Taxworld Fashions Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The ACIT.,Cent.Circle-2(4), Ahmedabad

ITSSA 131/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3143 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 05-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SU RENDRA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH (BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER) IT(SS)A. NO: 131/AHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) TEXWORLD FASHIONS PVT. LTD., 63/2, NEW CLOTH MARKET, O/S RAIPUR GATE, AHMEDABAD 380001 V/S ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AACCT2582M APPELLANT BY: SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR & PARIN SHAH A R RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR, CIT/ D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 05 -04-201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13-04-2017 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. WITH THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE C ORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD DATED 28.01.2003 P ERTAINING TO A.Y. 2006- 07. IT(SS)A NO. 131/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2006-07 2 2. THE ONLY SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELA TES TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,62,05,100/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INVEST MENT IN LAND AT PIPLAJ U/S. 69 OF THE ACT. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEA RCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE GROUP CASES OF MANGAL GROUP ON 06.08.2009. ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AND FURTHER DURING THE COURSE OF THE SC RUTINY ASSESSMENT, THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED LAND A T SHAHWADI, PIPLEJ FOR RS. 8,52,900/-. THE A.O. FURTHER FOUND THAT AS PER ANNEXURE-A-3, PAGE NO. 176 FOUND DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, THE RATE P ER SQ. YD. HAS BEEN MENTIONED AT RS. 500/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED A S HOW CAUSE NOTICE WHY THE TOTAL INVESTMENT FOR PURCHASE OF THE LAND BE NO T TAKEN AS RS. 1,70,58,000/- AND WHY ADDITION OF RS. 1,62,05,100/- SHOULD NOT BE MADE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 4. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS REPLY STATED THAT THE SAID DOCU MENT DO NOT PERTAIN TO IT BUT PERTAIN TO SOMEONE ELSE WHO WANTED TO PURCHASE THE SAID PIECE OF LAND. IT WAS FURTHER BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE A .O. THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT EVEN IN EXISTENCE AT THAT POINT OF TIME. THE EX PLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RUBBISHED BY THE A.O. WHO WAS OF THE FIRM BELIE F THAT THE COST BY WHICH THE LAND WAS PURCHASED WAS RS. 500 PER SQ. YD. AS M ENTIONED IN ANNEXURE- A-3 PAGE 176 AND THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN ONLY 8,25,9 00/- AS INVESTMENT IN THE SAID PIECE OF LAND. HENCE, RS. 1,62,05,100/- IS THE UNACCOUNTED IT(SS)A NO. 131/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2006-07 3 INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. ACCORDING LY MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,62,05,100/-. 5. ASSESSEE ASSAILED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFORE THE L D. CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. 6. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERA TED WHAT HAS BEEN STATED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. PER CONTRA, THE LD. D .R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 7. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE HAVE CAREFUL LY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL C ONSIDERATION TO THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF RULE 18(6) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES. A CAREFUL P ERUSAL OF THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENT HEAVILY RELIED UPON BY THE LOWER AUTHORITI ES SHOW THAT THE DOCUMENT IS DATED 20.11.2004. THE UNDISPUTED FACT I S THAT THE ASSESSEE CAME INTO EXISTENCE BY THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORA TION ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANY, GUJARAT ON 05.01.2005. THIS C LEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME, THE DOCU MENT WAS WRITTEN. FURTHER THE UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S PURCHASED THE SAID LAND FROM ONE FROM MR. NATWARLAL K. VYAS VIDE DEED OF C ONVEYANCE DATED 14.09.2005 AND IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE SAID LAND FROM THE PERSONS MENTIONED IN THE DOCUMENT. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE ANY RELEVANCE WITH THE SAID IT(SS)A NO. 131/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2006-07 4 DOCUMENT SINCE AS MENTIONED ELSEWHERE; THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT EVEN IN EXISTENCE AT THAT POINT OF TIME. 8. IT IS ALSO AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE PRICE PAID B Y THE ASSESSEE IS THE JANTRI RATE AND IT IS NOT A CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE P URCHASE PRICE OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIFFERENT FROM THE PREVAILING JANTRI RA TE. 9. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS OF THE ADJUDICATION, I T WOULD NOT BE OUT OF PLACE TO MENTION THAT THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENT HEAVIL Y RELIED UPON BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS UNSIGNED AND DOES NOT CARRY AN Y EVIDENTIARY VALUE. 10. CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN TOTALITY IN THE LIGHT OF T HE DISCUSSION HEREINABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DI RECT THE A.O. TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,62,05,100/-. 11. APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 13 - 04- 20 17 SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER TRUE COPY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 13 /04/2017 RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED.