The ITO, Ward-5(2)(3), Ahmedabad V. Smt. Darshiniben M. Adani, Ahmedabad

ITA 649/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6358 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 14-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: BIREN SHAH
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Corroborative evidences; Competent authority; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 263

Judgement Text

, - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD - BENCH B BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.649/AHD/2018 / ASSTT.YEAR : 2011-12 ITO, WARD - 5(2)(3) AHMEDABAD. VS. SMT. DARSHINIBEN M. ADANI 9, MAITRI SOCIETY OPP: GOYAL TOWER AMBAWADI, AHMEDABAD PAN : AATPA 6568 N ( APPLICANT ) ( RESPONENT ) REVENUE BY : SHRI MUDIT NAGPAL, SR.DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI BIREN SHAH, AR / DATE OF HEARING : 23/08/2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15/10/2019 / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST OR DER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-5, AHMEDABAD DATED 11.12.2017 PASSED FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2011- 12. 2. REVENUE HAS TAKEN ELEVEN GROUNDS OF APPEAL. IN GROUND NO.1 TO 8, IT HAS RAISED ONE ISSUE, I.E. WHETHER CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF LAND DESERVES TO BE ASSESSED IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2011-12 OR NOT. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE EN TERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF NON-AGRICULTURE LAND ON 15.5.2006. THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE A.Y. 2011-12 WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) ON 28.2.201 4 DETERMINING TOTAL ITA NO.649/AHD/2018 2 INCOME AT RS.16,96,560/-. THE AO ACCEPTED THE TRAN SFER OF AGRICULTURE LAND IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2006-07 AND NOT TAXED THE CAPITAL GAIN IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THEREFORE, AN ACTION UNDER SECTIO N 263 WAS TAKEN BY THE LD.COMMISSIONER WHO HAS SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT OR DER VIDE ORDER DATED 29.3.2016. IN PURSUANCE OF 263-ORDER, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 28.12.2016 UNDER SECTION 143 (3) R.W.S. 2 63 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. DISSATISFIED WITH THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECT ION 263, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BEARING ITA NO. 1348/AHD/2016. THE ITAT HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND VAC ATED THE ORDER OF THE CIT PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 ON THIS ISSUE, WHICH I S AGAIN PLEADED BY THE REVENUE IN GROUND NO.1 TO 8 OF THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE ORDER OF THE CIT PASSED UND ER SECTION 263 WAS VACATED, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO JURISDICTION WITH T HE AO TO MAKE AN INQUIRY ON THE ISSUE OF ASSESSABILITY OF CAPITAL GAIN ON SA LE OF AGRICULTURE LAND. THE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A) READS AS UNDER: DECISION: 3.3. IN THIS CASE, ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE AC T WAS COMPLETED ON 28.02.2014 ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.16,96,560/-. THE REAFTER THE PR. CIT-5, AHMEDABAD SET-ASIDE THE SAID ORDER VIDE ORDE R U/S.263 DTD. 29.3.2016 HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT PASSED VIDE O RDER DTD. 28.2.2014 WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTE REST OF REVENUE ON CERTAIN ISSUES. IN CONSEQUENCE TO THAT ORDER, TH E AO HAS ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE CALLING FOR THE DETAILS AND EXPLANATION.' THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DERIVES INCOME FROM B USINESS CARRIED ON BY HER UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF AUTO CRAFT. T HE AO HAS PASSED ORDER U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT AFTER MAKIN G FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. PARTICULARS AMOUNT INCOME AS PER THE RETURN OF INCOME 16,96,560/- ADDITIONS: LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS 1 0,49,84,1 50/- ITA NO.649/AHD/2018 3 DEEMED INCOME UNDER SECTION 50C 1,89,250/- ADDITION OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JOB WORK INCOME AND INCOME REPORTED IN ITS STATEMENT 27,43,663/- INCOME ASSESSED 1 0,96,1 3,620/- THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SOLD IMM OVABLE PROPERTIES IN A.Y. 2007-08 BY EXECUTING AGREEMENT T O SALE AND AFTER COMPLETING THE FORMALITIES THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUT ED IN A.Y .2011- H. THE AO HAS FURTHER HELD THAT CAPITAL GAIN FROM T HE ABOVE TRANSACTION IS RELATED TO A.Y .2011-12 AND NOT IN A .Y. 2007-08. THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT DURING THE ASSESSMENT, PROCEEDINGS WAS THAT THE PROPERTIES WERE TRANSFERRED IN F.Y. 2006-0 7 AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPER TY ACT R.W.S. 2(47)(V)OF THE I.T. ACT. THE AO HAS VERIFIED THE AG REEMENT OF SALE AND OBSERVED CERTAIN POINTS AS STATED IN PARA-3.3 O F THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ON THE BASIS OF THESE OBSERVATIONS THE AO HA S HELD THAT THE BASIC REQUISITE OF SECTION 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF P ROPERTY ACT HAS NOT BEEN FULFILLED AND HENCE THE SAID TRANSACTION CANNO T BE CONSTITUTED AS TRANSFER AS PER SECTION 2(47) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE AO HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT NEITHER THE SAID PROPERTIES ARE EXEMP T FROM TAXATION AS THEY DO NOT QUALITY TO BE AGRICULTURAL LAND U/S.2(1 4)(III) OF THE I.T. ACT NOR THE TRANSFER HAS BEEN EXECUTED, IN F.Y. 200 6-07 AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF. SECTION 2 (47)(V) R.W.S. 53A OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTER ED INTO AN AGREEMENT OF' SALE IN F.Y. 2006-07 AND RECEIVED FUL L ADVANCE IN THE SAME YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE SOLD AG RICULTURAL LAND IN F.Y. 2006-07 AT THE MARKET RATE ON NON-AGRICULTU RAL LAND PREVALENT IN 2010-11 WHICH THE AO HAS FOUND COMPLET E BY UNREASONABLE. THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS TRANSFERRED NON-AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN F.Y. 2010-11 ONLY WHEN THE SALE DEED WAS REGISTERED AFTER OBTAINING PERMISSION FROM COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR CHANGING THE NATURE LAND FROM AGRICUL TURAL TO NON- AGRICULTURAL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE AO HAS COMP UTED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARISING TO THE ASSESSEE IN A.Y. 2 011-12 AT RS. 10,49,84,150/-. 3.4. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE H ON'BLE ITAT, AHMEDABAD AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PCIT-5, A HMEDABAD U/S.263 OF THE ACT DTD. 29.3.2016. IT IS FURTHER CO NTENDED THAT THE ITA NO.649/AHD/2018 4 HON'BLE ITAT HAS PASSED ORDER DTD. 3.8.2017 VIDE OR DER NO.L348/AHD/2016. THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF L ONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN THE A.Y. UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS BE EN DEALT BY THE HON'BLE ITAT IN THE SAID ORDER AS UNDER:- '12. WE OBSERVE IN THESE PECULIAR FACTS THAT THE RE VENUE'S LATTER PLEA THAT THE ABOVE AGREEMENT TO SELL AS WEL L AS THE ONE HANDING OVER POSITION ARE NOT VALID SINCE NOT REGIS TERED DOCUMENTS DOES NOT DESERVE ACCEPTANCE. WE ARE OF TH E OPINION THAT THE PRESENT IS A CASE WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE COU LD NOT HAVE GOT THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS REGISTERED IN VIEW OF THE S TATUTORY BAR IMPOSED, BY THE LEGISLATION HEREINABOVE THAT A NON AGRICULTURIST IS NOT PERMITTED TO PURCHASE AGRICULT URAL LANDS. THE ASSESSEE COULD AT THE BEST TAKE RECOURSE TO UNR EGISTERED AGREEMENTS ONLY SO AS TO ENTER INTO PART PERFORMANC E OF THE CONTRACT TILL THE TIME SHE GOT COLLECTOR'S APPROVAL . WE FIND THAT ABOVE DECISION OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COU RT DID NOT CONTAIN SUCH A STATUTORY BAR. THEIR LORDSHIPS T HEREFORE DECIDED IN THE SAID CASE THAT SECTION 2(47)(V) BODI LY TRANSPOSES INTO ITSELF SECTION 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT R.W. CORRESPONDING SECTION 17(1) OF THE INDIAN REGISTRATION ACT. WE THEREFORE OBSERVE THAT SUCH FA CTS CANNOT LEAD US TO AN INFERENCE THAT A VENDOR CANNOT ENTER INTO A PART PERFORMANCE OF A TRANSFER AGREEMENT IN FAVOUR OF A NON AGRICULTURIST IN GUJARAT STATE WITHOUT GETTING THE SAME REGISTERED AS PER ABOVE DECISION. OUR INFERENCE RAT HER IS THAT A REGISTRATION AUTHORITY EXERCISING STATUTORY POWERS CANNOT REGISTER SUCH A DOCUMENT IN VIEW OF SECTION 63 OF T HE ABOVESTATED AGRICULTURAL LAND TRANSFER LAW APPLICAB LE IN GUJARAT STATE. SUCH A NON REGISTRATION AS IN FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE WOULD NOT OTHERWISE INVALIDATE AN UNREGISTERED DOCUMENT IN CASE IT SATISFIES ALL OTHER COMPONENTS OF PART P ERFORMANCE INVOLVING HANDING OVER OF POSSESSION, WE REITERATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY PLACED* ON RECORD OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING HER TO HAVE HANDED OVER POSS ESSION OF HER LAND TO THE ORIGINAL VENDEE FOLLOWED BY LATTER' S ALL STEPS IN EXECUTING MO US WITH THE STATE GOVERNMENT AS WELL A S AUDA. WE THEREFORE DISTINGUISH HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA H IGH COURT'S DECISION TO BE APPLICABLE ONLY IN CASE WHEN SUCH A REGISTRATION OF AGREEMENT TO SELL OR PART PERFORMAN CE IS REGISTERED WITHOUT ANY SPECIFIC BAR AS IN PRESENT C ASE ONLY. WE ITA NO.649/AHD/2018 5 FURTHER FIND THAT YET ANOTHER DECISION OF CHANDRA P RAKASH JAIN VS. ACIT (2014) 46 TAXMANN.COM 268 (ALLAHABAD) APPL IES IN INSTANT FACTS WHEREIN THE VENDEE TOOK OVER POSSESSI ON, RE-SOLD THE PROPERTY M QUESTION TO PURCHASERS AFTER CARRYIN G OUT NECESSARY DEVELOPMENTS. THEIR LORDSHIPS HOLD THAT S UCH INITIAL TRANSACTION AMOUNTS TO 'TRANSFER' WITHIN THE MEANIN G OF SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT IN TUNE WITH LANDMARK DECI SION OF CHATURBHUJ DWARKADAS KAPADIA VS. C1T (2003) 260 1TR 491 (BOMBAY). WE THUS DECLINE THE REVENUE'S INSTANT LAT TER PLEA ON REGISTRATION ASPECT AS WELL IN VIEW OF THE FACT THA T THERE IS NO SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND TRANSFER L AW IN GUJARAT STATE WITH THAT APPLICABLE IN PUNJAB. WE TH EREFORE CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TRANSFERRED HER LAND S TO THE VENDEE CONCERNED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ITSELF THAN IN THE YEAR OF EXECUTION OF SALE DEED I.E. THE IMPUGNED AS SESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. THE CIT'S ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE TREAT ING THE LATTER ASSESSMENT YEAR TO BE THE YEAR OF TRANSFER I S ACCORDINGLY HELD TO BE NOT SUSTAINABLE. 13. WE FURTHER FIND BEFORE PARTING THAT THE CIT HAS ALSO NOT ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN PASSING A NON REASONED REMAND ORDER IN EXERCISING REVISIONARY JURISDICTIO N U/S. 263 OF THE ACT. IT HAS ALREADY COME ON RECORD THAT HE HIMS ELF ABSENTED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ACCEPTED ASSESEE'S CLAIM OF HAVING TRANSFERRED THE LAND IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 (SUPRA). HE THEREFORE SEEMS TO HAVE TREATED IT AS A CASE WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER FELL IN ERROR IN AGREEING WITH ASSESSEE'S TRANSFER CLAIM. WE THUS REITERATE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT'S DECISION (SUPRA) HOLDING THAT IT IS NOT OPEN FOR THE CIT TO PASS A BLANKET REMAND ORDER WITHOUT DEALING WITH MERITS OF THE ISSUE SUCH A BACKDROP OF FACTS. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT THE CIT'S REMAND DIRECTIONS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRAMING A FRESH ASSESSMENT AR E NOT LIABLE TO BE AFFIRMED. WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT OUR ABOVE DETA ILED DISCUSSION TO REVERSE THE CIT'S ORDER UNDER CHALLEN GE QUA THE FORMER ISSUE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS ARISIN G FROM TRANSFER OF ASSESSEE'S LANDS. THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS IN HER CORRESPONDING FORMER SUBSTANTIVE GROUND (S). ' F THE HON'BLE ITAT IN ITS ORDER HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TRANSFERRED HER LAND TO THE VENDEE CON CERNED IN ITA NO.649/AHD/2018 6 A.Y. 2007-08 ITSELF NOT IN THE YEAR OF EXECUTION OF SALE DEED I.E. IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE PR.CIT PASSED U/S.263 OF T HE ACT. AS THE; ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT VID E ORDER IN APPEAL NO.1348/AHD/2016 DTD. 3.8.2017 THAT THE INCO ME ON SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IS PERTAINS TO A.Y. 2007 -08 AND NOT TO A.Y. 2011-12 THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE A DDITION MADE BY THE AO WITH REGARD TO THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IS DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALL OWED. FURTHER AS THE INCOME ON SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY PERTAINS TO A.Y. 2007-08 THERE IS NO QUESTION OF APPLYING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50G OF THE ACT IN THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION ARISES. 4. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.REPRESENTATIVES, W E HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. JURISDICTION IN THE AO FOR P ASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE PRESENT ISSUE WAS BEING INFUSED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263. ONCE THAT ORDER WAS SET SIDE, THEN THERE IS NO ISSUE REMAINED TO BE INQUIRED AT THE END OF THE AO. IN OTHER WORDS, POWER TO PASS FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 263 WITH THE AO ON THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN EXTINGUISHED. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN GROUND NO.1 TO 8 OF THE REVENUE; THEY ARE REJECTED. 5. NEXT GROUND FOR ADJUDICATION IS GROUND NO.9, WHE REIN THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN DELETIN G ADDITION OF RS.27,43,663/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN JOB WORK INCOME SHOWN IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND INCOME AS PER FORM NO.26A S. 6. BRIEF FACTS IN THIS REGARD ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF JOB WORK OF CORRUGATED BOXES. DURING TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS SHOWN JOB WORK INCOME OF RS.2,32,77,111/- IN THE PROFIT AND L OSS ACCOUNT, WHEREAS AS ITA NO.649/AHD/2018 7 PER THE FORM NO.26AS IT WAS SHOWN AT RS.2,60,20,774 /-. THE LD.AO DOUBTED THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF RS.27,43,663/- T O BE UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS AND SOUGHT EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT OF JOB WORK RECEIPTS REFLE CTED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS STATEMENT WAS NET OF PURCHASES EFFECTED ON SUCH REC EIPTS. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT REFLE CTED TOTAL PURCHASES MADE FROM SANTOSH STARCH PRODUCTS OF RS.13,12,315/-, SHR I AMBICA DYE CHEM OF RS.13,90,515/- AND BINDING CLOTH OF RS.40,833/-, WHICH WERE ALSO REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HOWEVER, THE L D.AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED PURCHASES SEPARATELY, AND THERE WAS NO CONCLUSIVE E VIDENCE TO PROVE PURCHASE EXPENDITURE. HE ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITION TO THIS EFFECT. MATTER WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT, WHO ALLOWED THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED REVENUE IS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. BEFORE US, BOTH THE PARTIES SUPPORTED ORDERS OF RESPECTIVE AUTHORITIES, AND REITERATED SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AU THORITIES. 8. AFTER HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CONSIDER ING MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATI ON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE, BECAUSE, FOR THE DI FFERENTIAL AMOUNT SHOWN IN THE ITS STATEMENT AND THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUN T, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL DETAILS BEFORE THE AO, VIZ. COPY OF S ALES AND PURCHASE ACCOUNTS, LEDGER ACCOUNT OF ALL THREE PARTIES, COPY OF JOB WORK. THE AO SIMPLY IGNORED ALL THESE DETAILS, AND WITHOUT ISSUI NG SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ON THIS ISSUE, OR EVEN WITHOUT MAKING ANY INQUIRIES WI TH THE VENDORS, MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT EME RGES OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES TH E REASON FOR DIFFERENCE ITA NO.649/AHD/2018 8 IN TWO STATEMENTS AS NETTING OF INCOME FROM THE JOB WORK; AND THAT THE ENTIRE JOB WORK INCOME SHOWN IN ITS WAS REFLECTED I N THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THERE IS NOTHING BEFORE THE AO TO MAKE TH E ADDITION AND HE SIMPLY PROCEEDED ON THE PREMISE THAT THE ASSESSEE F AILED TO PROVIDE COMPLETE DETAILS RELATING TO PURCHASES. IT IS SETT LED POSITION OF THE LAW THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF RECEIPTS SH OWN IN THE ITS ALONE, UNLESS THE AO IS ABLE TO SHOW WITH EVIDENCE THAT SU CH INCOME FORMS PART OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO PROVE NEGATIVE, RATHER, IT IS FOR THE REVENUE TO PROVE TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERSTATED ITS INCOME, AND FOR THAT MATTER, RECEIV ED UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE IN RIGHT PER SPECTIVE, AND RIGHTLY DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. WE UPHOLD HIS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE, AND REJECT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 9. THE LAST ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE LD.CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,89,250/- UNDER SECTIO N 50C OF THE ACT. 10. IN VIEW OF OUR FINDING RECORDED IN PARA-4 AND 5 (SUPRA), WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND. ACCORDINGLY, THIS G ROUND STANDS REJECTED. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 15 TH OCTOBER, 2019 AT AHMEDABAD. S D / - (AMARJIT SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S D / - (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 15/10/2019