The ACIT, Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad V. Sandesh Limited, Ahmedabad

ITSSA 104/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9852 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: SH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Documents seized; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 113; 48; 153; 22; 153C; 32; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEM BER THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), ROOM NO. 304, 3 RD FLOOR , AAYKAR BHAVAN , ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) VS SANDESH LIMITED SANDESH BHAVAN LAD SOCIETY RD VASTRAPUR GAM, BODAKDEV, AHMEDABAD PAN: AAACT5730D (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: SHRI O.P. SHARMA, CIT-D.R. ASSESSEE BY: SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR, SR . A.R., SMT. ARTI N. SH AH, A.R. & SHRI PARIN SHAH , A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 10-05-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20-07-2 021 /ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2006-07, ARISES FRO M ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-I, AHMEDABAD DATED 29-11-2012, IN PROCEEDIN GS UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 153C R.W.S. 153A(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. IT(SS)A NO. 104/AHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 I.T(SS).A NO. 104/AHD/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 PAGE NO ACIT VS. SANDESH LTD. 2 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEA L:- THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DE LETING ADDITION OF RS. 11,05,51,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED ON-MO NEY PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND, AS THE PERSONS WHO HAVE RECEIVED THE ON-MO NEY PAYMENT HAVE TAKEN CONTRADICTORY STANDS BEFORE DIFFERENT INCOME-TAX AU THORITIES AND, THEREFORE, THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTED CASES HAVE DIREC T BEARING ON THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE FACT IN BRIEF IS THAT A SEARCH ACTION U/S. 1 32 WAS CONDUCTED ON 7 TH OCTOBER, 2009 IN THE CASE OF SAUMAYA CONSTRUCTION P VT. LTD. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION DOCUMENT/BOOKS OF ACCOUNT B ELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. THEREFORE, PROCEEDINGS U/S . 132 WAS INITIATED BY ISSUING OF NOTICE U/S. 153C OF THE ACT ON 14 TH JULY, 2011. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 18 TH AUGUST, 2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 1,76,18,932/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO STATED THAT AS PER INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(4), AHMEDABAD A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S. 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED O UT IN THE HIMALAYA GROUP ON 22 ND APRIL, 2008. THE MAIN PERSONS OF THE GROUP SHRI R OHIT MODI HAD SOLD LAND LOCATED AT BLOCK NO. 482, 742 AT SHILAJ T A DASKROI KNOWN AS TAPOVAN LAND TO M/S. SANDESH LTD. AND OTHERS. THE VALUE OF THE LAND AS PER THE DEED WAS RS. 1.2 CRORES. SHRI ROHIT MODI HAS A DMITTED CASH RECEIPT OF RS. 11,05,51,000/- ON THE SALE OF THE AFORESAID LAN D. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE AS SESSEE FOR THE SALE OF THE LAND WAS RS. 12,25,51,000/- (CASH RS. 11,05,51,000 AND CHEQUE RS. 1.20CRORES) WHICH WAS REFLECTED IN THE SEIZED DOCUM ENT. ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID INFORMATION A SHOW CAUSE NOTICES DATED 19 TH DECEMBER, 2011 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE ON MONEY OF PAYMENT OF RS. 11,05,51000/-- SHOULD NOT BE ADDED AS UNEXPLAIN ED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 PERTAINING TO F.Y. 2005-06 IN I.T(SS).A NO. 104/AHD/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 PAGE NO ACIT VS. SANDESH LTD. 3 WHICH THE CASH PAYMENT WAS MADE. THE AFORESAID SH OW CAUSE NOTICE IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 5. A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 19-12-2011 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE SEEKING EXPLANATION AS UNDER:- 'A LAND SITUATED AT SHILAJ (SIM), TALUKA DASKROI, B LOCK NO.482, ADMEASURING ABOUT 24686 SQ.MTS AND BLOCK NO. 742 ADMEASURING ABOUT 18616 SQ .MTS. WAS TRANSACTED BY YOU AS CONFIRMING PARTY, M/S. SAUMYA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD . AS THIRD PARTY AND 'ARYAMAN CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AS PURCHASER FROM SHRI ROHIT P MODI & PARESHABEM K MODI THROUGH SALE DEED DATED 1.6.2006. SHRI ROHIT P MODI HAS, IN HIS ASSESSMENT HAS ADMITTED RECEIPT OF RS. 11,05,51 ,000/- AS ON MONEY RECEIVE D IN CASH. THE DOCUMENTED PRICE OF THE LAND WAS RS.1,20,00,000/- WHICH WAS PAID BY CHEQUE ON 3.1.2006 AND THE SALE DOCUMENTS WERE FINALLY EXECUTED ON 9.6.2006. THE ASSESSMENT H AS BEEN FINALIZED IN THE CASE OF SHRI MODI AND PARESHABEN K MODI MAKING THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF CASH RECEIVED OVER AND ABOVE THE DOCUMENTED PRICE. IN THIS CONNECTION, YOU ARE HEREBY REQUIRED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE ON MONEY PAYMENT OF RS. 11,05,51,000/ - SHOULD NOT BE ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY FOR THE AY 2006- 07 PERTAINING TO THE FY 2005-06 IN WHICH THE CASH PAYMENT WAS MADE.' IN RESPONSE, VIDE LETTER DATED 24 TH DECEMBER, 2011 THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- REQUESTED TO PROVIDE COPIES OF SATISFACTION NOTE A ND OTHER DOCUMENTS SEIZED DURING SEARCH. IT HAS ENTERED INTO A MOU ON 13.4.2005 WITH SHRI RO HIT P MODI & PARESHABEN K MODI FOR PURCHASE OF LAND FOR RS. 1.20 CRORES AND NO FU RTHER AMOUNT WAS PAYABLE AT ALL. THE SAID AMOUNT WAS PAID BY CHEQUES ON 30.1.2005 (20 LA KHS 86 80 LAKHS) AND ON 8.5.2005 BY CHEQUES (RS. 4 LAKH AND 16 LAKHS) WHICH IS CONF IRMED IN THE SALE DEED. IT ENTERED INTO ANOTHER MOU WITH SAUMYA CONSTRUCTIO N PVT. LTD. ON 2.5.2005 AND ULTIMATELY THE SAID LANDS WERE SOLD TO ARYAMAN CO-O P. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AS PER FINAL SALE DEED DATED 1.6.2006. IT HAS RECEIVED RS.4,41,58,352/- FROM THE SAID SOCI ETY AND IT HAS SHOWN THE EXCESS OF RS.3,21,58,352/- AS PROFIT IN ITS P & L A/C. THE ST ATEMENT OF SHRI ROHIT MODI AND SMT.PARESHABEN K MODI CAN BIND THEM ONLY AND NOT TH E SANDESH LTD. IT HAS SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI ROHIT P MODI AND SMT PARESHABCN K MODI THAT THE SANDESH LTD. HAS NOT PAID ANY AMOUNT IN CASH TO THE M IN ADDITION TO THE DOCUMENTED PRICE OF RS.1.20 CRORES. FEW JUDICIAL DECISIONS WERE QUOTED IN SUPPORT OF TH EIR CLAIM. I.T(SS).A NO. 104/AHD/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 PAGE NO ACIT VS. SANDESH LTD. 4 HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- SHRI MODI HAS, IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME SHOWN T O HAVE RECEIVED RS.11,05,51,000/- AS ON MONEY IN THE TRANSACTION OF SAID LAND. SHRI MODI AND THE SANDESH LTD. WERE THE FIRST TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF THE SAID LAND. SAUMYA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD, AND AR YAMAN CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY CAME INTO PICTURE LATER. HI THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS SHRI ROHIT P MODI HAS SHOWN TO HAVE SOLD THE LAND TO THE SANDEAH LTD. WHEREAS THE SALE DEED SHOWS THAT T HE END BUYER IS ARYAMAN CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND SHRI MODI WAS FULLY AWARE OF IT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACT, THE AFFIDAVIT OF SH RI ROHIT P MODI CANNOT BE RELIED UPON. HE DID NOT SHOW UP IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMONS TO CHECK THE VERACITY OF THE AFFIDAVIT ISSUED BY HIM. THE SANDESH LTD. WAS HAVING THE FIRST RIGHT IN THE LAND AND IN THE EVENT OF FINALIZING THE SALE DEED, IT WAS REQUIRED TO MAKE THE PAYMENTS. TH EREFORE, IT CAN BE PRESUMED THAT IT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FINALIZATION OF SALE OF THE SAID LAND ALONG WITH OTHERS IN THE DEAL. IN. THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CAN BE PRESUMED THAT THE ON-MONEY WAS PAID BY THE SANDESH LTD. IN. THE ABSENCE OF ANY DIRECT EVIDENCE THAT TH E ON MONEY HAS BEEN PAID BY ANOTHER PERSON THAN THE SANDESH LTD. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADDED AN AMOUN T OF RS. 11,05,59,000/- ON PROTECTIVE BASIS TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER STATING THAT THE PURCHASER OF THE LAND WAS SAUMAYA CONSTRUCTION PVT . LTD. AND THE CASH HAS BEEN PAID FOR THE PURCHASER OF THE LAND BY SAUMAYA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD ONLY AND NOT BY SANDESH LTD. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE DECISION IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 7 I HAVE GONE THROUGH (HE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUB MISSION OF THE AR OF THE APP CAREFULLY. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON THE BASIS OF THE REGISTERE D DOCUMENTS AND NOTE MEMORANDUMS ARE THAT SMT. PARESHABEN MODI AND ROHIT P. MODI HAD ENTERED INTO AN MOD BLOCK NO. 482 AND 782 AT VILLAGE: SHILAJ, TA: DASCROI 16 THE SANDESH LTD. ON 13.4.2005 CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1.20 CRORE. AT THE TIME OF ENTERING INTO THIS AGREEMENT SMT. PARES HABEN AND ROHIT P. MODI WERE NOT OWNERS OF THE SAID LAND. THE SANDESH LTD. ENTERED INTO A MEMO RADA OF AGREED TERMS FOR THIS LAND WITH THE SAUMYA CONSTRUCTION P LTD ON 2.05.2005FOR A CONSIDE RATION BE DECIDED LATER FOR JOINT DEVELOPMENT OF LAND THROUGH A SPV IN THE FORM OF A COOPERATIVE SI I.T(SS).A NO. 104/AHD/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 PAGE NO ACIT VS. SANDESH LTD. 5 SUBSEQUENTLY, SMT. PARCSHABEN MODI AND ROHIT P. MO DI PURCHASED TINS LAND BY A CONYANCE DEED DATED 9.1.2006. ON THAT VERY DAY, SMT. PARESHA BEN MODI AND ROHIT P. MODI ENTERED INTO ANAGREEMENT FOR SALE WITH HTE SANDESH LTD. IN FURTH ERANCE OF THE MOU MADE ON 13.4.2005. THE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1.20 CRORE AS PER THE MOD DATE D 13.4.2005 WAS PAID BY THE SANDESH LIMITED TO PARESHABEN MODI AND ROHIT P. MODI AS UNDER: RS. 20,00,000/- ON 30.12.2005 BY CHEQUE NO. 823454 DRAWN ON UNION BANK OF INDIA RS. 80,00,000/- ON 30.12.2005 BY CHEQUE NO. 823455 DRAWN ON UNION BANK OF INDIA RS. 4,00,000/- ON 08.05.2006 BY CHEQUE NO. 825659 D RAWN ON UNION BANK OF INDIA RS. 16,00,000/-ON 8.05.2006 BY CHEQUE NO. 825660 DR AWN ON UNION BANK OF INDIA 7.1 FINALLY, ON 1.6. 2006 A SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED BY SMT PARESHANEN MODI AND ROHIT P. MODI IN FAVOUR OF ARYAMAN CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMI TED. NO AMOUNT WAS PAID TO SMT PARESHABEN MODI AND ROHIT MODI AT THE TIME OF EXEC UTING THIS CONVEYANCE DEED. HOWEVER, AS PER THE TERMS OF THIS DEED A TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 4,41,5 8,352/- WAS PAID TO THE SANDESH LTD.. 'THIS CONSISTED OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1.20.00',000/- PAID B Y 'THE SANDESH LTD. ORIGINALLY TO SMT PARESHABCN MODI AND ROHIT P. MODI AND A SUM OF RS.1 ,90,58,352/- CALCULATED @ RS. 368/- PER SQUARE YARD AS ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION AND A FURTH ER SUM OF RS. 1,31,00,000/- FOR GIVING TIP ALL ITS RIGHT IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LANDS WHICH THEN AS PER THE CONVEYANCE DEED WOULD BE DEVELOPED BY SAUMYA LO THE EXCLUSION OF THE SANDESH LTD. IN THIS CONVEYANCE DEED EXECUTED ON 1.6.2006 SAUMYA CONSTRUCTION LTD AND THE SANDESH LIMITED WER E CONFIRMING PARTIES. 7.2 IT IS SEEN THAT DURING THE SEARCH IN THE CASE O F ROHIT MODI DOCUMENTS IDENTIFIED AS ANNEX. A- L/14. PAGES 51 AND 55 WERE SEIZED. THE DOCUMENTS AR C RELATED LO THE CM-MONEY IN RESPECT OF TAPOVAN LAND. THE AR OF THE APPELLANT HAS STATED TH AT THERE IS NO LINKAGE BETWEEN THE TAPOVAN LAND MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT IDENTIFIED AS ANNEX. A-L/14. PAGES 51 AND 55 AND THE LANDS IDENTIFIED AS BLOCK NO.482 AND 782 AT VILLAGE SHILA J TALUKA DASEROI AND PURCHASED BY SAUMYA CONSTRUCTION IM. LTD. FROM ROHIT MODI. THIS CONTENT ION OF THE SAUMYA CONSTRUCTION IM. LTD. IS NOT CORRECT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE CONVEYANCE DEED EXECUTED BY ROHIT MODI DATED 1.6.20066 IS IN RESPECT OF BLOCK NO. 482 AND 782 AT VILLGE SHILA J TLUKA DASEROI AND ON THE CONVEYANCE DEED EXECUTED BY ROHIT MODI DATED 1.6.2006 SEIZED THE WO RKDS TAPOVAN SHILAJ AND SALES ARE WRITTEN ON THE FIRST PAGE CLEARLY INDICATING THAT THE ON-MONEY PAYMENT MENTIONED IN THE DOCUMENTS IDENTIFIED AS ANNEX. A-1/14 PAGES 51 AND 55 IS RESPECT OF LAND S PURCHASED BY SAUMYA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. FROM ROHIT MODI THROUGH CONVEYANCE DEED EXECUTED ON 1.2006 7.3 FURTHER IT IS SEEN THAT ON THE COPY OF THE CONV EYANCE DEED RELATING TO THIS LAND EXECUTED ON 1.6.2006 SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH IN THE CASE OF RO HIT MODI GROUP THE WORD ' RPM/ PKM SAUMYA' ARE MENTIONED. A SCANNED COPY OF THE FIRST PAGE OF THE CONVEYANCE DEED IS AS UNDER: ................................................... ................................................... ................................................... ..... ................................................... ................................................... ................................................... ..... ....................... 7.4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT THE SE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT DUMB DOCUMENTS AND ARE ACTUALLY RELATED TO THE LAND CALLED AS TAPOVAN IN T HESE DOCUMENTS WHICH IS THE LAND IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE CONVEYANCE DEED WAS EXECUTED BY SHRI ROHI T MODI AND SMT. PARESHABEN MODI WITH ARYAMAN CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. 7.5 FURTHER, IT SEEN THAT THESE DOCUMENTS ARE THE R ECORDS OF SALES AND PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY SHRI ROHI P. MODI & OTHERS IN RESPE CT OF LANDS. THE ENTRIES ON THESE PAGES ARE IN CODED FORM. THESE ENTRIES HAVE BEEN DECIPHERED AS F OLLOWS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE APPELLATE ORDER IN THIS CASE. 7.6 IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE CASE OF SHRI ROHIT M ODI THESE ENTRIES HAVE BEEN DECODED AS UNDER'. '10. UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT AND INCOME FROM LAND DE ALINGS:- DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSES MANY DOCUMENTS INDICATING THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE LANDS WERE FOUND. THESE DOC UMENTS ARE ANNEXURE A-I/I4, PAGE NO. 48 TO 55 AND ANNEXURE A-H6, PAGE NO.82 TO 85, IN PAGE NO 48 TO 55 OF ANNEXURE A-14, SEIZED FROM THE I.T(SS).A NO. 104/AHD/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 PAGE NO ACIT VS. SANDESH LTD. 6 RESIDENCE OF SH DASRATH PATNI, THE TRANSACTION ENTE RED BY HIMALAYA GROUP HAS BEEN NOTED. IN THE NO TINGS THE DETAILS OF LANDS I PROPERTIES PURCHASE D BY THE ASSESSES IN VARIOUS AREA AND VILLAGES IN AND AROUND AHMEDABAD HAS BEEN FOUND. AS PER THESE D OCUMENTS, THE FOLLOWING DETAILS OF LAND DEALING BY HIMALAYA GROUP HAS BEEN NOTED. (I) MAKARBA - PURCHASE - RS-2,66,07,000/- SALERS.4,91,00,000/- (II) HAVELI - PURCHASE -RS.3,57,00,000/- SALE - RS.3,79,00,000/- (III) TAPOVAN ~ PURCHASE -RS.11,45,46,000/- SALE~RS.12,25,51,000/- . (IV) VEJALPUR-888 - PURCHASE - RS.2,41,39,000/~ SALTIOFFP-90-RS.L,82,200,00/- SALE FP..28'RS.2,00,00,000/- (V) GHUMA-226-228 - PURCHASE- RS.2,31,20,000/- SALE - RS.3,05,00,000/- (VI) SARGASAN-438 - PURCHASE - RS.3,11,04,000/- SALE-RS.2,31,94,00/- RS. 1,41,00,000/-OUTSTANDING (VII) GHUMA-633 - PURCHASE - RS.1,27,54,000/- SALE - RS.63,93,000/- + RS.63,93,000/- OUTSTANDING TO BE RECEIVED IN TWO INSTALLMENTS. (VIII) GHUMA-581 & 582 - PURCHASE -RS.80,00,00/- SALE-RS.L,10,00.,000/~ (IIX) GHITMA-815 - PURCHASE- RS.4,60,00,000/- SALE RS.4,60,00,000/- + RS. 1,50,00,000/-OUTSTANDIN G, (X) GHUMA-814 - PURCHASE - RS.L5,22,000/~ (XI) BOPAL- DASHRATBHAI.COIOUNVALA - PURCHASE - RS. 2,50,L4,000/- (XII) RANIP -PURCHASE - RS.1,75,00,000/- , (XIII) CHANDKHEDA - 113 & 111 - PURCHASE ~ RS.2,25, 00,000/- (XIV) GOPAL PARK - PURCHASE -:- RS.L,81,00,000/- (XV) JAGATPUR~35 - PURCHASE - RS.1,67,72,000/- (XVI) JAGATPUR-63 - PURCHASE - RS.46,00,000/- (XVII) JAGATPUR-89/90 - PURCHASE RS.34,50,000/- (XVIII) SURENDRANAGAR - PURCHASE RS.30,00,000/- (XIX) JAIN VATIKA - PURCHASE RS.6,13,60,000/- (XX) GODHAVI - PURCHASE RS.204,12,00,000/~ SALE RS-246,32,00,000/- (XXI) SHILAJ - PURCHASE RS.1,83,50.000/- SALERS.1,97,00,000/- (XXII) SHELA - PURCHASE RS.32,29,20,000/- SALE RS.40,24,00,000/- (XXIII) GHUNGHAT - PURCHASE RS.20,00,000/- (XXIV) SUPER PLAZA - PURCHASE RS.78,78,000/- 10.1 AS PER THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED ABOVE, VARIO US NOTING 'RP', 'PD' AND 'KM' WERE MADE AGAINST THE ENTRIES OF LAND TRANSACTIONS. DURING TH E COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AND AFTER SEARCH ENQUIRIES THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THAT 'RP' IS REFERR ED TO 'ROHIT P. MODI', WHO IS KEY PERSON OF HIMALAYA GROUP. 'PD' IS REFERRED TO 'P. DUBEY' AND 'KM' IS REFERRED AS 'K. MEHTA'. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD OWNED-UP ALL THE UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTIONS RECORDED AGAINST THE NAMES OF 'PD' AND 'KM'. THE AS SESSEE STATED THAT THE NAME OF THESE PERSONS WERE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGISTRATION OF DOCUME NTS AS THEY ARE AGRICULTURIST AS PER THE GOVERNMENT RECORDS AND IN GUJARAT ONLY A AGRICULTUR IST CAN PURCHASE AGRICULTURE LAND. 10.2 THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED THE ABOVE REFE RRED SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND HE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT THE SOURCE OF PURCHASE AND REFLECTION OF PRO FIT EARNED BY HIM IN LAND DEALING. THE REPLY OF I.T(SS).A NO. 104/AHD/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 PAGE NO ACIT VS. SANDESH LTD. 7 ASSESSEE WAS THAT HAND WRITTEN PAGES, PAGE NO.48 TO 55 OF ANNEXURE. A-I/14, WERE THE PROJECTIONS OF DIFFERENT LAND DEALINGS, FIE STATED THAT MARKET SURVEY OF PRICES OF VARIOUS LAND AT DIFFERENT AREAS WERE DONE BY THEM. THEREAFTER, COST OF DEVELOPMENT, COST OF CONVERTING THEM INTO NON-AGRICULTURE LAND, COST OF MAKING THE LAND DISPUTE FREE WERE ALS O ESTIMATED AND ADDING THIS COST TO THE PURCHASE VALUE OF LAND, THE FINAL PURCHASE PRICE WAS ESTIMAT ED. IN THIS WAY, THE LANDS WERE MADE MARKETABLE AND THE SALE PRICES WERE ESTIMATED. THESE PROJECTED FIGURES ARE REFLECTED IN SEIZED DOCUMENTS-A- 1/14. PAGE NO. 48 TO 55. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATE D THAT THE HANDWRITTEN NOTING IN ABOVE PAGES HAS BEEN CONVERTED IN COMPUTERIZED SHEET, WHICH HAS BEEN FOUND AS PAGE NO.84 & 85 OF ANNEXURE- A-1/6. IN THESE PAGES, 'PROJECTION' IS CLEARLY WRI TTEN AT THE TOP OF PAGE AND COLUMN OF MARKET VALUE IS ALSO MENTIONED AT THE END OF TABLE. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT ACTUAL TRANSACTIONS WERE TAKEN PLACE IN ONLY FEW CASES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS .THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED-A CHART AS PER WHICH THE LAND DEALINGS AND CONSEQUENT PROFIT I N THE VILLAGES TAPOVAN(SHILQJ), KOBA- GOPAL PARK. JAIN VATIKA, SURENDRA NAGAR AND SUPER PLAZA H AD BEEN ACCEPTED AS PER THE NOTINGS IN THE SEIZED PAPERS. THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED ONLY A PART OF TRANSACTIONS IN THE VILLAGE SHELA. THE DETAILS OF TRANSACTIONS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS UNDER:- SR. NO. VILLAGE PURCHASE (RS.) SALE (RS.) PROFIT (RS.) 1 TAPOVAN 113546000 122551000 9005000 2 SHELA 17415536 21702438 4009210 3 KOBA-GOPAL PARK 18100000 4 JAIN VATIKA 61360000 5 SURENDRA NAGAR 300000 6 SUPER PLAZA 7878000 TOTAL 221299536 13014210 10.3 THE ASSESSES SUBMITTED CASH FLOW CHART EXPLAIN ING THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT AND REFLECTION OF PROFIT AS PER WHICH THE OUT OF BOOK PROFIT ON THE S ALE OF LAND AMOUNTING RS 110079W HAS BEEN SHOWN AS UNDER- SR. VILLAGE PURCHASE SALE PROFIT 1 TAPOVAN 10000000 103546000 12000000 110551000 200 0000 7005000 2 SHELA 316008 17099530 600000 21102438 283992 4002 908 7.7 THIS DECODING HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY SHRI ROHIT M ODI AND IN FACT IN RESPECT OF TAPOVAN LAND WHICH WAS SOLD TO M/S. ARYAMAN CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., INCLUDED THE ENTIRE CASH RECEIPTS AS CONSIDERATION IN THE COMPUTATION OF INC OME IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. 7.8 FURTHER IT WOULD BE SEEN THAT IN THE DETAILS FI LED BEFORE THE CLT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD ROHIT MODI HAD NOT TAKEN THE NAME OF ANY PERSON WHO PAID RS. 1 1,05,51,000/- IN RESPECT OF LANDS IDENTIFIED AS BLOCK R/O.482 AND 782 AT VILLAGE SHILAJ TALUKA DASC ROI. IN FACT, IN THE SUBMISSIONS BEFORE CIT(A)III, AHMEDABAD, ROHIT MODI HAD STATED THAT TH E SUM OF RS. U,05,5L,000/- HAD BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE PURCHASER OF .THE LAND IDENTIFIED AS BLOCK NO. 482 AND 782 AT VILLAGE SHILAJ TALUKA DASCROI AND NOT FROM THE SANDESH LTD. 7.9 IN FACT, ROHIT MODI IN THE CASH BOOK FILED DURI NG THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IN HIS CASE HAD FILED A COPY OF THE CASH BOOK INCLUDING THE UNACCOUNTED CASH RECEIVED ON THE SALE OF LANDS. IT IS SEEN THAT THE CASHIHAD BEEN RECEIVED BY ROHIT MODI FOR THE TAPOVAN LAND ON 3.1.2006 RS. 10,00,00,000/-AND AGAIN ON 2.6.2006-RS. 1,05,31,000 /-. IT WOULD BE SEEN THAT NO AMOUNT WAS PAID IN THE CONVEYANCE DEED ITSELF THE SANDESH LTD. HAD ALREADY GIVEN UP ALL THE RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF THE TAPOVAN LAND IN FAVOUR OF SAUMYA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.. IT WOULD ALSO BE SEEN THAT NO AMOUNT WAS PAID BY THE SANDESH LTD. WHEN IT HAD ENTERED IN TO A MOU WITH ROHIT MODI FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE SANDESH LTD. HAD ENTERED IN TO A MEMORANDUM OF AGREED TERMS ON 2.5.2005 WITH SAUMYA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. FOR DEV ELOPMENT OF THE TAPOVAN LAND WHICH IT ULTIMATELY SUURENDERED IN FAOVUR OF SAUMYA CONSTRUC TION PVT. LTD, THUS EVEN THE FIRST AMOUNT OF I.T(SS).A NO. 104/AHD/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 PAGE NO ACIT VS. SANDESH LTD. 8 CASH PAYMENT WAS MADE AFTER THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREE D TERMS WERE SIGNED BY THE SANDESH LTD. WITH SAUMYA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. 7.10 THE CIT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD, INFERRED THAT THE ON-MONEY HAD BEEN PAID BY THE SANDESH LTD. IN FACT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE BY SAUMYA CON STRUCTION PVT. LTD. BECAUSE SAUMYA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. WAS THE PURCHASER AS ALL THE RIGHTS OF DEVELOPMENT HAD BEEN HANDED OVER TO SAUMYA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. BY THE CONVEYANCE DEE D DATED 1.6.2006 BECAUSE ON PAYMENT OF RS. 4,41,58,352/- THE SANDESH LTD. HAD SURRENDERED ALL ITS RIGHTS IN FAVOUR OF SAUMYA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. FURTHER ROHIT MODI IN HIS AFFIDAVIT FILED HAS STATED THAT HE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY PAYMENT FROM THE SANDESH LTD. THOUGH WHEN THE SANDESH LTD. WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE ROHIT MODI THE AR OF THE SANDESH LTD, EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO DO SO B ECAUSE ROHIT MODI WAS NOT AVAILABLE. 7.11 IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT IF THE SANDESH LTD. HAD PAID A SUM OF RS. 11,05,51,000/- THEN THE SANDESH LTD. WOULD NOT HAVE SOLD THE SAME LAND TO S AUMYA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. FOR A SUM OF RS. 4,41,58,352/-. U IS SEEN THAT FROM THE MEANINGFUL R EADING OF THE DETAILS FILED BY ROHIT MODI BEFORE THE CIT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD, THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY R OHIT MODI BEFORE THE AO AND THE SEIZED DOCUMENT AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT THE ON-MONEY OF RS. 11,05,51,000/- WAS PAID BY SAUMYA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. TO ROHIT MODI FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND IDENTIFIED AS BLOCK NO.482 AND 782 AT VILLAGE SHILAJ TALUKA DASCROI. 7.12 . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND THE FACT THAT ROHIT MODI ON THE CONVEYANCE DEED IN RESPECT OF TAPOVAN LAND HAS MENTIONED THAT THE SALE IS TO SAUM YA, IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT THE PURCHASER OF THE LAND WAS SAUMYA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. AND THE CASH HAD BEEN PAID FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND BY SAUMYA CONSTRUCTION P. LTD, ONLY AND NOT BY THE SANDESH LTD. 7.13 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE SAME IS DELETED. 8. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFOR E US, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE CONTENDED THAT SHRI ROH IT MODI HAD ADMITTED CASH RECEIPT FOR SALE OF AFORESAID LAND LOCATED AT SHILAJ (TAPOVAN) AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. C IT(A) AND ALSO CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT FOUND AND SEIZED PERTAINING TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND HE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SINHGA D TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY (2017) 84 TAXMAN.COM 290 (SC) DATED 29 TH AUGUST, 2017. 6. HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. SEARCH AND SEIZURE U/S. 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED IN THE CASE OF SAUMAYA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS ON 7 TH OCTOBER, 2009. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS I.T(SS).A NO. 104/AHD/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 PAGE NO ACIT VS. SANDESH LTD. 9 INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153 ON THE BASIS OF A CO PY OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN SAUMAYA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD AS DEVELOPER THE SAND ESH AS SECOND AND CONFIRMING PARTY PASTI ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD. AS THI RD PARTY AND PERSPECTIVE ACQUIRER OF LAND FROM THALTEJ TALKUKA, CITY AHMEDAB AD. THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR 2009-10 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED THE DETAILS OF LAND DE ALING MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE CASE OF SH. ROHIT MODI AT P AGE 25 TO 27 OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). THE CIT(A) POINTED OUT THAT TAPOVAN LAND WAS SOLD TO M/S ARYAMAN CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND SH. R OHIT MODI HAS INCLUDED THE ENTIRE RECEIPTS AS CONSIDERATION IN TH E COMPUTATION OF INCOME IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. THE LD. CIT(A) STATED THAT A S PER THE DETAIL FILED BY THE SHRI ROHIT MODI DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROC EEDINGS BEFORE LD. CIT(A)-3, AHMEDABAD HE HAD NOT TAKEN THE NAME OF AN Y PERSON TO WHOM HE HAS PAID AMOUNT OF RS. 11,05,51,000/- IN RESPECT OF TABOVAN LAND. IT IS ALSO POINTED OUT IN THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) THAT ASSES SEE HAD GIVEN ALL THE RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF TAPOVAN LAND IN FAVOUR OF THE SAUMAYA CONSTRUCTION LTD. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE SANDESH LTD. HAD ENTERED INTO A M EMORANDUM OF AGREED TERMS ON 2 ND MAY, 2005 WITH SAUMAYA CONSTRUCTION FOR DEVELOPMEN T OF TABOVAN LAND WHICH WAS ALREADY SURRENDERED TO SAUMA YA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL HAS ELABORATED IN HIS FINDING AS REPRODUCED ABOVE IN THIS ORDER HOLDI NG THAT SAUMAYA CONSTRUCTION LTD. WAS THE PURCHASER AS ALL THE RIGH TS OF DEVELOPMENT HAD BEEN HANDED OVER TO SAUMAYA CONSTRUCTION BY THE CON VEYANCE DEED DATED 1 ST JUNE, 2006 FOR PAYMENT OF RS. 4,41,58,352/-. TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE SANDESH LTD. HAD SURRENDERED A LL ITS RIGHTS IN FAVOUR OF SAUMYA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. AND MR. ROHIT MODI IN HIS AFFIDAVIT FILED I.T(SS).A NO. 104/AHD/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 PAGE NO ACIT VS. SANDESH LTD. 10 STATED THAT HE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY PAYMENT FROM TH E ASSESSEE. THE LD CIT(A) HELD THAT ON MONEY WAS PAID BY THE SAUMYA C ONSTRUCTION FOR THE PURCHASE OF IMPUGNED LAND. THE REVENUE COULD NOT C ONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH ANY RELEVANT MATERIAL. DURI NG THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED A PPLICATION UNDER RULE 27 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULE 1963. THE CONTENT O F THIS APPLICATION IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 1 THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT BEARING I.T.A. NO.L 04/AHD/2014 WAS FIXED FOR THE HEARING ON 23.01.2019, THE DEPARTMENT HAD CONTESTED THE DEL ETION OF ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO ON-MONEY OF RS. 1 1,05,51,000/- PAID BY THE APPELLANT TO SHRI ROHIT MODI TOR PURCHASE OF LAND. THE SAID ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PROTECTIVE BASIS AND THE C.I.T.(APPEALS) HAD DELETE D THE SAME. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE HONBLE MEMBER S CALLED FOR THE REASONS RECORDED FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C AGAINST THE RES PONDENT. THE RESPONDENT PRODUCED BEFORE THE BENCH THE REASONS RECORDED SUPPLIED BY THE DEPARTME NT, WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT THE DOCUMENT BELONGING TO RESPONDENT WAS FOUND AND SEIZED FROM T HE PREMISE SEARCHED, WHICH IS MENTIONED HEREUNDER: 'OFFICE PREMISES OF SAUMYA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., 1 S ' FLOOR, ADITYA, NR. KHADAHAIA COLONY, ELLIS BRIDGE, AHMEDABAD. ANNEXURE A-36 PAGES 136 - 166 BEING COPY OF ARTICLE S OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN SAUMYA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.. OF THE FIRST PART AS THE DE VELOPER. THE SANDESH LTD. OF THE SECOND PART AS THE CONFIRMING PARTY AND PUSTI ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. OF THE THIRD PART AS THE PROSPECTIVE ACQUIRER IN RESPECT OF LAND SITUATED AT THALTEJ, TALUKA CITY, AHMEDABAD. ' IT WAS ARGUED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT THAT NO A DDITION WAS MADE ON BASIS OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENT. THE HON'BLE BENCH CALLED FOR PRODUCTION O F THE SAID DOCUMENT. HOWEVER, SINCE THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WAS NOT AVAILABLE , THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED TO 03.04.2019. 3. THE C.I.T.(APPEALS) IN PARA 5 OF HIS ORDER DATED 29.11.2013 HAS HELD THAT THE AGREEMENT AS REFERRED ABOVE WAS SEIZED FROM SAUMYA CONSTRUCTI ON PVT. LTD. AND SANDESH LIMITED WAS A PARTY TO THE DOCUMENT. THEREFORE, THOUGH THE ADDITI ON WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF A LETTER RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF SHRI ROHIT MODI, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE SA ID GROUND HAS NOT BEEN CONTESTED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. 4. THE RESPONDENT SUBMITS THAT AS PER THE PROVISION S OF RULE 27 OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES. 1963; 'THE RESPONDENT, THOUGH HE MAY NOT HAV E APPEALED, MAY SUPPORT THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST ON ANY OF THE GROUNDS DECIDED AGAINST HIM.' THEREFORE. GROUND NO. L OF C.I.T.(APPEALS) WITH REGARD TO INVOKING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.153C OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IS NOW CONTESTED AND SUBMITTED THAT THE REOPENING BY WAY OF ISSUE OF NOT ICE U/S. 153C IS ILLEGAL AND BAD AT LAW. 5. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID DOCUMENT M ENTIONED IN THE REASONS RECORDED WAS NOT AN INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT AT ALL. A COPY OF THE SAI D DOCUMENT DATED 19.04.2008 BETWEEN SAUMYA CONSTRUCTION. SANDESH LIMITED AND PUSTI ENTERPRISES IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. THE NAMES OF SHRI ROHIT MODI AND PARESHABCN MODI OF HIMALAYA GROUP HA VE NOT BEEN NOT MENTIONED THEREIN NOR THEY HAVE ANY CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSACTION CONTA INED IN THE AFORESAID DOCUMENT. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ORDER U/S.153C IN CASE OF RESPONDENT IS BAD AT LAW. ON THIS GROUND, THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST RESPONDENT DESERVE S TO BE DISMISSED. I.T(SS).A NO. 104/AHD/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 PAGE NO ACIT VS. SANDESH LTD. 11 WE HAVE PERUSED THE COPY OF ARTICLE OF AGREEMENT BE TWEEN SAUMYA, SANDESH AND PUSTI ENTERPRISES LTD. DATED 19-04-2008 ENCLOSED IN THE PAPER BOOK OF DOCUMENT II FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPO RT OF ITS APPLICATION UNDER RULE 27 WHICH WAS STATED TO BE SEIZED DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH ACTION U/S. 132(1) OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF SAUMYA CONSTRUCTIO N PVT. LTD. ON 07-10- 2009, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS RECORDED REASONS FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C OF THE ACT IN T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. AFTER PERUSAL OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND ORDER O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT IS CLEARLY INDICATED THAT THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM SEARCH CONDUCTED IN HIMALYAN GROUP WAS ALSO UTILIZED IN MAKING IMPUGNED ADDITION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS ALSO SUBMITTE D THAT IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT ADDITION WAS NOT MADE ON THE BASIS OF DOC UMENT SEIZED FROM THE OFFICE PROMISES OF SAUMYA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., T HE REFERRED DOCUMENTS DATED 19-04-2008 AS A COPY OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SANDESH LTD., PUSTI ENTERPRISES AND SAUMYA CONSTRUCTION DID NOT PERTAIN TO ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. COUNSEL HAS RELI ED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT-III, PUNE VS. SANHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY VIDE (2017) 84 TAXMANN.COM 290 (S C) WHEREIN HELD THAT WHERE LOOSE PAPERS FOUND AND SEIZED DID NOT ESTABLI SH CO-RELATION DOCUMENT WISE WITH ASSESSMENT YEAR, NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECT ION 153C HAD RIGHTLY BEEN QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT AS SUPRA WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT WHERE LOOSE PAPER FOUND AND SEIZED DID NOT ESTABLISH CO-RELATION DOCUMENT WISE WITH ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 153C HAD RIGHTLY BEEN QUASHED AND SET A SIDE. BEFORE US, THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT TO THE CONTRARY. IN TH E LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND FINDINGS AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE APPEAL I.T(SS).A NO. 104/AHD/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 PAGE NO ACIT VS. SANDESH LTD. 12 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THEREFORE, THIS APPEA L OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20-07-2021 SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (AMARJIT SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT A CCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 20/07/2021 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,