Shri Rajesh J.Desai, Mehsana V. The Dy.CIT., Cent.Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 64/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9396 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 22-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S N DIVETIA
• Assessee Lawyers: R P MAURYA
• Keywords: Commercial expediency

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH (BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. NO: 290 & 64/AHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD RAJESHBAHI JIVRAJ DESAI PROP. OF. RAJIV ENTERPRISE 5, ASHOKNAGAR SOCIETY RADHANPUR, MEHSANA PIN CODE: 384002 PAN NO. AAWPD3248B V/S V/S RAJESHBAHI JIVRAJ DESAI PROP. OF. RAJIV ENTERPRISE 5, ASHOKNAGAR SOCIETY RADHANPUR, MEHSANA PIN CODE: 384002 PAN NO. AAWPD3248B ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA. NO: 291/AHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD V/S ASHABEN RAJESHBAHI DESAI 5, ASHOKNAGAR SOCIETY RADHANPUR, MEHSANA PIN CODE: 384002 PAN NO. AAWPD3284D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NOS. 64, 290 & 291/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 2 APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.P. MAURYA, SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.N. DIVETIA, AR. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 22 -02-201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 -02-2016 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. ITA NOS. 290/AHD/2012 & 64/AHD/2012 ARE CROSS APPEA LS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE VERY SAME ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A)-III, AHMEDABAD DATED 16.11.2011 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2008- 09 AND ITA NO. 291/AHD/2012 IS BY ANOTHER ASSESSEE PREFERRED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD DATED 16.11.2011 PERT AINING TO A.Y. 2008-09 AND THE FACTS IN ISSUES ARE IDENTICAL TO TH E FACTS IN ISSUES WITH ITA NO. 290/AHD/2012. 2. ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE DISPO SED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. WE FIRST TAKE UP ITA NO. 64/AHD/2012 ASSESSE ES APPEAL 3. THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS. 48,74, 798/-. 4. WHILE SCRUTINIZING THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE A.O FO UND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN NET LOSS OF RS. 28,16,606/- AS P ER FINANCIAL SERVICES TRADING ACCOUNT. THE A.O FURTHER NOTICED T HAT THE LOSS IS ON ITA NOS. 64, 290 & 291/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 3 ACCOUNT OF RECEIPT AND PAYMENT OF INTEREST. THE A.O FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED INTEREST OF RS. 31,77,516/- A ND HAS PAID INTEREST OF RS. 56,41,978/- TO RAJEEV ENTERPRISE. THE A.O OB SERVED THAT THE INTEREST HAS BEEN PAID TO RAJEEV ENTERPRISE ON ACCO UNT OF HEAVY WITHDRAWAL OF FUNDS. THE A.O WAS OF THE OPINION THA T THE FUNDS TAKEN OUT FROM THIS ACCOUNT HAS BEEN INVESTED TOWARDS PUR CHASE OF SHARES FROM WHICH NO DIVIDEND INCOME IS EARNED. THE A.O AC CORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE EXCESS INTEREST OUT GO TO RS. 24,30, 996/-. 5. ON FURTHER PROBE, THE A.O FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS RECEIVED INTEREST FROM RJD IMPEX @ 6% AMOUNTING TO RS. 48,74 ,798/-. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CHARGING INTEREST @ 12% ON LOANS AND ADVANCES TO OTHER ENTITIES. THE A.O WAS OF THE FIRM OPINION THAT BY CHARGING LESSER RATE OF INTEREST @ 6%. THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED A REVENUE LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EARNING TO THE TUNE OF RS. 48,74,798/- BECAUSE IF THE ASSESSEE HAD CHARGED INT EREST @ 12%, HE WOULD HAVE RECEIVED FURTHER INTEREST OF RS. 48,74,7 98/-. THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED RS. 48,74,798/- OUT OF TOTAL INTEREST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT O F INTEREST AMOUNTED TO RS. 24,30,996/- + 48,74,798= 73,05,794/ -. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND VEHEMENTLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD MULTIPLE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WHICH GENERATED DIFFERENT TYPES OF INCOME AND ONE OF SUCH ACTIVITIES WAS THE FINANCE ACTIVITY IN THE NAME OF RAJEEV ENTERPRISE. THE FUNDS UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE FOR INTRODUCING CAPITAL IN THE FIRM IN WHICH HE IS A PARTNER AND TH E FUNDS HAVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND. IT WAS BROUGHT T O THE NOTICE OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT FROM THE LAND BUSINESS, THE ASSESSEE HA S MADE A GROSS ITA NOS. 64, 290 & 291/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 4 PROFIT OF RS. 5.45 CRORES. THUS, IT CAN BE SEEN THA T THE FUNDS HAVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS. IT WAS FURTH ER BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE RAJEEV ENTERPRISE HAS RECEIVED INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS. 52,56,223/- AND HAS PAID INTEREST OF RS. 56,41,978/-. THUS, THERE WAS ONLY A DIFFERENCE OF R S. 3,85,755/- AND NOT RS. 24,30,996/- AS HELD BY THE A.O. 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS, TH E LD. CIT(A) WAS CONVINCED WITH THE FACTUAL MATRIX AND DIRECTED THE A.O TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 24,30,996/-. 8. COMING TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 48,74,798/-, IT WAS E XPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE CHARGED LOWER RATE OF INTEREST FROM RJD IM PEX ON THE GROUNDS OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT SPECIAL CONCESSION IN CHARGING LOWER RATE OF INTEREST WAS G IVEN TO RJD IMPEX BECAUSE OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE COULD SELL ITS INVEST MENT IN LAND AT TRAGAD - NAROL AND SARKHEJ OKAB AREA. IT WAS BROUGH T TO THE NOTICE OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CHARGING AN Y INTEREST ON THE DEPOSITS AND CREDIT BALANCE WITH THE SISTER CONCERN . AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS O F THE OPINION THAT THERE IS NO BUSINESS NEXUS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH SIS TER CONCERN, RJD IMPEX PVT. LTD. AND ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE DISAL LOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS. 48,74,79/-. 9. AGGRIEVED BY THESE TWO SEPARATE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE EXTRACT OF THE L EDGER ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF RJD IMPEX PVT. LTD. AND ST ATED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WITH RJD IMPEX WERE PURELY ON COMMERCI AL BASIS AND THE ITA NOS. 64, 290 & 291/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 5 ASSESSEE HAS BEEN USUALLY BENEFITTED BY CHARGING LE SSER RATE OF INTEREST TO THE ADVANCES GIVEN TO RJD IMPEX PVT. LT D. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE HUGE PROFITS IN LAND DEALINGS ARRANGED BY M/S. RJD IMPEX, THEREFORE, THE DISALLOW ANCE OF INTEREST IS AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE SINCE THE TRANSACTION IS PURELY ON THE GROUNDS OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. PER CONTRA, THE L D. D.R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS CO UNT. 10. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS TO DECIDE WHETHER BY CHARGING LESSER RATE OF INTEREST WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS DI VERTED THE BORROWED FUNDS. 11. NEITHER THE A.O NOR THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY H AVE BROUGHT ANY COGENT MATERIAL ON RECORD WHICH COULD DEMONSTRA TE THAT M/S. RJD IMPEX PVT. LTD. HAS NOT USED THE MONEY FOR ITS BUSI NESS. THE DETAILED EXPLANATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING LAND DE ALINGS HAS BEEN RUBBISHED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WITHOUT ANY DEMONSTRATION. 12. ONCE IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THERE IS NEXUS BETWEEN EXPENDITURE AND THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS WHICH NEED NOT NECESSA RILY BE THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF, THE REVENUE CANNO T JUSTIFIABLY CLAIM TO PUT ITSELF IN THE ARM-CHAIR OF BUSINESSMAN OR IN PO SITION OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND ASSUME ROLE TO DECIDE HOW MUCH IS REA SONABLE EXPENDITURE HAVING REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF C ASE. NO BUSINESSMAN CAN BE COMPELLED TO MAXIMIZE HIS PROFIT AND THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES MUST PUT THEMSELVES IN THE SHOE S OF THE ASSESSEE AND SEE HOW A PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN WOULD ACT. THE AU THORITIES MUST NOT LOOK AT THE MATTER FROM THEIR OWN VIEW POINT BU T THAT OF A PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN. THESE OBSERVATIONS ARE GIVEN BY THE HO NBLE SUPREME ITA NOS. 64, 290 & 291/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 6 COURT IN THE CASE OF HERO CYCLES (P) LTD. 63 TAXMAN N.COM 308 OR 281 CTR 481. 13. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE LAN D BUSINESS PROFIT OF 5.45 CRORES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RATIO LAI D DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT (SUPRA). WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 48,74,798/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS OF I NTEREST @ 6%, WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A ) AND DIRECT THE A.O TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 48,74,798/-. 14. APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED . COMING TO REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 290/A HD/2012 15. THE SECOND GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS. 24,30,996/-. 16. A PERUSAL OF THE FACTUAL MATRIX SHOWS THAT THE PROP RIETARY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE M/S. RAJEEV ENTERPRISE HAS NOT USED THE FUNDS FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES IN FACT THE FUNDS FROM RA JEEV ENTERPRISE HAVE BEEN DIVERTED TO OTHER BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF TH E ASSESSEE NAMELY TRADING IN LAND, SHARE AND FUTURES AND OPTIONS AND FINANCING ACTIVITIES. SINCE NO FUNDS HAVE BEEN DIVERTED FROM RAJEEV ENTER PRISE FOR NON- BUSINESS PURPOSES OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN FACT THE F UNDS HAVE BEEN DIVERTED FOR OTHER BUSINESS ACTIVITY FROM WHERE SUB STANTIAL INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A), GROUND NO. 2 IS ACC ORDINGLY ALLOWED. ITA NOS. 64, 290 & 291/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 7 17. FACTS RELATING TO GROUND NO. 1 OF REVENUES APPEAL SHOW THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS, THE A.O FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN LAND AT ADALAJ UN DER THE HEAD STOCK-IN-TRADE AT RS. 32,32,825/-. ON PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE A.O FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD P URCHASED THE SAID LAND FROM SHRI HEMENDRA SHAH VIDE SALE DEED NO. 124 45 DATED 08/10/2007 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 61 LAKHS. AFT ER ADDING STAMP DUTY AND OTHER EXPENSES, THE TOTAL COST OF THE LAND WAS AT RS. 64,65,650/-, SINCE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING HALF SHARE I N THE SAID LAND THE AMOUNT OF RS. 32,32,825/- WAS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET. 18. THE A.O FURTHER OBSERVED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION CARRIED OUT AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI GAN DAJI AMBARAM THAKOR, STATEMENT WAS RECORDED U/S. 132(4) OF THE A CT IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE THAKOR FAMILY HAD SOLD THE LAN D FOR RS. 210 LAKHS. THE A.O WAS OF THE FIRM BELIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S PAID RS. 210 LAKHS AS SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF SAID LAND SINCE THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE CO-OWNER WAS AT RS. 61 LAKHS. THE A.O MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 149 LAKHS AND DIVID ED THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 74.5 LAKHS AND IN THE HANDS OF THE CO- OWNER SMT. ASHABEN DESAI WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE RS. 7 4.5 LAKHS. 19. AGGRIEVED BY THIS THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER B EFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IT WAS STRONGLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CI T(A) THAT IN THE STATEMENT NONE OF THE THAKOR FAMILY HAVE STATED THA T THEY HAVE SOLD THE LAND TO THE ASSESSEE OR HIS WIFE SMT. ASHABEN D ESAI. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE HAS PURCHA SED THE LAND FROM SHRI HEMENDRA SHAH. IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE TO THE LD. CIT(A) ITA NOS. 64, 290 & 291/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 8 THAT SHRI HEMENDRA SHAH HAD OBTAINED LEGAL POWER OF ATTORNEY FROM SHRI GANDAJI THAKOR AND ORS. 20. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS AND THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE LAND BEARING SURVEY NUMBER 648 WAS INITIALLY AGREED TO BE SOLD T O SHRI HEMENDRA SHAH. FOR THIS PURPOSE POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS GIVEN BY SHRI GANDABHAI MAKWANA, THE ORIGINAL OWNER OF THE LAND, IN FAVOUR OF SHRI ABBASBHAI MALIK, A BROKER. ACCORDING TO SHRI GANDABHAI MAKWAN A, THE LAND WAS SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD BY SHRI ABBASBHAI MALIK WITHOUT H IS KNOWLEDGE TO SHRI HEMENDRA SHAH FOR WHICH TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.57 LACS WAS RECEIVED. OUT OF THIS AMOUNT, RS. 7 LAKH WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY SHRI GANDABHAI MAKWANA AT THE TIME OF B ANAKHAT AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.50 LACS WAS THE STATED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY SHRI ABBASBHAI MALIK AT THE TIME OF SALE OF THE LAN D ON 21/9/2007. THE LAND WAS THEN SOLD BY SHRI HEMENDRA SHAH TO THE APP ELLANTS ON 8/10/2007. THE DOCUMENTED PRICE OF THIS LAND WAS SH OWN AT RS.64.65 LACS. SUBSEQUENTLY, IN THE MONTH OF MAY, 2008 SHRI GANDABHAI MAKWANA CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE ADVERTISEMENT OF TIT LE CLEARANCE OF THE SAID LAND IN THE NEWSPAPER. SHRI GANDABHAI MAKW ANA FILED HIS OBJECTION AGAINST THE TITLE CLEARANCE AND CONSEQUEN TLY THE SALE DEED DATED 21/9/2007 WITH SHRI HEMENDRA SHAH WAS CANCELL ED ON 21/6/2008. THE LAND WAS THEN SOLD BY SHRI GANDABHAI MAKWANA TO SHRI MANIBHAI V PATEL AND OTHERS (TOTAL SIX CO-OWNE RS) ON 11/8/2008 FOR TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.2.10 CRORES (THE DOCU MENTED PRICE OF THE LAND WAS SHOWN AT RS. 53.5 LACS). IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON 15/10/2008 SHRI GANDABHAI M AKWANA AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS STATED THAT THEY HAD RECEIVED TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.2.10 CRORES INCLUDING THE CASH OF RS.1.57 CRORES ITA NOS. 64, 290 & 291/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 9 FROM SHRI MANIBHAI V PATEL AND OTHERS. THE AMOUNT O F RS.2.10 CRORES WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN INVESTED BY THEM IN FOLLOWI NG ASSETS; SN DESCRIPTION AMOUNT (RS.) 1 LIC POLICIES 11600000 2 CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE & TEMPLES 1100000 3 PURCHASE OF LAND 2687000 4 INVESTMENT IN POST OFFICE MIS SCHEME 1095000 5 PURCHASE OF AUTO RICKSHAW, MOTOR CYCLE 352500 6 LOANS GIVEN TO OTHERS 1750000 TOTAL 18584500 5.1. ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENTS RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE CASE OF GANDABHAI MAKWANA AND OTHER F AMILY MEMBERS, THE AO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ACTUAL PRICE OF THE LAND WAS RS.2.10 CRORES AND THEREFORE, THE APPELLANTS MUST H AVE PAID RS.2.10 CRORES TO SHRI HEMENDRA SHAH. ON THIS PRESUMPTION, HE MADE THE ADDITION OF THE CASH COMPONENT OF RS.1.45 CRORES (R S.72.50 LACS EACH) IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANTS. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE MENTIONED SEQUENCE OF EVENTS, NEITHER GANDABHAI MAK WANA STATED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.2.10 CRORES. FROM SHRI HEMENDRA SHAH OR SHRI HEMENDRA SHAH HAS EVER STATED THAT HE HAD SOLD THE LAND TO THE APPELLANTS FOR TOTAL CONSIDERA TION OF RS.2.10 CRORES. IN FACT, THE APPELLANTS HAVE PURCHASED THE LAND FROM SHRI ITA NOS. 64, 290 & 291/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 10 HEMENDRA SHAH ON 8/10/2007 WHEREAS SHRI GANDABHAI M AKWANA HAS ADMITTED HAVING RECEIVED THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.2.10 CRORES FROM THE SALE OF THE LAND ON 11/8/2008 TO SHRJ MANI BHAI V PATEL AND OTHERS. THERE MAY BE SOME POSSIBILITY OF CASH COMPO NENT RECEIVED BY SHRI HEMENDRA SHAH FROM THE APPELLANTS BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD OF THE AO THAT THE APPELLANTS HAD PAID A NY CASH TO SHRI HEMENDRA SHAH. THE EVIDENCE OF CASH COMPONENT RECEI VED BY SHRI GANDABHAI MAKWANA IS IN RESPECT OF THE SALE OF THE LAND ON 11/08/2008 AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER IN R ESPECT OF THE CASH COMPONENT OVER AND ABOVE THE CHEQUE PAYMENTS P AID BY THE APPELLANTS TO SHRI HEMENDRA SHAH. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE, I HAVE NO HESITATION IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 72.50 LACS EACH MADE THE A.O IN THE CASE OF BOTH THE APPELLANT. 21. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. THE L D. D.R. COULD NOT ADD ANYTHING NEW TO WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN STATE D BY THE A.O. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE FACTUA L MATRIX EXPLAINED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 22. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE FA CTS RELATING TO THE PURCHASE OF THE IMPUGNED LAND AS EXPLAINED AND DISC USSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) (SUPRA). IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN SPECIFIC FACTUAL FINDINGS AND THE FINDINGS ARE WELL RESEARCHED AND SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, THEREFORE, NO I NTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. GROUND NO. 1 OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DI SMISSED. ITA NOS. 64, 290 & 291/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 11 23. AS MENTIONED ELSEWHERE, FACTS IN ISSUES IN ITA NO. 291/AHD/2012 ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN ISSUES I N GROUND NO. 1 OF ITA NO. 290/AHD/2012. FOR OUR DETAILED DISCUSSION T HEREIN, REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 291/AHD/2012 IS ALSO DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 26 - 02 - 2016. SD/- SD/- (S. S. GODARA) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHMEDA BAD