DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Kunjan Corporation, Ahmedabad

ITSSA 119/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0885 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-07-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-07-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Loose papers; Document seized; Principle of natural justice; Documents seized; Set aside
• Section: 69; 132; 271(1)(c); 2; 139(1); 13; 153; 158BD; 153C; 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I .T ( S S) .A . No .1 19 / Ah d/ 20 18 ( A s se ss m e nt Y e a r : 20 12- 13 ) De pu t y C o m mi s s io ne r o f I nc o me Ta x , C e ntr al C ir cle-1 ( 4 ) , A h m e d a ba d Vs .M/ s . K u nj a n C or po ra t io n , 28, N a k s h a tr a A r c a d e, I O C R o a d, C ha nd k h ed a, A h m e d a b a d [ P A N N o. A A LF K 0 27 8M ] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S. N. Divatia, A.R. Respondent by: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT DR D a t e of H ea r i ng 03.07.2024 D a t e of P r o no u n ce me nt 22.07.2024 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by the Department against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), Ahmedabad vide order 16.02.2018 passed for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Department has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 11,17,57,500/- made in hands of assessee on issue of undisclosed investment under Section 69 without appreciating that the seized material was established to have correlation with assessee and the transactions contained therein were decoded and established to be belonging to and pertaining to assessee. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), erred in deleting the addition of Rs.11,17,57,500/- holding that issue of notice under Section 153C was not valid without appreciating that assessing officer had duly recorded satisfaction under Section 153C dated 14/08/2015 and had duly disposed the objections of assessee on 24/11/2015. IT(SS)A No.119/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. M/s. Kunjan Corporation Asst.Year –2012-13 - 2– 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting the additional ground of appeal without recording his satisfaction that omission of the said ground from the form of appeal was not willful or unreasonable. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing additional ground of appeal challenging the issue of notice under Section 153C without giving the AO any opportunity to rebut the additional ground of appeal and without calling report of the Assessing Officer under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, when the assessee produced additional evidences during the appellate proceeding to challenge the issue of notice. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 6. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act on 13.08.2012 showing total income of Rs. NIL. During the course of search on 13.06.2013 in the case of "Soham Group" and in consequential search upon "Sarkar Group" on 12.07.2013, documentary evidences were found & seized containing details of three land transactions. In one of the land transaction, the assessee has been found as buyer from M/s. Pushkar Corporation. Shri Narendra J Patel and Shri Yogendra A. Sarkar are main partners of M/s. Pushkar Corporation, who were also covered under search action on 12.07.2013. During the course of search upon "Soham Group", loose paper found & seized, was annexurised as Page No. 242 of Annexure-2. The AO made this page as part of the assessment order by scanning the same at page no.3 of the assessment order. As per this paper (related to the assessee), land bearing Survey No. 318 (FP 89/2) admeasuring 5220 sq. mtrs (6245 sq yds) at Jundal was purchased by the assessee from M/s. Pushkar Corporation, on 19 th May, 2011 (date of registration of sale deed) for a sum of Rs.3,50,00,000/-. This transaction is shown in the regular books of accounts of the assessee. Another page was found & seized from the residence IT(SS)A No.119/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. M/s. Kunjan Corporation Asst.Year –2012-13 - 3– of Shri Yogendra A. Sarkar on 12.07.2013, which has been annexurised as page No.42 of Annexure-1. This page was made part of the assessment order by the AO and reproduced at page No.4 of the assessment order. There are some notings on this page about three land transactions, Out of these three transactions, the one written on right side of the page has been considered by the AO as belonging to the assessee. As per notings on this page, the AO, after detailed findings and analysis interpreted that the assessee purchased 6245 sq. yards land @ 23500/- for total consideration of Rs. 14,67,57,500/- out of which Rs.3,54,00,000/- has been mentioned in sale deed and remaining Rs. 11,17,57,500/- has been paid as on-money by the assessee. With these facts in possession, the AO issued notice dated 14.8.2015 under Section 153 of the Act. Vide letter dated 13.09.2015, the assessee stated to the AO that it is filing the return in response to the notice under Section 153 of the Act with objections. The appellant's objections were disposed off by the AO by passing of speaking order dated 24.11.2015. While passing the assessment order, the assessing officer made the following observations: “From the facts narrated above, it is established that the documents found and seized, inter alia, pertained/related to the assessee. The document(s) seized has a bearing on the determination of the assessee’s total income for AY 2011-12, therefore, notice u/s 153C is valid. It is an accepted fact that the assessee had purchased land at survey No. 318 FP No. 89/2 at Tal. Jundal admeasuring 6245 sq yards from Pushkar Corporation vide Document No. 9610/2011 dated 19.5.2011. This is duly recorded in the books of the assessee. Hence, there is no denial about the transaction. The seized material indicated this very transaction and had further input of on money cash movement for this very transaction. Therefore, the seized material pertained to the assessee and hence, proceedings u/s. 153C has been rightly initiated. 12. The assessee further contends that, no such on money cash payment has been made by it to M/s. Pushkar Corporation. This fact is also factually incorrect, by virtue of the seized material found during the course of search at the premises of Shri Y. Sarkar. The details of partners in the buying entities clearly establish the link between these transactions and the notings seen on page No.42 of Annexure A-l seized from the residence of Shri Sarkar. IT(SS)A No.119/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. M/s. Kunjan Corporation Asst.Year –2012-13 - 4– i. Mavajibhai is one of the partners of M/s. Rameshwar Developers. This land i.e. 4502 sq.yd has been purchased by M/s.Rameshwar Developers from M/s. Pushkar Corporation on 29.03.2011 ii. Manubhai is one of the Director of HMP Pvt. Ltd and also partner in M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Developers. This land i.e. 3485 sq.yd has been purchased by M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Developers from M/s. Pushkar Corporation on 14.12.2010. iii. This land i.e. 6245 sq.yd has been purchased by M/s. Kunjan Corporation from M/s. Pushkar Corporation on 19.05.2011. iv. Old partners of Pushkar Corporation i.e. Rageshbhai P Shah, Babulal Keshavlal Patel, Bhikhabhai Ambalal Patel, Bhupendrabhai D Patel, Bipinbhai Dahyabhai Patel, Dineshbhai B Patel, Girishbhai Vitthalbhai Patel, Kamalbhai A Jethwani, Kanaiyalal N Jethwani are found to be partners in M/s. Kunjan Corporation also. 12.1 Correlation of the notings recorded on the said loose paper with the land details as mentioned supra reveals that these noting pertained to the sale of the land parcels mentioned at S. No 1, 2 & 3. The detail description of these noting which flows from their correlation with the land details reveals that the figures reproduced from the said loose paper in Column No 1 were suppressed by factor of 1000. The fact that figures are suppressed by factor of 1000 is established from the common understanding that, land is not available in Ahmedabad city for Rs 23.5 per sq yard. Even the jantri price is around 300 times higher than the price written on the seized page. The other evidences of land with documented price mentioned on the left hand side of the same seized page, also clearly mentions the documented price after omitting 3 zeroes. For example, the first two transactions on the left hand shows documented price of Rs 2,25,00/- and Rs 1,80,00/- which is reality is Rs 2,25,00,000/- and Rs 1,80,00,000/-. Therefore, it is clear that the person who wrote this page, had omitted 3 zeroes in all the transactions recorded on this page. 12.3 Thus, the contents of this page cannot be brushed aside as an unimportant document. It is pertinent to mention here that copies of sale deeds of land parcel belonging to the assessee were also seized from the office of 'Soham Group' at 404-E, Shahjanand Centre, Shahibaug, Ahmedabad. Again from the residence of Shri Sarkar (partner of M/s. Pushkar Corporation) a loose paper evidencing unaccounted cash transactions was seized vide page number 42 of Annexure A-1 to the panchnama dated 12/13-07-2013. The assessee is the buyer of the property as per sale deed and the sale consideration, area and specific property that has been given in the chart tally with the actual sale deed to which the assessee entered in the transaction of purchase of the said land. Thus it cannot deny that the entries noted in coded form on page no. 42 do not belong to it. 13. Vide reply dated 30.11.2015, the assessee also took the plea that, if the value of land is indeed taken at Rs 14.67 crores, then the resultant would be loss as the cost of land would increase to that extent in the books. This plea is also half truth IT(SS)A No.119/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. M/s. Kunjan Corporation Asst.Year –2012-13 - 5– because, no prudent businessman would enter into a real estate venture, purchase huge land bank, make huge investment, take pain to develop the same and sell the developed project at 1/3 rd the cost and incur such a huge loss. It is very clear that the assessee has also earned on- money on sale of developed units, for which the assessee is silent. Here, the addition is being made on account of unexplained investment made in the purchase of land, for which the assessee could not produce source of the same. 13.1 The assessee had also taken the plea of missing 3 zeroes. In this connection, it is reiterated that, the three zeros have been omitted in the seized material itself to camouflage the real contents of the transaction. In the seized material, there is mention of 6245x23.5. 6245 represents the measurement of the land. Now it is quite a commonsense that 6245 sq yards would not be sold for Rs 23.5 per sq yard or even Rs. 235 per sq yard. This 23.5 stands for 23,500/-. Besides, the evidences of other land transactions mentioned on the left hand side of the page clearly show that the creator of this paper had deliberately omitted three zeroes. In this connection, entries mentioned at left hand side of the said page, however, pertains to M/s Siddhi Vinayak Developers and Shri Manubhai Patel (written as 'Manii') and do not pertains to the assessee was also examined for the purpose decoding and intention of the person who has wrote this paper and it was found that, a. In case of M/s Siddhi Vinayak Developers and Shri Manubhai Patel (written as 'Manu') the said paper contains the noting “1,80,00 Dastavej”. It is clearly established that documented price for the said land is Rs 1,80,00,000/-. Hence, the 3 zeros have been deliberately omitted in the seized page. b. Again, in the same transaction, it is mentioned that '350 dalali'. For such a huge land transaction, would the broker be satisfied for a paltry brokerage of Rs 350? c. It is also clear that the brokerage is in the range of 0.5% when the transaction value exceeds Rs 1.00 crore. Thus, 350 dalali, stands for Rs 3,50,000 being paid to the broker, which again is 0.5% of the total land deal of Rs 6,97,00,000/-. d. There is again a mention of 'Rs 5,13,50 Rokda'. This is the difference of Rs 6.97 crores total value of land @ Rs 20,000 for 3485 sq yards and the documented price of Rs 1.80 crores after deducting the brokerage of Rs 3,50,000/-. It is crystal clear that the person who has written this page has intentionally suppressed figures by factor of 1000 and the same are applied for the assessee also. All these evidences clearly prove that there is on- money element in the above purchase of land. Further, it is an obvious truth that the seized materials have to be read as a whole and not contextually. It cannot be said that the seized materials has to be interpreted suiting one party and only taking beneficial contexts out of it. This has been time and again established by various judicial pronouncements. IT(SS)A No.119/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. M/s. Kunjan Corporation Asst.Year –2012-13 - 6– Hence, the contention that the incriminating material seized from a search covered premise, cannot be used against the assessee is rebutted. 14. In light of the above, it is clearly established that the assessee had purchased land at FP No. 89/2 of S. No 318 at Tal.Jundal admeasuring 6245 sq yards (5220 sq meters) from M/s. Pushkar Corporation, which was purchased for a sum of Rs 3.50 crores and entered into vide document No. 9610/2011 dated 19.5.2011. This land was purchased for a total sum of Rs 14.67.57.500 @ Rs 23,500 per sq yard. The documented price was Rs 3.50 crores and the balance sum of Rs 11,17,57,500/- is nothing but on money which was paid in cash. The assessee's books records only Rs 3.50 crore and hence, the remaining sum of Rs 11,17,57,500/- is added to the total income as unexplained investment in purchase of land. 15. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 11,17,57,500/- is added u/s 69 of the Act as the on money payment to Pushkar Corporation on purchase of land. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are separately initiated for concealment of income.” 4. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee on several grounds. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that even if the assessing officer of the searched person and the other persons is one and the same, then also the AO is required to record his satisfaction as has been held by various Courts. In the instant case, Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that no satisfaction was recorded by the assessing officer and therefore, the notice issued by assessing officer under Section 153C of the Act is not valid in the eyes of law. Further, Ld. CIT(Appeals) also held that that these documents on which reliance has been placed by the assessing officer do not “belong” to the assessee. Further, Ld. CIT(Appeals) also held that these documents are dumb documents as these documents are not in the handwriting of any partner or employee of the assessee firm, these documents are not signed by anyone or any partner or employee of the assessee firm, the document considered for cash transaction does not contain any details of land like survey number, location like village etc. accordingly, the additions made by the assessing officer were directed to be deleted by Ld. CIT(Appeals) on the basis that no additions could be made IT(SS)A No.119/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. M/s. Kunjan Corporation Asst.Year –2012-13 - 7– on the basis of dumb documents. While passing the order, Ld. CIT(Appeals) made the following observations: “7.1 As the appellant has challenged the issue of notice u/s. 153 of the Act by taking additional ground of appeal, it is adjudicated first in the coming lines. The appellant contended that the AO did not record satisfaction before issue of notice u/s, 153C of the Act stating that this page belong to the appellant. Therefore, the notice issued u/s.153C of the Act is invalid and bad in law. The appellant cited several case laws and Circular issued by the CBDT, New Delhi to support its contentions. The appellant cited case law of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Calcutta Knitwears in Civil Appeal No.3958 of 2014 dated 12.3.2014, in which it has been held that for the purpose of section 158BD of the Act, recording of a satisfaction note is prerequisite and the satisfaction note must be prepared by the AO before he transmits the record to the other AO, who has jurisdiction over such person u/s.158BD of the Act. Several High Courts have held that the proceedings u/s. 153C are similar to proceedings u/s. 158BD and the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court as referred above has been relied upon while deciding the cases of 153C of the Act. This view has been accepted by the CBDT, New Delhi and it has been circulated that even if the AO of searched person and the other person is one and the same, then also he is required to record his satisfaction as has been held by the Courts. The CBDT further instructed that pending litigations with regard to the recording of satisfaction note u/s. 158BD/153C should be withdrawn/ not pressed if it does not meet the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court. Apart from the judgement of Hon'bie Apex Court and CBDT Circular, the appellant cited several judgement of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat, Ahmedabad and (TAT, Ahmedabad in support of this ground of appeal. Circular No.24/2015 dated 31.12.2015 issued by the CBDT is reproduced below :- 7.2 Facts of the case has been considered with reference to the case laws relied upon. It is clear from the assessment order that there was no satisfaction recorded by the AO. In this case, the AO of the searched assessee and the appellant is one and same but still as per the judgements mentioned above, the AO must have recorded the satisfaction before issue of notice u/s. 153C of the Act. But it was not done. Therefore, it is clear non-compliance of the guidelines issued by the CBDT in accordance with the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Calcutta Knitwears (supra). 7.3 The another ground on merit is against the addition of Rs.11,17,57,500/- made by the AO on the basis of the document seized during the course of search. The AO stated that the figures written on these pages tallied with the transactions with the appellant, therefore, the amount written which is more than the amount shown in the regular books of account was paid in cash, thus remained unexplained. The appellant contended that the said loose papers were not found from its premises or its partners premises but these were found from the premises of third party. These papers are not in the handwriting of any partner or employee of the appellant. These pages were not signed by any partner or employee of the appellant. The appellant IT(SS)A No.119/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. M/s. Kunjan Corporation Asst.Year –2012-13 - 8– also contended that the page bear no date/month/year. The notings do not show any survey no. of land, location of land etc. Statement of Shri Yogendra Sarkar (from whose premises this page was seized) was recorded on this page during the course of search u/s. 132 (4) of the Act and he stated that it looks like in his handwriting but he does not know detail of the contents. Apart from this question, no statement was recorded on this page, during the search, post search or during the assessment proceedings. The appellant contended that these documents are 'dumb' documents as far as appellant is concerned and additions cannot be made on the basis of dumb documents. The appellant cited several case laws in support of its contentions. 7.3.1 Facts of the case and submissions of the appellant with reference to the case laws cited have been considered. There is no dispute about the fact that these documents were not found from the premises of the appellant or its partners/employees. These documents are not in the handwriting of any partner or employee of the appellant firm. These documents are not signed by any one and certainly not by any partner or any employee of the appellant firm. The document considered for cash transaction does not bear any details of land like survey number, location like village etc. No statement was recorded except statement of Shri Yogendra Sarkar, partner of Pushkar Corporation, who did not throw any light. He stated that it looks like in his handwriting but he did not know the contents. No enquiry/investigation on this issue was made during the search/post search or during assessment proceedings. No date is written on this page against these transactions. These facts prove beyond doubt that these documents are dumb documents as far as appellant is concerned. Additions made on the basis of such dumb documents in the hands of third party are not held as justified by several judicial pronouncements. Looking to these facts, the additions made by the AO on the basis of dumb documents deserves to be deleted, hence, deleted.” 5. The Department is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals). At the outset, the Learned DR submitted that the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) that the documents are dumb documents is also no longer valid as the Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad have examined the same documents in the case of M/s. Pushkar Corporation i.e. the seller and held that the content recorded in the seized documents are correct. (AT para 20.1, para 25 & para 27.1 of the order of M/s. Pushkar Corporation Vs. DCIT - ITA No. 2213-2214/Ahd/2018). Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the documents on the basis of which addition was made are dumb documents. Secondly, the Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) had held that the notice under Section 153C of the Act was invalid as there was no satisfaction IT(SS)A No.119/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. M/s. Kunjan Corporation Asst.Year –2012-13 - 9– recorded by the AO. The Ld. CIT(A) had held that though the AO of the searched person and the assessee is one and same, but still as per judgment of M/s. Culcutta Knitwear in appeal number 3958 of 2014 dated 12.03.2014, the AO must have recorded the satisfaction before the issue of notice under Section 153C of the I.T. Act. (para 7.2 of the CIT (A)'s order). The Ld. DR submitted that the above finding of the Ld. CIT(A) no longer holds good in the eyes of law in view of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Super Mall Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT-8, New Delhi (Civil appeal No. 2006-2007 of 2020). There is no requirement of recording two satisfactions when the AO of the searched assessee and third party is same. In the present case, the AO of the searched party and assessee is same as noted by the Ld. CIT(A) in his order. Accordingly, one satisfaction recorded by the Ld. AO is enough. Thirdly, the Ld. DR submitted in this case, the Ld. CIT(A) followed the decision of CIT(A)-11 in the case of M/s. Rameshwar Developers and M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Developers wherein it was held that the AO was not justified in acquiring jurisdiction over the cases under Section 153C as the documents found and seized during the search at Soham Group and Sarkar Group were not belonging to the assessee. The Ld. DR submitted that the above finding of the Id. CIT(A) is no longer valid in the eye of law as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia & Others (Civil appeal no. 911 of 2023) held that the amendment made in the Section 153C of the I.T. Act w.e.f. 01.06.2015 shall be applicable for the searches conducted prior to 01.06.2015 and even if some documents found & seized and were pertaining / relating to the assessee, proceedings under Section 153C is valid. 6. In response, the AR of the appellant also conceded during the course of arguments that in view of the decision of Super Malls (supra), there is no IT(SS)A No.119/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. M/s. Kunjan Corporation Asst.Year –2012-13 - 10– further requirement of recording separate satisfactions, if AO is the same for searched party and the assessee. Also, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee also did not contest the proposition that in view of the decision of Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia & Others (Civil appeal No. 911 of 2023) supra that even when documents found & seized and were pertaining / relating to the assessee, proceedings under Section 153C is valid. However, the Counsel for the assessee strongly reiterated the argument that the documents were dumb documents and that reliance could not be placed on the decision of ITAT in the case of Pushkar Corporation, for the reason that on analysis of the loose sheet of paper, there was a clear distinction between the notings relating to the other two parties as compared to the notings in the case of the assessee. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that the noting is for the other two parties were quite specific, whereas in case of assessee, the notings made in the loose sheet were not specific. Further, from a perusal of the documents/sheets, it cannot be concluded that the document pertained to assessment year under consideration. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was a clear difference in the notings with respect to the other parties as compared to the notings in the case of the assessee in the loose sheet, which formed the basis of addition for non- money transaction. Accordingly, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order passed by ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Pushkar Corporation supra cannot be relied upon to hold that such notings in the loose papers /sheet was the non-money received by the assessee during the impugned year under consideration. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on various judicial precedents in support of his contention more particularly on the case of Smt. Harmohinder Kaur 24 taxmann.com 68 (Amritsar - Trib.) and VC Shukla (SC) in support of the proposition that without corroborative evidence to prove authenticity of diary seized during search, Assessing Officer could not make IT(SS)A No.119/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. M/s. Kunjan Corporation Asst.Year –2012-13 - 11– additions in assessee's income on basis of notings in diary of third party by making presumptions. 7. Before deciding the issue whether such document constitutes a dumb document or not, it would be useful to reproduce the relevant extracts of the ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Pushkar Corporation supra for ready reference: “20. The next controversy arises whether the addition has been made by the authorities below based on the dumped documents. It is seen that during the course of Search and Seizure actions, voluminous documents are seized which may also include numerous loose papers, diaries, note pads which may contain rough calculations, vague notings, scribbling and jottings etc. There may be instances where such documents may be also non- speaking so far as that such documents may not decipher with certainty or may be not at all, as the case may be, the following:- (i) Whether such document contains some transaction subjected to tax and consequently bears the tax liability. (ii) If yes, taxability in whose hands? (iii) The year of taxability of such income. (iv) The rate and amount of tax 20.1 It is pertinent to mention that a charge of tax can be levied based on such a document only is such document is a speaking one in itself or becomes a speaking once if read in conjunction to some other corroborative evidence found during the course of search or post search investigation. In the case on hand, there is no ambiguity to the fact that such documents recovered from the premises of Shri Narendra J Patel and Shri Yogendra A Sarkar. Based on the search documents seized, it was found that it is containing certain information’s such as area of the plot and the amount of stamp duty which was duly decoded by the AO which was matching with the sale deeds of the lands shown by the assessee. Furthermore, the partner of the assessee namely Shri Yogendra A Sarka has duly admitted that part of the contents of the seized documents was written by him. As such, the seized document has to be read as a whole, it cannot be read in piecemeal according to the benefit of the party. Accordingly, we hold that the contents recorded in the seized documents are correct. Thus the impugned question is decided against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. Now coming to Assessee’s appeal bearing ITA no. 2213/AHD/2018 for AY 2011-12 23. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal 1. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding assessment order passed by Ld. that insprte of that assessment order was passed in violation of principal of natural justice IT(SS)A No.119/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. M/s. Kunjan Corporation Asst.Year –2012-13 - 12– 2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the assessment order passed u/s 143(3} of the Act by the Ld. A.O. after recording satisfaction that documents belongs to appellant firm seized during the search operation is valid. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding addition of alleged receipt of On money/ income of Rs.2,32,70,000/-. 4. The appellant craves liberty to add. amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal 24. The interconnected issue raised by the assessee in ground no. 1 to 3 is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,32,70,000/- being 20% of alleged receipt of on money instead of deleting the same in entirety. 27.1 At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the Asst. Year 2012-13 is identical to the issue raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 2345/Ahd/2018 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 2345/Ahd/2018 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. Asst. Year 2012-13. The appeal of the Revenue for the assessment 2011-12 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 20 of this order against the Revenue. The learned Asst. Year and the Asst. Year also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2011-12 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. Asst. Year 2012-13. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed.” 8. On going to the contents of the order passed by ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Pushkar Corporation i.e. in the case of seller of the impugned property under consideration, which was purchased by the assessee, the Tribunal has given a specific finding that the documents referred to above are not dumb documents and these documents reflect the correct state of affairs. We observe that it is the very same document which is before us for our consideration. Respectfully following the order of the Tribunal in the case of the seller M/s Pushkar Corporation, wherein the Tribunal has specifically observed that the aforesaid documents which is also up for consideration before us is not a dumb document and that the contents recorded in the said document are correct. The case laws cited by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee also are distinguishable on facts, especially in light of observations of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of the IT(SS)A No.119/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. M/s. Kunjan Corporation Asst.Year –2012-13 - 13– seller i.e. Pushkar Corporation, while analysing the very same document which is up for consideration before us. Accordingly, looking into the instant facts, since the aforesaid document which is for consideration before us has been held to be reflecting the true state of affairs, the appeal of the Department is hereby allowed. Further, as noted in the preceding paragraphs, the Counsel for the assessee has not contested the validity of issuance of notice under Section 153C of the Act, on account of non-recording of satisfaction, since the assessing officer of both the searched party and the assessee is the same. Accordingly, in light of the above observations, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in facts and in law in holding the documents and cannot be relied upon, in light of the observations made by the Tribunal in the case of the seller i.e. M/s Pushkar Corporation. 9. In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 22/07/2024 Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 22/07/2024 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. संबं धत आयकर आय ु त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आय ु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील!य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड' फाईल / Guard file. आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad