CHETAN MAKANJI KOTAK, MUMBAI V. ACIT CEN CIR 17 & 28, MUMBAI

ITA 7887/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9549 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 07-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 15-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GIRIJA DAYAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MATHURIA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Onus to prove
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH C, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 7887/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) M/S CHETAN MAKANJI KOTAK A-1/64, JALARAM ASHISH, 6 TH FLOOR, DEVIDAYAL ROAD, MULUND (W) MUMBAI -400 080 PAN AABPK 0645 E VS ACIT CEN CIR 17 & 28 401, AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.S MATHURIA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI GIRIJA DAYAL DATE OF HEARING: 07.11.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: .11.2012 O R D E R PER VIVEK VARMA, JM: THE APPEAL ARISES FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) 39, MUMBAI, DATED 20.08.2010 WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED : (1) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ER RED IN SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION U/W. 69B OF RS.45,555/- MADE BY THE AO FOR ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN JEWELRY (DIAMOND RING) ON THE BASIS O F QUOTATION DATED 6.5.2006 OF MESSRS. JAVERAAT (THE JEWELLERY ARCAD E) OF RUSHABH JEWELLERS PVT. LTD. [GOVERNMENT APPROVAL VALUER] WHEN IN FACT NEITHER SUCH DIAMOND RING WAS PURCHASED NOT FOUND IN SEARCH AT THE PREMISES O F THE APPELLANT. (2) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERR ED IN SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION U/S. 69B OF RS.11,15,886/- MADE BY THE AO FOR ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN FLAT [SIC]. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH ON THE ASSESSEE ON 15.06.2007. AS A CONSEQUENCE OF WHICH, PROCEEDINGS U/S 153 A WERE INITIATED AND AO ISSUED NOTICES FOR VARIOUS YEARS. OUT OF T HE YEARS M/S CHETAN MAKANJI KOTAK ITA NO. 7887/MUM/2010 2 INVOLVED U/S 153A, THE DEPARTMENT FOUND INCRIMINATING DOCUM ENTS FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, I.E. 2007-08 AND MADE ADDIT IONS ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENTS U/S 69B, WHICH ARE AS UNDER : UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN JEWELRY : RS. 45,555 UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN FLAT : RS. 11,15,886 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE ADDITION OF RS. 45,555 A S GROUND NO. 1, WHEREIN, THE AR EXPLAINED THAT DURING THE SEARCH A DOC UMENT, WHICH WAS IN THE FORM OF A QUOTATION DATED 06.07.2006, WAS FOUND WHEREIN, THE DESCRIPTION OF A TRANSACTION WORTH RS. 45,555 WAS GIVEN. THE AR EXPLAINED THAT IN THE DESCRIPTION, THERE WAS A RED UCTION OF RS. 15,800, FROM RS. 45,555 AND THE EFFECTIVE TRANSACTION, IF AT A LL, IT WERE, WERE FOR RS. 29,755. ACCORDING TO THE AR, THE ASSESSEE W ENT TO JEWELLER AND SELECTED SOME DIAMOND ORNAMENTS, WHICH WERE VALUED A T RS. 45,555, AGAINST WHICH, THE ASSESSEE OFFERED HER BANGLES WOR TH RS. 15,800 TO BE REDUCED THEREFROM. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE AR, THE SLIP WAS WORTH RS. 29,755, IF, THE TRANSACTION HAD BEEN COMPLETED. THEN, IN THAT CASE, THE QUOTATION WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN THE EXECUTION OF AN INVOICE, AS PER THE COPIES OF THE INVOICES, FILED AS AP B 7 & 8, GIVING COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE JEWELLER. THE AR SUBMITTED TH AT THE INSTANT QUOTATION REMAINED A QUOTATION , AS THERE WAS NO ACTUAL TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE QUOTATION MA KER, I.E. THE JEWELLER. M/S CHETAN MAKANJI KOTAK ITA NO. 7887/MUM/2010 3 4. THE AR, THEREFORE, PLEADED THAT THIS WAS THE PAPER FO UND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND THE REVENUE AUTHORITY DID NOT , AT ALL, PROCEED TO MAKE ANY FURTHER ENQUIRIES ON THIS PAPER. THE AR, PLEAD ED THAT THE AO, ON THE FACE OF THE DOCUMENT PROCEEDED TO MADE THE ADDITION, WHICH WAS WITHOUT ANY PROOF AND/OR EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE DOCUMENT. THE AR, THEREFORE, PLEADED THAT THE REVENUE AU THORITY WERE WRONG TO MAKE THIS ADDITION. 5. THE DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHOR ITY BY SAYING THAT IN ACTUAL PRACTICE ALL JEWELLRY TRANSACTIONS ARE DONE ON QUOTATION , IF SOMEONE REQUIRES A BILL, ONLY THEN, THE BILL IS GENERATED. ON THE ISSUE OF FURTHER ENQUIRIES, THE DR SUBMITTED THAT, ENQUIRY IN THIS CASE WAS NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE TRANSACT ION ARE GIVEN INCLUDING MAKING CHARGES AND EXCHANGE OF ORNAMENT. THEREFO RE, THE DR PLEADED THAT THIS WAS A SAMPLE OF COMPLETE BUSINESS TR ANSACTION, TRANSACTED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY WAS CORRECT. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AN D HAVE PERUSED THE RELEVANT SEIZED DOCUMENT. WE FIND THAT THE N OTINGS THEREIN DEPICT A COMPLETE TRANSACTION, WHEREIN THERE IS WEIGHT OF T HE DIAMONDS, MAKING CHARGES AND AS PER THE AR, BANGLES GIVEN IN EXCHANGE, I.E. REDUCTION OF RS. 15,800, WHICH IS ASSUMED TO B E THE ADVANCE PAID. AT NO POINT OF TIME, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO M/S CHETAN MAKANJI KOTAK ITA NO. 7887/MUM/2010 4 ESTABLISH THAT THIS QUOTATION, CAN HAVE ANY OTHER PRESUM PTIVE EXPLANATION AS WELL. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US; THE AR STRENUOUSLY CONTENDED THAT THE PAPER CANNOT BE ASSU MED TO BE A COMPLETED TRANSACTION, BECAUSE, NEITHER IT WAS FOUND FEASIBL E NOR ANY BANGLES WERE GIVEN IN EXCHANGE AND THEREFORE, THIS PAPER CANNOT BE ACCEPTED TO BE OF ANY EVIDENTIARY VALUE. THIS ARGUMENT, IN OUR OPINION IS NOT ON A SOUND FOOTING. ACCEPT FOR THE STATEMENT MADE IN THE COURT, THAT THE QUOTATION HAS NOT BEEN EXECUTED AND THAT TH E BANGLES, STILL REMAIN WITH THE ASSESSEE, NEITHER PROVES ANYTHING NOR HA S THAT BEEN PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE, TILL DATE. THIS IS A CASE OF SEARC H AND SEIZURE OPERATION AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 132(4)(II), THE PRESU MPTION IS THAT WHATEVER IS FOUND AND SEIZED, IS CORRECT. THE BURDEN TO DENY THE EVIDENCE IS ON THE ASSESSEE, WHICH HE HAS FAILED TO DO. THE REFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, ADDITION MADE IS CORRECT AND, WE, SUSTAIN THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITY. THE ADDITION OF RS. 45,55 5 IS CONFIRMED AND THEREFORE, THE GROUND FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED . 7. THE SECOND GROUND IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,1 5,886 ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT. 8. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT DURING THE SEARCH, A DOCU MENT, SL. NO. 44 WAS FOUND, WHICH WAS A LETTER DATED 08.05.2006, WRITTEN TO THE ASST. GENERAL MANAGER (CREDIT DEPARTMENT), JANKALYAN SAHA KARI BANK LTD., CHEMBUR, MUMBAI WHEREIN IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE AS SESSEE M/S CHETAN MAKANJI KOTAK ITA NO. 7887/MUM/2010 5 HAD PURCHASED AN INDUSTRIAL GALA FOR RS. 26 LACS (MARKET V ALUE). THIS LETTER WAS WRITTEN TO KEEP THE INDUSTRIAL GALA AS SECURITY IN EXCHANGE OF FLAT A SUDAMA SADAN, HAVING VALUE OF RS. 10 LACS, BELONGIN G TO THE ASSESSEES FATHER. 9. THE AO ENQUIRED ABOUT THE VERACITY OF THE PAPER AND THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE PAPER CANNOT BE RELIED UPON AS IT HAS NOT BEEN SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WAS ONLY A DRAFT, WHICH WAS EITHER PREPARED BY A FRIEND OR BY THE EMPLOYEE OF THE BANK. TH E ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE FACT IS, THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE GALA FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 14,84,114, WHICH HAS BEEN DULY REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER EXPLAINED TO THE AO THAT HE HAD MENTIONED A HIGHER FIGURE ONLY BECAUSE ONE ALWAYS T HINKS THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS HIGH AND THE ACTUAL PRICE CAN BE KNOWN ONLY AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE/SALE. 10. THE AO NOTICED THAT THE LETTER WRITTEN TO THE BANK WAS IN THE SAME MONTH OF PURCHASE AND THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO NEE D FOR THE ESTIMATION OF THE MARKET PRICE OF PROPERTY, WHEN IT WAS RE ADILY AVAILABLE WITH HIM. THE AO, THEREFORE, CONCLUDED THAT THE PR ICE MENTIONED IN THE LETTER WAS THE CORRECT PRICE OF THE PROPERTY. 11. IN THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE REITERA TED HIS ARGUMENTS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CONCERNED PAPER WAS PREPARED TO M/S CHETAN MAKANJI KOTAK ITA NO. 7887/MUM/2010 6 AVAIL OVERDRAFT FACILITY FROM THE BANK, WHICH WAS NEVER AVAILE D BY SUPREME PLASTICS, PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE, AS THE CONDITIONS FOR AVAILING OF THE OVERDRAFT FACILITY WERE VERY S TRINGENT. THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A), THAT THE JANKALYAN SAHKARI BANK HAD ISSUED A LETTER DATED 24.12.2005, WHICH SPECIFIED THAT IF THE ACCEPTANCE TO THE BANKS LETTER NO. HD/CREDIT/SUD/MUL - W/278/2005-06 WAS NOT GIVEN WITHIN 15 DAYS, THE SANCTION WOULD BE CANCELLED. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RESPOND, THE SANCTIO N OF THE OVERDRAFT FACILITY FELL THROUGH AND THEREFORE, THE UNSIGNED LET TER DATED 08.05.2006 HAD NO LEGAL SANCTIONED AND THAT DOCUMENT COU LD NOT BE TAKEN INTO COGNIZANCE. 12. THE CIT(A) CONSIDERED ALL THE ARGUMENTS, INCLUDING THE LE TTER WRITTEN BY THE BANK DATED 30.06.2010, INFORMING THE AO THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT AVAILED ANY OVERDRAFT FACILITY IN THE NAME OF HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S SUPREME PLASTICS. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ADMISSION BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERT Y WAS 26 LACS ON 08.05.2006, I.E. 7 DAYS BEFORE THE EXECUTION OF THE PURCH ASE DOCUMENT WAS ENOUGH PROOF FOR THE PRESUMPTION FOR ON MONEY PAYMENT, WHICH WAS IN CASH. THE CIT(A), THEREFORE, SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 13. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS NOW BEFORE THE ITAT. M/S CHETAN MAKANJI KOTAK ITA NO. 7887/MUM/2010 7 14. BEFORE, US, THE AR REITERATED THE ASSESSEE SUBMISSION S BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITY AND PLACED HIS SUBMISSIONS ON FOUR FACTS, I.E. THE ACTUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS RS. 14,84,114 AND NOT RS. 26 LACS, THEREFORE, THE REGISTRATION HAS BEEN DONE AT THAT PRICE AND EXCEPT FOR THE UNSIGNED DRAFT LETTER FOUND, NO OTHER EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND, WHICH COULD BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIAT E, THAT ON MONEY WAS ACTUALLY PAID TO THE SELLER. THERE WAS NEITHER ANY EVIDENCE NOR ANY ENQUIRY AS SUCH. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THIS FACTUAL ASPECT, IT IS A NORMAL PRACTICE, THAT TO AVAIL OVERDRAFT/CREDIT FACILITIES FROM THE BANK, VALUE HIGHER THEN T HE PREVAILING RATES ARE INFORMED TO THE BANK. FOR THIS PROP OSITION, THE AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RELAXO FOOTWEAR, REPORTED IN 259 ITR 744 (RAJ), WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAD DELIBERATELY INFLATED THE STOCK POS ITION TO AVAIL OF HIGHER LIMITS OF CREDIT FROM THE BANK & THE CASE OF CIT VS BAJRANG LAL BANSAL, REPORTED IN 335 ITR 572 (DEL), WHEREIN HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE U NDER SECTION 260A, HOLDING THAT THE PRIMARY BURDEN TO PROVE UNDERSTATEMENT OR CONCEALMENT ON INCOME WAS ON THE REVENUE AND ONLY WHEN SUCH BURDEN WAS DISCHARGED THAT IT WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE TO RELY UPON THE VALUATION GIVEN BY THE DVO, AND SUBMITTED THAT ADDITION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED, WHEN ACTUAL PAPERS/DOCUMENTS ARE AVAILABLE. M/S CHETAN MAKANJI KOTAK ITA NO. 7887/MUM/2010 8 15. THE AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN ANY CASE, THE LETTE R CANNOT BE RELIED UPON BECAUSE, FINALLY NO CREDIT FACILITY WAS AVAILED BY T HE ASSESSEE, AS THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO FULFILL THE BANKS STRINGENT CONDITIONS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THE ST AMP VALUATION WAS LOWER THAN THE PURCHASE PRICE, THEREFORE, THE MARKET PRICE CANNOT BE THAT HIGH, AS PER THE VALUE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMPUGNED AND SEIZED LETTER DATED 08.05.2006. 16. THE DR ON THE OTHER HAND CONTENDED THAT TIMING ALO NG WITH THE SEIZED DOCUMENT HAS TO BE SEEN AND THE PRESUMPTION U/ S 132(4A) HAS TO BE APPLIED IN A CASE WHERE THE SEARCH HAS TAKEN PLAC E. BESIDES THE PRESUMPTION AS PER 132(4A), GENERAL PRACTICE AND MARKET T REND HAS TO BE SEEN. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT IN NORMAL MARKET PRACTICE , IN REAL ESTATE DEALING, ACTUAL PRICE IS USUALLY/NORMALLY HIGHER THAN THE AGREEMENT PRICE. THE FACT THAT THE LETTER DATED 08.05.200 5 WAS JUST 7 DAYS PRIOR THAN THE AGREEMENT ITSELF PROVED THAT THE LET TER TO THE BANK GIVING THE MARKET VALUE, PROVES THE FACT THAT THERE WAS INVOLVEMENT OF ON MONEY . THE DR, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE S CITED CANNOT BE APPLIED ON THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE SUBMITTED. 17. THE DR, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE TO BE SUSTAINED AND GROUND MUST BE REJECTED. 18. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS AND HAVE PERUSE D THE CITED DECISIONS OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN AND DELHI HIGH COURTS AND ALSO GONE THROUGH THE SEIZED UNSIGNED LETTER DATED 08.05.2005, WHER EIN IT MENTIONS THAT THE DEMISED PROPERTY HAS THE MARKET VA LUE OF RS. 26 M/S CHETAN MAKANJI KOTAK ITA NO. 7887/MUM/2010 9 LACS ON 08.05.2005. THIS IS A CASE OF SEARCH AND THE SEARC H PROVIDES A PRESUMPTION THAT WHATEVER IS FOUND RECORDED ON PAPERS AND/OR BOOKS, HAVE TO BE PRESUMED TO BE CORRECT, UNLESS PROVED OTHE RWISE. ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, NOWHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO RETRACT THE SEIZED PAPER, EXCEPT THAT IT W AS WRITTEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVAILING OVERDRAFT FACILITY FROM THE BANK, WHICH WA S NEVER AVAILED AND SINCE IT WAS NOT SIGNED, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE RELIED UPON. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, EVEN THE CITED DECISIONS CANNOT HELP THE ASSESSEE, BECAUSE, IN THE CASE OF RELAXO FOOTWEAR, HON BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT WAS SEIZED WITH THE CIRCUMSTANCE, WHEREIN, THE ASSESSEE HAD INFLATED ITS STOCKS FOR THE PURPOSES OF GETTING THE CR EDIT FACILITIES, BUT THE BOOKS, AND ALL THE OTHER FINANCIAL RECORDS RECONCILE D EACH OTHER. IN SUCH A CASE, THE ITAT DELETED THE ADDITION, WHIC H WAS SUSTAINED BY THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT. REVERTING TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BAJRANG LAL BANSAL, THOUGH IT WAS ALSO A CASE, WHERE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPE RATIONS WERE CONDUCTED, AND THERE WERE NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WER E FOUND. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE AO MADE REFERENCE TO THE DVO, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REPORT GIVEN BY THE DVO, THE AO, PREFERRED AN A DDITION OF RS. 99,33,000/-. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION, WHO SUSTAINED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE REVENUE CAME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE THE OR DER OF THE ITAT. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE PRIMARY B URDEN WAS ON THE DEPARTMENT TO PROVE THE UNDERSTATEMENT OR CO NCEALMENT, AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL. THIS CASE ALSO, CANNOT AID THE ASSESS EE, BECAUSE M/S CHETAN MAKANJI KOTAK ITA NO. 7887/MUM/2010 10 THE ADDITION WAS ON THE BASIS OF THE REPORT CALLED FOR AND SUBMITTED BY THE DVO, AS THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE, AGAINST THE ASSESSEE . IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE EVIDENCE IS THERE IN THE FORM OF THE LETT ER WRITTEN TO THE BANK, JUST 7 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXECUTION OF THE DOC UMENTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE INDUSTRIAL GALA, GIVING THE MARKET RATE, COU PLED WITH THE FACT, THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE LETTER WERE NOT RETR ACTED, ACCEPT TO SUBMIT BEFORE US THAT THE LETTER WAS UNSIGNED AND THE A SSESSEE DID NOT AVAIL OF THE BANKS CREDIT FACILITIES, WHICH WERE IN FACT ACCEPT ED AND EXTENDED BY THE BANK. 19. FOR US, IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THIS ARGUMENT, WHEN WE TAKE THE TIMING OF THIS LETTER AND THE DATE AGREEMENT AND THE PRE SUMPTION PROVIDED U/S 132(4A)(II), WHICH SAYS, THAT THE CONTENTS OF SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS ARE TRUE; AND .. . THIS PRESUMPTION IS HEAVILY LADEN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE BURDEN IS ON THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INSCRIPTION ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENT/PAPER IS UNRELIABLE. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF WRITES THAT THE MARKET VALUE IS 26 LACS , EVEN THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE MAY HAVE GOT HIS PAPERS MADE AT THE CIRCLE RATES, WOULD NOT ALTER THE INSTANT CIRCUMSTANCE. THE ASSESSEE C ANNOT BE ALLOWED TO SAY, THAT WHEN THE STAMP VALUATION IS X, THEN X +Y, AS PER THE SEIZED DOCUMENT CANNOT BE THE PRESUMPTIVE PRICE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 132(4)(II). 20. WE ARE ALSO AWARE THAT THERE IS A CONCEPT OF ON MONEY IN REAL ESTATE DEALS. THIS ASPECT CANNOT BE IGNORED, BECAUSE, IN THESE M/S CHETAN MAKANJI KOTAK ITA NO. 7887/MUM/2010 11 TRANSACTIONS, ACTUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS ALWAYS HIGHE R THAN THE STAMP VALUATION. 21. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT D OCUMENT NO. 44 BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE CONTENTS OF THE DO CUMENT NO. 44 IS TRUE, AND THE ACTUAL MARKET VALUE OF INDUSTRIAL GALA AT SHA NTI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MUMBAI IS RS. 26 LACS, AND THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES WERE RIGHT IN THE MAKING AN ADDITION OF THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOU NT OF RS. 11,15,886 (RS. 26,00,000 RS. 14,84,114). 22. WE, SUSTAIN THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,15,886, THE GROUND, IS THUS REJECTED. 23. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 30/11/2012. SD/- (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) ACCOUTANT MEMBER SD/- (VIVEK VARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 30/11/2012 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A)- 22 , MUMBAI. 4) THE CIT 10, MUMBAI, 5) THE D.R. C BENCH, MUMBAI. 6) COPY TO GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., MUMBAI RASIKA