANI BHUCHAR (2010) 323 ITR 510 (PUN. HR). AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE RAT IO OF THE DECISIONS RELIED BY THE APPELLANT IT IS NECESSARY TO DISCUSS, IN BRIEF, THE FACTS AND RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE DECISIONS RELIED BY THE APPELLANT; IN THIS CASE.MEGHAJIBHAI POPAT BHAI VIRANI(SUPRA), THE HON'BLE COURT HELD THAT ' AS FAR AS THE THIRD QUESTION IS CONCERNED, THIS V ERY QUESTION HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY US IN TAX APPEAL NO. 2296 OF 2009 IN THE CASE OF CIT V. VISHAL SUSHILKUMAR PODDAR, DATED JUNE 22, 2011,WHEREBY THI S COURT HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE BY HOLDING THAT THE REVENUE CANNOT TAKE RECOU RSE TO SECTION 50C OF THE ACT IN CASE OF PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY IN FOLLOWI NG TERMS: '4. WITH REGARD TO THE SECOND ISSUE, THE SAME RELAT ES TO ADDITION UNDER SECTION 69C. A FLAT WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE A T ATHWA LINES, SURAT WHERE THE OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR HAD LEVIED AD DITIONAL STAMP DUTY BY VERIFYING THE PROPERTY AT RS. 28,50,928/-, THE P ROVISION OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT WAS APPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELYING ON EARLIER DECISIONS OF ITS OWN IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEES. THE TRIBUNAL CONCLUDED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C WERE NOT APPLICA BLE TO THE PURCHASER. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN IT A NO.L7 49/AHD/2008 WERE RELIED UPON, WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- '10. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMI SSIONS, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PROVISIONS OF THE LAW AS WELL AS DECISIONS(S) OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND VARIOUS BENCHES RELIED UPON BY PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTI FIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION BY DRAWING THE ANALOGICAL PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 50-C OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING THAT IF THIS PROPOSITION IS TO BE ACCEPTED, THEN THE DEEMING PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 50-C OF THE ACT WILL BECOME INOPERABLE. HE, FURTHER , HELD THAT SECTIONS 50-C OF THE ACT IS APPLICABLE TO THE SELLER AND PRO VIDES THAT THE VALUATION MADE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY IS TO BE DEEMED AS THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE SELLER. HAVING SAID S O, THE CIT(A) FURTHER HELD THAT ' THE CONVERSE WILL ALSO HAVE TO BE ACCEP TED AS TRUE, I.E., THE ITA NO.596/AHD/ 2016 DCIT VS. MANUBHAI P.PATEL ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 7 - VALUATION OF THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY WILL HAV E TO BE DEEMED AS THE CONSIDERATION PAID BY THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY AS WELL.' 5. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY H AS NO RIGHT EITHER TO ADD OR TO DELETE ANY WORD FROM THE PROVISIONS OF LA W UNLESS THERE .IS A SCOPE OF INTERPRETATION. WITH NO AMBIGUITY IN SECTI ON 50C AND THERE BEING NO SCOPE OF APPLYING THE SAID PROVISION TO TH E PURCHASER, IT DELETED THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 69C TO THE TUNE OF RS. 7,88,929/-. 6. RESULTANTLY, IT CAN BE INESCAPABLY CONCLUDED THA T THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE REASONINGS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE INTERP RETATION MADE BY IT REQUIRES OR CALLS FOR NO INTERFERENCE. IN THE CASE OF VALLABHBHAI ( (SUPRA) THE HON'BLE CO URT HELD THAT ' 12. SECTION 50C IS A DEEMING PROVISION WHERE THE STAMP DUTY RAT E IS TREATED AS FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN UNDER SECTION 48. IT IS APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF A SELLER OF PROPERTY AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE INVOKED IN CASE OF PURCHASER OF PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 69B. CIT (A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT MADE ANY INDE PENDENT ENQUIRY OR COLLECTED CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THE ADD ITION. IN THE CASE OF CIT V. NARESH KHATTAR (HUF) [2003] 2 61 ITR 664/ 130 TAXMAN 15 (DELHI) THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.69B, THE BURDEN IS ON THE REVENUE TO PROVE T HAT THE REAL INVESTMENT EXCEEDS THE INVESTMENT SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE OF SMT. AMAR KUMARI SURANA V. CIT [1997 ] 226 ITR 344/[1996] 89 TAXMAN 544 (RAJ.) THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED AS UNDE R: '10. IT IS TRUE THAT MERELY ON THE BASIS OF FAIR MA RKET VALUE NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE U/S. 69B OF THE ACT, 1961, BUT ON THE B ASIS OF SUFFICIENT MATERIAL ON RECORD SOME REASONABLE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN THAT PETITIONER HAS INVESTED MORE AMOUNT THAN THE AMOUNT SHOWN IN ACCOUNT BOOKS, THEN ONLY THE ADDITION U/S. 69B CAN BE MADE. THE BURDEN IS ON ITA NO.596/AHD/ 2016 DCIT VS. MANUBHAI P.PATEL ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 8 - THE REVENUE TO PROVE THAT REAL INVESTMENT EXCEEDS T HE INVESTMENT SHOWN IN ACCOUNT BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE.' IN THE CASE OF ITO V. BARLEY STREET PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. [2010] 38 SOT 486 (AHD) IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF SEC.SOC A RE APPLICABLE ONLY FOR COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS IN REAL ESTATE TRANSAC TION IN RESPECT OF SELLER ONLY AND NOT FOR THE PURCHASER. LEGAL FICTION CANNOT BE EXTENDED ANY FURTHER AND HAS TO BE LIMITED TO THE AREA FOR WHICH IT IS CREAT ED. SECTION 50C CREATES A LEGAL FICTION FOR TAXING CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF TH E SELLER AND IT CANNOT BE EXTENDED FOR TAXING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN APPARENT CONSIDERATION AND VALUATION DONE BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT U/S. 69. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF DY. CITV. VIRJ IBHAI KALYAN BHAI KUKADIA [2012] 26 TAXMANN.COM 13 (AHD.) HAD ON IDENTICAL FACTS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND IN VIEW OF THE F ACT THAT THE A.O. HAS FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO SUPPORT THE RATES E STIMATED BY HIM AND RELYING ON THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTS AND OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT FOR THE REASONS STATED HEREINA BOVE, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE PRESENT CASE AND THEREFORE NO INTERFERE NCE IS CALLED FOR TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A). WE THUS, UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A ). IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED.' IN THE CASE OF HARLEY STREET PHARMACEUTICALS LTD (S UPRA) THE HON'BLE COURT ALSO HELD THAT ' DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED LAND ALONG WITH BUILDING ON 22- 12-2003 AMOUNTING TO RS. 18.90 LAKHS THROUGH DEED O F ASSIGNMENT AND STAMP DUTY OF RS. 2,11,700 WAS PAID THEREON. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE SUB-REGISTRAR HAD ASSESSED THE VALUE OF PROPERTY AT RS. 49,91,400 AT THE PREVALENT MARKET VALUE AS PER THE 'JANTRI* AND ADDI TIONAL STAMP DUTY AT THE RATE OF 10.8 PER CENT WAS COLLECTED FROM THE ASSESS EE. THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION IN BOOKS OF ACC OUNT AT RS. 18.90 LAKHS ONLY AS AGAINST THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AT RS. 49,91,400. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLO SED THE INVEST- MENT OF RS. 31,01,400 IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND SAME WAS TREA TED BY THE ASSESSING ITA NO.596/AHD/ 2016 DCIT VS. MANUBHAI P.PATEL ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 9 - OFFICER AS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69B . ON APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITIO N. ON REVENUE'S APPEAL THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT ' THE ON LY ISSUE IN INSTANT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WAS THAT, WHETHER THE PROVISION OF S ECTION 50C APPLIED TO PURCHASER OR NOT. FOR THIS, IT WAS NECESSARY TO GO THROUGH THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C AS INTRODUCED BY SECTION 24 OF THE FINANCE ACT, 2002 WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-2003, FOR AND FROM THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2003-04. [PARA 4] SECTION 50C HAS PROVIDED ADEQUATE PROTECTION TO THE TAXPAYERS AGAINST ADOPTION OF ARBITRARY VALUES FOR THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS AND THE FOLLOWING PRECAUTIONS ARE PROVIDED: (I)THE VALUE WHICH IS CONSIDERED AS THE PROPER VALU E OF THE PROPERTY AS FIXED BY THE AUTHORITY FOR REGISTRATION FOR STAMP DUTY PURPO SES IS PRESUMED TO BE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTATION O F CAPITAL GAINS ON THE SALE OF PROPERTY. (II )LT IS OPEN TO THE TAXPAYER TO PLEAD THAT SUCH STAMP VALUE IS ABNORMAL AND CONTEST THE SAME, IN APPEAL UNDER THE STAMP LAW REQ UIRING ADOPTION OF REDUCED VALUE. IF SUCH VALUE IS REDUCED IN APPEAL, UNDER TH E PROVISIONS OF THE RELEVANT STAMP LAW, SUCH REDUCED VALUE WOULD ALONE BE ADOPTE D. (III)WHERE SUCH STAMP VALUE IS NOT DISPUTED, IT IS OPEN TO THE, ASSESSEE TO REQUIRE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFER THE VALUATIO N TO THE VALUATION OFFICER, WHO SHALL FIX THE VALUATION BY ADOPTION OF THE PROC EDURE PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 16A OF THE WEALTH-TAX ACT. IT IS SUCH VALUE , WHICH WILL BE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C IN THE FINANCE BILL, 2002, CLEARLY STATES THAT WHERE THE CONSIDERATION D ECLARED TO BE RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF TRANSFER OF LAND OR BUILDIN G OR BOTH IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STA TE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUC H TRANSFER, THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION AND CAPITAL GAINS SHALL BE COMPUTED, ACCORDINGLY, U NDER SECTION 48. IN CASE THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES I S REVISED IN ANY APPEAL, ITA NO.596/AHD/ 2016 DCIT VS. MANUBHAI P.PATEL ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 10 - REVISION OR REFERENCE, THE ASSESSMENT MADE SHALL BE AMENDED TO RE-COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAINS BY TAKING THE REVISED VALUE AS THE FU LL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C ARE APPL ICABLE ONLY FOR THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS IN REAL ESTATE TRANSAC TION WITH RESPECT TO SELLER ONLY AND NOT FOR THE PURCHASER. SECTION 50C CREATES A LEGAL FICTION WHEREBY APPARENT CONSIDERATION IS SUBSTITUTED BY VALUATION DONE BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES AND CAPITAL GAINS ARE CALCULATED ACCORD INGLY. LEGAL FICTION CANNOT BE EXTENDED ANY FURTHER AND HAS TO BE LIMITED TO TH E AREA FOR WHICH IT IS CREATED. SECTION 50C CREATES A LEGAL FICTION FOR TAXING CAPI TAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF THE SELLER AND IT CANNOT BE EXTENDED FOR TAXING THE DIF FERENCE BETWEEN APPARENT CONSIDERATION AND VALUATION DONE BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69. IN FACT, S ECTION 69 ITSELF .IS A LEGAL FICTION WHEREBY INVESTMENT INTO AN ASSET IS TREATED AS INCOME IF IT IS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. NO FURTH ER LEGAL FICTION FROM ELSEWHERE IN THE STATUTE CAN BE BORROWED TO EXTEND THE FIELD OF SECTION 69. IT IS FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO INTRODUCE LEGAL FICTION TO O VERCOME DIFFICULTY IN TAXING CERTAIN RECEIPTS OR EXPENDITURE WHICH OTHERWISE WAS NOT POSSIBLE UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IT IS FOR THIS PURPOSE THAT WHEN IT WAS FOUND DIFFICULT TO PREVENT TAX EVASION BY UNDERSTATING APPARENT SALE C ONSIDERATION AS COMPARED TO THE VALUATION MADE BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIE S FOR THE PURPOSES OF LEVYING STAMP DUTY, THEN IT WAS THOUGHT NECESSARY T O INTRODUCE SECTION 50C FOR SUBSTITUTING APPARENT SALE CONSIDERATION BY VALUATI ON DONE BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES. THIS FICTION CANNOT BE EXTENDED ANY FU RTHER AND. THEREFORE, CANNOT BE INVOKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAX THE DIFF ERENCE IN THE HANDS OF THE PURCHASER. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD APPL IED THIS PROVISION OF SECTION 50C FOR THE COMPUTATION OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U NDER SECTION 69B WHICH WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE ACT APART FROM THE ST AMP DUTY VALUATION, THERE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD WHICH SUGGESTED THAT THE REVE NUE HAD PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCEPTED OVER AND ABOVE, WHAT HAD BEEN RECORDED AS PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF THE LAND IN THE INSTRUMENT, I.E., THE SALE DEED. THE ASSESSEE HAD RIGHTLY CONTENDED THAT SECTION 50C WAS NOT APPL ICABLE IN THE CASE OF PURCHASER AND THIS PROVISION BEING A DEEMING PROVIS ION WOULD APPLY FOR ITA NO.596/AHD/ 2016 DCIT VS. MANUBHAI P.PATEL ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 11 - DETERMINING THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION AS A RE SULT OF TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSETS FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL G AINS UNDER SECTION 48. FURTHER, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW TH AT THE CONSIDERATION OVER AND ABOVE, WHAT HAD BEEN RECORDED IN THE SALE DEED, HAD BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, NO ADDITIO N OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT COULD BE MADE BY INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 69B. ACCORDINGLY, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DELETI NG THE ADDITION WAS TO BE CONFIRMED AND THE REVENUE'S APPEAL WAS TO BE DISMIS SED. [PARA 7] THE FACTS OF THE CASE, FINDINGS OF THE AO AND SUBMI SSIONS OF THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. THE ADDITION WAS MADE SOLELY ON TH E GROUND OF THE ESTIMATED VALUE WORKED OUT BY THE DVO. THE APPELLANT WAS A BU YER OF THE SAID LAND, THEREFORE, HE WAS NOT IN THIS CASE SUBJECT TO TAX O N CAPITAL GAINS AS THE CONSIDERATION OF THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY PERTAINED TO THE SELLER IN VIEW OF THE DEEMING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. THE D IFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COST OF PURCHASE OF THE LAND DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE I N THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S.153A AND THE VALUE ESTIMATED BY THE DVO WAS ADD ED BY THE AO AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE . THE LEGAL POSITION ON THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE REFERENCE TO THE DVO MADE F OR WORKING OUT CAPITAL GAINS CAN ALSO BE APPLIED TO THE BUYER OF THE IMMOV ABLE PROPERTY. IN THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT, IT WAS MADE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE REVENUE CANNOT TAKE RECOURSE TO SECTION 50C OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY. THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HELD IN THE CASE OF MEGHJIBHAI POPATBHAI VIRANI THAT THERE IS NO AMBIGU ITY IN SECTION 50C THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE PURCHASER TO MAKE ADDITION U/S.69B AND 69C OF THE ACT. IN THE CA SE OF HARLEY STREET PHARMACEUTICALS LTD (SUPRA) THE TRIBUNAL, AFTER REL YING ON DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF MEGHJIBHAI POPATBHAI VIRANI, VIRJIBHAI KALY ANBHAI KUKADIA, AMAR KUMAN'SURANA AND NARESH KHATTAR HELD THAT THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 50C ARE APPLICABLE ONLY FOR THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN S IN REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS WITH RESPECT TO SELLER ONLY AND NOT FOR THE PURCHAS ER. SECTION 50C CREATES A LEGAL FICTION WHEREBY APPARENT CONSIDERATION IS SUB STITUTED BY VALUATION DONE BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES AND CAPITAL GAINS AR E CALCULATED ACCORDINGLY. LEGAL FICTION CANNOT BE EXTENDED ANY FURTHER AND HA S TO BE LIMITED TO THE AREA FOR WHICH IT IS CREATED. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE EX TENDED FOR TAXING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE APPARENT CONSIDERATION AND T HE VALUATION DONE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTME NT U/S.69. SECTION 69 ITSELF ITA NO.596/AHD/ 2016 DCIT VS. MANUBHAI P.PATEL ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 12 - IS A LEGAL FICTION WHEREBY INVESTMENT INTO AN ASSET IS TREATED AS INCOME IF IT IS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. NO FURTHER LEGAL FICTION FROM ELSEWHERE IN THE STATUTE CAN BE BORROWED TO EXTEND THE FIELD OF SECTION 69. THE AO DID NOT DISPUTE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE W AS THE BUYER OF ASSET AND NOT THE SELLER, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE D ECISIONS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND TRIBUNAL, THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS AL LOWED. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A), T HE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. THE LD.DR FOR THE REVENUE BROADLY REITERATED THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LD.DR CONTENDED IN FURTHERANCE THAT ON COMPARISON OF THE PURCHASE PRI CE BY THE ASSESSEE QUA JANTRI VALUE (STANDARD RATE APPLIED FOR REGISTRATIO N PURPOSES), THE AO FOUND MAJOR VARIANCE BETWEEN THE AGGREGATE RECORDE D INVESTMENT (INCLUDING ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE MADE IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH) AND THE JANTRI VALUE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO ACCOR DINGLY REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DVO UNDER S.142A AND CORRECTLY APPLIE D THE RATE ADOPTED BY THE DVO. THE LD.DR ACCORDINGLY CONTENDED THAT T HE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN REVERSING ADDITIONS SO MADE BY THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED AT ALL. 8. THE LD.AR, ON THE OTHER HAND, VOCIFEROUSLY CONTE NDED THAT THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING ADDITIONS TOWARDS UNEXPL AINED INVESTMENTS IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO SEARCH WAS WHOLL Y AND JUSTIFIED. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE AO PROCEEDED TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE DVO ITA NO.596/AHD/ 2016 DCIT VS. MANUBHAI P.PATEL ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 13 - MERELY BECAUSE THE ESTIMATED VALUATION AS PER JANTR I VALUE WAS AT VARIANCE WITH THE ACTUAL PURCHASE. THE LD.AR POINT ED OUT THAT THE AO HIMSELF OBSERVED THAT A STATEMENT OF THE BROKER SHR I GUNVANTBHAI L. PATEL WAS RECORDED BEHIND THE BACK OF ASSESSEE UNDER S.13 1 OF THE ACT ON 23/04/2011 WHERE IT WAS ADMITTEDLY FOUND THAT THE P URCHASES BY THE ASSESSEE WERE MADE AT ACTUAL PRICE OF RS.10,11,000/ - PER VIGHA. THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY DECLARED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEE N THE RECORDED PRICE (RS.7,99,446/- PER VIGHA) AND THE ACTUAL PRICE AND OFFERED THE SAME AS DISCLOSED INCOME IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH ASSESS MENT AS WELL AS IN THE RETURN FILED IN TERMS OF NOTICE UNDER S.153A OF THE ACT. THE LD.AR REFERRED TO THE VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO AND VEHEMENTLY SUBMITTED THAT EXCEPT FOR THE STATEMENT DEPOSED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER S.132(4) OF THE ACT AND BY THE MIDDLE BROKER UNDER S.131 OF THE ACT, THERE IS NO INDEPENDENT INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOU ND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH COULD THROW LIGHT ON ALLEGED MURKY DEA L. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT IN SPITE OF ULTIMATE INTRUSION OF P RIVACY UNDER S.132 BY THE DEPARTMENT, NO DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGATION OF ANY UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. THE LD.AR THUS SUBMITT ED THAT THE SOLITARY BASIS FOR ESTIMATING UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IS THE REPORT FROM THE DVO WHICH IS NOTHING BUT THE OPINION OF A PROFESSIONAL. SUCH OPINIONS ARE QUITE SUBJECTIVE AND NATURALLY CAN ALWAYS VARY WID ELY FROM ONE EXPERT TO ANOTHER. THE LD.AR ACCORDINGLY CONTENDED THAT THE RE IS NO PERCEPTIBLE JUSTIFICATION TO ADOPT ESTIMATED VALUATION IN PLACE OF ACTUAL PRICE OF ITA NO.596/AHD/ 2016 DCIT VS. MANUBHAI P.PATEL ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 14 - PURCHASE AS ALSO VOUCHED BY AN INDEPENDENT PERSON ( BROKER) INVOLVED IN THIS DEAL. THE LD.AR THEREAFTER SUBMITTED IN ELABO RATION THAT THE REASONS PROBABLY FOR LOWER PRICE OF PURCHASE IS ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT THE LANDS ARE JUNGLE LANDS WHERE NO AGRICULTURAL ACTI VITY WERE CARRIED OUT AND NO DIRECT CONNECTIVITY. THE LAND IS TROPICAL W HICH IS NOT PREFERRED FOR CULTIVATION. THE LD.AR NEXT SUBMITTED THAT THE DIF FERENCE BETWEEN THE COST OF PURCHASE OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE (RS.6,01,4 3,698/-) AND DVO VALUATION OF ESTIMATED COST OF PURCHASE (RS.7,40,58 ,048/-) IS NOT MATERIALLY SIGNIFICANT HAVING REGARD TO DISABILITIE S ASSOCIATED TO PARCEL OF LAND. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT OWING TO TOTAL AB SENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND UPTO THE STAGE OF ASSE SSMENT UNDER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A, THERE WAS NO WARRANT TO MAKE SUCH ESTIMATED ADDITIONS IN A SEARCH ASSESSMENT. 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS. THE SHORT ISSUE IN CONTROVERSY IS MAINTAINABILITY OF THE ADD ITIONS OF RS.69,57,175/- TOWARDS SHARE OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE HAND S OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. AS NARRAT ED IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THE ASSESSEE RECORDED TOTAL VALU E OF PURCHASE OF VARIOUS CO-OWNED LANDS AT RS.4,75,52,000/- AS PER D OCUMENTS. HOWEVER, A DISCLOSURE OF RS.1,25,91,698/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINE D INVESTMENT WAS ALSO MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE STATEMENT DEPOSED UNDER S.132(4) AT THE TIME OF SEARCH ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT OF THE BROKER RECORDED BY ITA NO.596/AHD/ 2016 DCIT VS. MANUBHAI P.PATEL ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 15 - REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THUS, THE AGGREGATE VALUE TO WARDS PURCHASE OF LAND WAS ASSIGNED AT RS.6,01,43,698/-. NOTABLY, OTHER T HAN THE STATEMENT OF THE BROKER AND THAT OF ASSESSEE, NO OTHER INCRIMINA TING DOCUMENTS WERE STATED TO BE FOUND IN THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS OR IN THE POST SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. THE STATEMENT OF BROKER AS WELL AS TH E ASSESSEE ARE CONSISTENT AND DO NOT CONTRADICT EACH OTHER. THUS, THE STATEMENT MADE BY AN INDEPENDENT PERSON UNDER OATH ON S.131 OF THE A CT ASSUMES A VERY STRONG EVIDENTIARY VALUE FOR DETERMINATION OF ACTUA L COST OF PURCHASE OF LAND. 10. THE AO HAS PROCEEDED TO REFER THE VALUATION TO THE DVO MERELY BECAUSE HE FOUND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ACTUAL PRIC E AND THE STANDARD PRICE AVAILABLE FOR REGISTRATION OF PROPERTY. THE AO DISBELIEVED THE PURCHASE PRICE (INCLUDING ON-MONEY DECLARED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH) OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE BASED ON THE DVO REPORT. W E DO NOT SEE MUCH JUSTIFICATION IN THE ACTION OF THE AO FOR THE SIMPL E REASON THAT OTHER THAN THIS DIFFERENCE QUA JANTRI PRICE, NO OTHER DOCUMENT IS AVAILABLE TO CA ST ASPERSIONS ON THE CORRECTNESS OF THE PURCHASE PRICE . ON THE CONTRARY, THE TRUE PURCHASE PRICE GETS SUPPORT FROM THE DEPOSITIO N ON OATH MADE BY A THIRD PARTY INVOLVED IN TRANSACTION. IN THESE PECU LIAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE EVEN IF ESTIMATED TO BE HIGHER TH EN THE ACTUAL PRICE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSEE, DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY ADD ITION TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. ITA NO.596/AHD/ 2016 DCIT VS. MANUBHAI P.PATEL ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 16 - 11. THE ADDITIONS SO MADE APPARENTLY HAS NO RELAT ION TO ANY DISCERNIBLE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT AND MERELY SEEKS TO RELY ON DVOS REPORT ALONE. NEEDLESS TO SAY, A REPORT OF THE VALUER IS AT BEST A BROAD OPINION BASED ON MANY ASSUMPTIONS AND PRESUMPTIONS KEEPING IN MIND T HE AVAILABLE PARAMETERS WHILE DETERMINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. SUCH VALUATION OPINED BY AN EXPERT IS MERELY A SUBJECTIVE EXPRESS ION OF OPINION AND IS NOT NECESSARILY SACROSANCT IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. W E TAKE NOTICE OF THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS LACK OF DIRECT ACCESS TO PLOTS, THE LAND IS ADMITTEDLY JUNGLE LAND WITH NO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVIT Y CARRIED OUT, SLOPPING TOPOGRAPHY ETC. WHICH REFLECTS GREATER INCAPACITY T O ASSIGN HIGHER VALUE. AS STATED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE COMPARABLE SALE INSTANCES ADOPTED BY DVO IS ALSO MARRED WITH INFIRMITY IN AS MUCH AS THE LAND SO COMPARED WERE SMALLER IN SIZE. THE BROKER HAS STAT ED THE TRANSACTION PRICE AT RS.10,11,000/- PER VIGHA. THE AVERAGE VAL UE PER VIGHA (CONSIDERING ON-MONEY DISCLOSED) RESONATE WITH VALU E DISCLOSED BY ASSESSEE WITH SOME NOMINAL DIFFERENCE OF ABOUT RS.3 67 PER VIGHA WHICH REQUIRES TO BE IGNORED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FACTS AND HAVING REGARD TO DIFFERENCE OF ABOUT RS.21,000/- ODD IN ABSOLUTE TER MS. 12. THEREFORE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS MA DE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ADDITIONS MADE TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED IN VESTMENTS IN A SEARCH ASSESSMENT ON MERE IMAGINATIVE ESTIMATIONS DE HORSE THE ACTUAL PRICE ITA NO.596/AHD/ 2016 DCIT VS. MANUBHAI P.PATEL ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 17 - POINTED OUT BY THE THIRD PARTY WAS TOTALLY UNCALLED FOR AND RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE CIT(A). HENCE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE CIT(A). 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 06/ 04/2018 SD/- SD/- (..) ( ) ( S.S. GODARA ) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 06/ 04/2018 4..+,.+../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#$%$' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. $' / THE APPELLANT 2. ($' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 567- 8- / CONCERNED CIT 4. 8- ( ) / THE CIT(A)-11, AHMEDABAD 5. 9:-+67 , 670 , 5 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. <, / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, (9-- //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD