Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.-1, Rajkot V. Late Shri Pravinsinh N. Zala, Morbi

ITSSA 15/RJT/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0967 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-06-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 22-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M N MOURYA
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Search and seizure; Document seized; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order; Retraction; Documents seized; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 13; 153; 22; 153C; 147; 148; 132; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) ./ I.T.(SS)A. NOS. 15/RJT/2018 WITH CO NO. 10/RJT/2018 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2014-15 ) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT AMRUTA ESTATE, 2 ND FLOOR, M. G. ROAD, RAJKOT - 1 / VS. LATE SHRI PRAVINSINH N ZALA MADHAPAR ST. NO. 24, PARMARNI WADI, MORBI- 363641 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAHPZ8829K ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) & ( ) ./ I.T.(SS)A. NOS. 16/RJT/2018 WITH CO NO. 21/RJT/2018 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2014-15 ) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT AMRUTA ESTATE, 2 ND FLOOR, M. G. ROAD, RAJKOT - 1 / VS. SMT. MONABEN H SATIKUNVAR J P JEWELLERS, SONI BAZAR NEAR GADHIVAD, RAJKOT ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AIVPS5752N ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) & ( ) ./ I.T.(SS)A. NOS. 17/RJT/2018 WITH IT(SS)A NO. 15/RJT/18 A/W CO NO. 10/RJT/18 & ORS. [LATE SHRI PRAVINSINH N ZALA & ORS.] - 2 - CO NO. 26/RJT/2018 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2014-15 ) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT AMRUTA ESTATE, 2 ND FLOOR, M. G. ROAD, RAJKOT - 1 / VS. SHRI AKSHAYRAJSINH VIRENDRASINH GOHIL C-1742, SHIVPARK NR. SAGWADI, KALIYABADI, BHAVNAGAR ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AHFPG0803K ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) & ( ) ./ I.T.(SS)A. NOS. 19/RJT/2018 WITH CO NO. 09/RJT/2018 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2014-15 ) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT AMRUTA ESTATE, 2 ND FLOOR, M. G. ROAD, RAJKOT - 1 / VS. SHRI KETANKUMAR GIRDHARBHAI SOBHANA GLASS VIEW, B-1001, ATLANTIS APARTMENT, OPP. BIG BAZAR, 150 FEET RING ROAD, RAJKOT ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AZVPS7485H ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) & ( ) ./ I.T.(SS)A. NOS. 21/RJT/2018 & ITA NO. 22/RJT/2018 WITH CO NO. 13/RJT/2018 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2014-15 ) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT AMRUTA ESTATE, 2 ND / VS. SMT. DHARA HARSHADRAI PANDYA SHIVAM, SAKHIYANAGAR MAIN ROAD, AIRPORT IT(SS)A NO. 15/RJT/18 A/W CO NO. 10/RJT/18 & ORS. [LATE SHRI PRAVINSINH N ZALA & ORS.] - 3 - FLOOR, M. G. ROAD, RAJKOT - 1 ROAD, RAJKOT ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AKPPB5131L ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) & ( ) ./ I.T.(SS)A. NOS. 22/RJT/2018 WITH CO NO. 25/RJT/2018 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2014-15 ) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT AMRUTA ESTATE, 2 ND FLOOR, M. G. ROAD, RAJKOT - 1 / VS. SHRI DHARMENDRASINH B. CHUDASAMA, VILLAGE- PIPALI, TALUKA DHANDHUKA, AHMEDABAD ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AJMPC1789R ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) & ( ) ./ I.T.(SS)A. NOS. 23/RJT/2018 WITH CO NO. 11/RJT/2018 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2014-15 ) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT AMRUTA ESTATE, 2 ND FLOOR, M. G. ROAD, RAJKOT - 1 / VS. SMT. SEEMABEN A SATIKUNVAR J P JEWELLERS, 1 JALARAM NR. FIRE BRIGADE, NIRMALA SCHOOL ROAD, RAJKOT ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AIVPS5753P ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M. N. MOURYA , CIT .D.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M. J. RANPURA , A.R. IT(SS)A NO. 15/RJT/18 A/W CO NO. 10/RJT/18 & ORS. [LATE SHRI PRAVINSINH N ZALA & ORS.] - 4 - !' / DATE OF HEARING 27/02/2020 #$%& !' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 01/06/2020 '( /O R D E R PER BENCH: THE CAPTIONED APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTIONS HAVE BEE N FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE REVENUE AND ASSESSEE. FIRST WE TAKE IT(SS)A NO 15/RJT/2018 AND CO NO. 10/ RJT/2018 IN CASE OF LATE SHRI PARVINSINH NANUBHAI ZALA 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN THE CO BEARING NO. 10/RJT/2018. 1.0 THE GROUNDS OF CROSS-OBJECTIONS MENTIONED HER EUNDER ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER. 2.0 THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-11, AHMEDABAD [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE 'CIT(A)'] ERRED ON FACTS AS ALSO IN LAW IN DISMISSING THE GROUND OF APPEAL RELATED TO THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2.1 THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153C OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THEREFORE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 3. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEARING NO. 15/RJT/2018. 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND/OR ON FACTS IN DELETING THE AD DITION OF RS. 2,55,88,999/- BEING ON-MONEY PAID ON THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND/OR ON FACTS IN DELETING THE AD DITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 3,94,631/-. 3. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW IN GIV ING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY IGNORING THE CONTENTS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT AND TH E ORIGINAL STATEMENTS GIVEN IT(SS)A NO. 15/RJT/18 A/W CO NO. 10/RJT/18 & ORS. [LATE SHRI PRAVINSINH N ZALA & ORS.] - 5 - BY THE 4 SELLERS, AND IN RELYING ON AFFIDAVITS OF T HE SELLERS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT A MUCH LATER DATE. 4. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW BY GIV ING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IGNORING THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE STATEMENTS OF THE FARMERS POINTED OUT BY THE AO REGARDING THE INCONSISTENCY IN THE STATEMENTS. 4. FIRST, WE TAKE UP CO. NO. 10/RJT/2018, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAS CH ALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 153C READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO DOCUMEN T FOUND DURING THE SEARCH WHICH IS EITHER INCRIMINATING IN NATURE OR BELONGIN G TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. AT THE OUTSET THE LEARNED AR BEFORE US OBJECTED ON THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, BY CONTE NDING THAT THERE IS NO NAME, ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBERS PAN, BANKING DETAILS O R ANY OTHER SPECIFIC DETAIL RELATED TO ASSESSEE WAS FOUND FROM THE SEIZED DOCUM ENTS. THE LEARNED AR IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION DREW OUR ATTENTION ON PAG E 21 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHERE THE SEIZED MATERIAL WAS PLACED. THE LEARNED AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE MAY BE SOME REFERENCE IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS ABOUT THE ASSESSEE BUT THAT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO INITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, UNTIL AN D UNLESS THERE IS SOME NEXUSES WITH THE ASSESSEE BASED ON COGENT MATERIALS . AS SUCH THE ASSESSEE HAD NO CONNECTION OF WHATSOEVER WITH THE COMPANY NA MELY M/S AMIDHARA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. (IN SHORT ADPL) WHERE THE SEAR CH WAS CONDUCTED. NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR PERSONS CLOSELY CONNECTED WITH HIM WERE HAVING ANY DEALING OF WHATSOEVER WITH SUCH COMPANY. ACCORDINGLY THE DO CUMENTS SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCH PARTY DOES NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AR ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE IMPUGNED SEI ZED DOCUMENT WAS MADE ON 14 TH APRIL 2014 WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE I MPUGNED SURVEY NUMBERS ON 18 TH DECEMBER 2013 AND 3 RD FEBRUARY 2014. THEREFORE THERE IT(SS)A NO. 15/RJT/18 A/W CO NO. 10/RJT/18 & ORS. [LATE SHRI PRAVINSINH N ZALA & ORS.] - 6 - CANNOT BE ANY REFERENCE ON SUCH SEIZED DOCUMENTS FO R THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY SUP PORTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD BEFORE US. THE FACTS IN BRIEF AS CULLED OUT FROM THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF ADPL DATED 16 OCTOBE R 2014. AS A RESULT OF SEARCH VARIOUS DOCUMENTS INCRIMINATING IN NATURE WE RE FOUND INCLUDING TWO FILE BEARING BOOK1(1) AND BOOK1(2) WHICH WERE EXTRACTED FROM THE HARD DISK DRIVE OF THE COMPUTER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. THESE DOCUMENTS WERE EXCEL SHEETS CONTAINING VARIOUS DETAILS SUCH AS SURVEY NU MBERS, SIZE (VIGHA), AMOUNT PAID AND LEGAL STATUS ETC. ON THE TOP OF EXCEL SHEE T DATE WAS MENTION I.E. 14 APRIL 2014. OUT OF VARIOUS SURVEY NUMBERS MENTIONED IN THE EXCEL SHEET, TWO SURVEY NUMBERS BEARING 1214 AND 1215 WERE REPRESENT ING THE LANDS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO ON VERIFICATION OF THE SALE DEEDS OF THE IMP UGNED SURVEY NUMBERS FOUND THAT THE AMOUNT MENTIONED THEREIN VIZ A VIZ T HE AMOUNT MENTION IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT DOES NOT MATCH. AS SUCH THE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WAS GREATER THAN THE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEEDS. ACCORDINGLY HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S MADE INVESTMENT IN THE IMPUGNED LANDS WITHOUT RECORDING THE SAME IN THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153 C OF THE ACT. FROM THE PRECEDING DISCUSSION WE NOTE CERTAIN UNDIS PUTED FACTS AS DETAILED UNDER: I. THE EXCEL SHEETS WERE FOUND FROM THE HARD DISK DRIV E (HDD) OF THE COMPANY NAMELY ADPL IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH CON DUCTED UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT. IT(SS)A NO. 15/RJT/18 A/W CO NO. 10/RJT/18 & ORS. [LATE SHRI PRAVINSINH N ZALA & ORS.] - 7 - II. THERE WAS NO DIRECT OR INDIRECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEE N THE ASSESSEE AND THE SEARCHED PERSON AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. III. THERE WAS NO NAME, SIGNATURE, BANKING DETAILS, PAN OF THE ASSESSEE EXCEPT THE SURVEY NUMBERS REGISTERED IN TH E NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. IV. THERE WAS NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE AUTHOR OF SUCH S EIZED MATERIALS. SIMILARLY THE PURPOSE OF SUCH NOTING IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL WAS ALSO NOT ASCERTAINABLE. THE SEARCHED P ARTY HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD SUCH AS THE PURPOSE AND THE AUTHOR OF SUCH NOTING. V. THE SEIZED DOCUMENT WAS NEITHER WRITTEN BY THE ASSE SSEE BEING THE PURCHASER NOR BY THE SELLER OF THE IMPUGNED SUR VEY NUMBERS. VI. THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENT WAS 14 TH APRIL 2014 WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE IMPUGNED LAN DS BEARING SURVEY NUMBERS 1214 AND 1215 DATED 18 TH DECEMBER 2013 AND 3 RD FEBRUARY 2014 I.E. MUCH BEFORE THE DATE MENTIONED I N THE SEIZED DOCUMENT. NOW THE QUESTION ARISES, WHETHER THE DOCUMENT FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF THE 3 RD PARTY BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE AS PROVIDED UNDER SE CTION 153C OF THE ACT, PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT THEREIN WHICH IS EFFECTIVE F ROM 1 ST JUNE 2015. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C (1) OF THE ACT, PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT READS AS UNDER: 153C. 3 [(1)] NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 139 , SECTION 147 , SECTION 148 , SECTION 149 , SECTION 151 AND SECTION 153 , WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABL E ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BELONGS OR BEL ONG TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A , THEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON 3A [ AND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED AGAINST EA CH SUCH OTHER PERSON AND ISSUE NOTICE AND ASSESS OR REASSES S THE INCOME OF THE OTHER PERSON IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A , IF, THAT ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SE IZED OR REQUISITIONED HAVE A BEARING ON THE DETERMINATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A ] :] FROM THE ABOVE IT IS TRANSPIRED THAT THE DOCUMENT F OUND DURING THE SEARCH AT THE PLACE OF SEARCHED PARTY MUST BELONG TO THE ASSE SSEE FOR INITIATING THE IT(SS)A NO. 15/RJT/18 A/W CO NO. 10/RJT/18 & ORS. [LATE SHRI PRAVINSINH N ZALA & ORS.] - 8 - PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. THE WORD BELONG USED IN SECTION 153C REQUIRES THAT THERE HAS TO BE CONTROL AND POSS ESSION OF THE ASSESSEE (PERSON OTHER THAN SEARCHED PERSON) ON SUCH DOCUMEN T EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LEGAL OWNER. AS SUCH THE DOCUMENT F OUND IN THE CASE ON HAND FROM THE PREMISES OF THE 3 RD PARTY, THE ASSESSEE HAD NO CONTROL OF WHATSOEVER ON SUCH DOCUMENT. THEREFORE IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW SUCH DOCUMENT CANNOT BE TERMED AS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE. ONCE A DOCUMEN T DOES NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE AS MANDATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 153C OF THE ACT, PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT, DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE AO TO INITIAT E THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CONNECTION WE DRAW SUPPORT AN D GUIDANCE FROM THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PEPSICO INDIA HOLDING (P.) LTD. VS ACIT REPORTED IN 370 ITR 295 WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED THAT: THE ASSESSING OFFICERS SHOULD NOT CONFUSE THE EXPR ESSION 'BELONGS TO' WITH THE EXPRESSIONS 'RELATES TO' OR 'REFERS TO'. A REGISTER ED SALE DEED, FOR EXAMPLE, 'BELONGS TO' THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY ALTHOUGH IT OBVIOUSLY 'RELATES TO' OR 'REFERS TO' THE VENDOR. IN THIS EXAMPLE IF THE PURCHASER'S, PREMISES ARE SE ARCHED AND THE REGISTERED SALE DEED IS SEIZED, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT 'BELONGS TO' T HE VENDOR JUST BECAUSE HIS NAME IS MENTIONED IN THE DOCUMENT. IN THE CONVERSE CASE IF THE VENDOR'S PREMISES ARE SEARCHED AND A COPY OF THE SALE DEED IS SEIZED, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE SAID COPY 'BELONGS TO' THE PURCHASER JUST BECAUSE IT REFERS TO HIM AND HE (THE PURCHASER) HOLDS THE ORIGINAL SALE DEED. IN THIS LIGHT, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT NONE O F THE THREE SETS OF DOCUMENTS - COPIES OF PREFERENCE SHARES, UNSIGNED LEAVES OF CHEQUE BOO KS AND THE COPY OF THE SUPPLY AND LOAN AGREEMENT - CAN BE SAID TO 'BELONG TO' THE PET ITIONER WE ALSO FIND THAT THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PCIT VS. HIMANSHU CHANDULAL PATEL REPORTED IN 109 TAXMANN.CO M 202 AFTER MAKING A REFERENCE TO THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COU RT IN CASE OF PEPSICO INDIA HOLDING (P.) LTD (SUPRA) AS DISCUSSED ABOVE HAS HEL D AS UNDER: IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE DOCUMENTS, WHICH WERE SEI ZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THERE MAY BE SOME REFERENCE OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT TH AT IT-SELF WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT. IT IS NECESSARY TO SHOW SOME NEXUS ON THE BASIS OF SOM E COGENT MATERIALS BETWEEN THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED AND THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE ABOVE, IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT THERE CANN OT BE ANY QUESTION OF INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF TH E ACT, UNTIL AND UNLESS THE DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FROM TH E PREMISES OF THE 3 RD PARTY BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE. IT(SS)A NO. 15/RJT/18 A/W CO NO. 10/RJT/18 & ORS. [LATE SHRI PRAVINSINH N ZALA & ORS.] - 9 - IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE ALSO RAISED SIMILAR CONTENTIONS BEFORE THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT THE SAME WERE REJECTED BY THE AO BY HOLDING THAT THE CASE LAW RELIED BY TH E ASSESSEE RELATE TO THE ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED PRIOR TO AMENDMENT IN SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE AO STANDS AS UNDER: 8. AS FAR AS CASE LAWS QUOTED BY YOU IN SUPPORT OF YOUR CLAIM KINDLY NOTE THAT ALL THESE CASE LAWS ARE RELATED TO ASSESSMENT COMPLETED PRIOR TO AMENDMENT IN THE SECTION 153C AND THEREFORE WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE I N THIS CASE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE YOUR OBJECTIONS TO THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 1 53C FOR AY 2014-15 AND 2015-16 ARE HEREBY DISPOSED OFF. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDING OF THE AO, THE 2 ND CONTROVERSY ARISES WHETHER THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 53C OF THE ACT, WHERE THE WORD BELONG WAS REPLACED WITH THE WORD PERTAIN IS APPLICABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 153C OF THE ACT READS AS UNDER: 153C. (1) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 139 , SECTION 147 , SECTION 148 , SECTION 149 , SECTION 151 AND SECTION 153 , WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT, (A) ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABL E ARTICLE OR THING, SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED, BELONGS TO; OR (B) ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS, SEIZED OR R EQUISITIONED, PERTAINS OR PERTAIN TO, OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN, RELATES TO, A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A , THEN, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS, SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON AND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED AGAINST EACH SUCH OTHER PERSON AND ISSUE NOTICE AND ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME OF THE OTHER PERSON IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A , IF, THAT ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED HAVE A BEARING ON THE DETERMINATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON 2 [FOR SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR REL EVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SEARCH IS CONDUCTED OR REQUISITION IS MADE AND] FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A IN THIS REGARD WE NOTE THAT THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTE D PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT I.E. 16 TH OCTOBER 2014 BUT THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED UNDER SECTI ON 153C OF THE ACT SUBSEQUENT TO SUCH AMENDMENT DATED 29 TH OF JULY 2016. THUS THE CONTROVERSY ARISES WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF PRIOR TO THE AMEND MENT OR SUBSEQUENT TO THE AMENDMENT UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT AS DISCUSSE D ABOVE WILL BE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE ON HAND. THE CONTROVERSY HAS BEEN RESOL VED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL IT(SS)A NO. 15/RJT/18 A/W CO NO. 10/RJT/18 & ORS. [LATE SHRI PRAVINSINH N ZALA & ORS.] - 10 - HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANIL KUMAR GOPIKISAN AGRA WAL VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 106 TAXMAN.COM 137 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 19.9 IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE SEARCH WAS C ONDUCTED IN ALL THE CASES ON A DATE PRIOR TO 1ST JUNE, 2015. THEREFORE, ON THE DAT E OF THE SEARCH, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE PERSON SEARCHED COULD ONLY HAVE RECORDED SAT ISFACTION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE SEIZED MATERIAL BELONGS OR BELONG TO THE OTHER PERS ON. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE HARD- DISC CONTAINING IN THE INFORMATION RELATING TO THE PETITIONERS ADMITTEDLY DID NOT BELONG TO THEM, THEREFORE, AS ON THE DATE OF THE SEARCH, T HE ESSENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT TO JUSTIFY ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT IN CASE OF THE PETITIONERS, DID NOT EXIST. IT WAS ONLY ON 1ST JUNE , 2015 WHEN THE AMENDED PROVISIONS CAME INTO FORCE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE S EARCHED PERSON COULD HAVE FORMED THE REQUISITE BELIEF THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR D OCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED PERTAIN TO OR THE INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN REL ATES TO THE PETITIONERS. 19.10 IN THIS BACKDROP, TO TEST THE STAGE OF APPLICABILIT Y OF THE AMENDED PROVISIONS, A HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE MAY BE TAKEN. THE SEARCH IS CA RRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF HN SAFAL GROUP ON 4.9.2013. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON HAD RECORDED SATISFACTION THAT SOME OF THE SEIZED/REQUISITIONED MATERIAL BELONGS TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON AND FORWARDED THE MATERIAL TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE OTHER PERSON, HAD ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT PRIOR TO THE COMING INTO FORCE OF THE AMENDED PROVISION. THE NOTICE UNDER SE CTION 153C OF THE ACT WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE APPROPRIATE FORUM ON THE GROU ND THAT THE SEIZED MATERIAL DOES NOT BELONG TO SUCH OTHER PERSON AND SUCH ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF SUCH PERSON ON A FINDING THAT THE SEIZED MATERIAL DOES NOT BELO NG TO THE OTHER PERSON. THEREAFTER, IN VIEW OF THE AMENDMENT IN SECTION 153C (1) OF THE AC T, SINCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS DID NOT BELONG TO THE OTHER PERSON BUT DI D PERTAIN TO HIM OR THE INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN RELATED TO HIM, CAN THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON ONCE AGAIN RECORD SATISFACTION AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE AMENDED PROVISION AND FORWARD THE MATERIAL TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF SUCH OTHER PERSON. THE ANSWER WOULD BE AN EMPHATIC 'NO' AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARC HED PERSON AFTER RECORDING THE EARLIER SATISFACTION WOULD HAVE ALREADY FORWARDED T HE MATERIAL TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE OTHER PERSON, THEREFOR E, THERE WOULD BE NO QUESTION OF HIS AGAIN FORMING A SATISFACTION AS REQUIRED UNDER THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. 19.11 IN THE OPINION OF THIS COURT, IF A DATE OTHER THAN THE DATE OF SEARCH IS TAKEN TO BE THE RELEVANT DATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECORDING SATI SFACTION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, IT WOULD RESULT IN AN ANOMALOUS SITUATION WHEREIN IN S OME CASES, BECAUSE THE NOTICES UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT, THEY WOULD BE SET ASIDE ON THE GROUND THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DO CUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITION DID NOT BELONG TO THE OTHER PERSON THOUGH THE SAME PERT AINED TO OR THE INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN RELATED TO SUCH PERSON, WHEREAS I N OTHER CASES ARISING OUT OF THE SAME SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, MERELY BECAUSE THE NOTICES ARE ISSUED AFTER THE AMENDMENT, THE SAME WOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE VALID AS THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED PERTAIN TO OR THE INFORMATION CONT AINED THEREIN RELATE TO THE OTHER PERSON. IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE TO DEAL WITH TWO SETS OF IDENTICALLY SITUATED PERSONS DIFFERENTLY, MERELY BE CAUSE IN ONE CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON RECORDS SATISFACTION AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT PRIOR TO THE COMING INTO FORCE OF THE AMEND ED PROVISIONS AND IN ANY ANOTHER CASE AFTER THE COMING INTO FORCE OF THE AMENDED PRO VISIONS. IT(SS)A NO. 15/RJT/18 A/W CO NO. 10/RJT/18 & ORS. [LATE SHRI PRAVINSINH N ZALA & ORS.] - 11 - FROM THE ABOVE JUDGMENT IT IS TRANSPIRED THAT THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C AS APPLICABLE ON THE DATE OF SEARCH WILL BE APPLIED TO THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED THEREIN. THUS THERE REMAINS NO AMBIGUITY TO THE FAC T THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT THER EIN, WILL BE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE ON HAND WHICH REQUIRES THE AO TO ARRIVE AT A SATISFACTION THAT THE DOCUMENTS FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF THE 3 RD PARTY IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED THE MEANING OF THE WORD BELONGS IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE CONSCIOUS TO THE FACT THAT THE SEIZED MATERIAL FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF THE 3 RD PARTY IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH DOES NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, CANNOT BE INITIATED. HENCE , THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS ON HIS TECHNICAL GROUND OF APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY THE TEC HNICAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 9. IN THE RESULT THE CO. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. COMING TO THE IT(SS)A NO. 15/RJT/2018 AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE: 10. AT THE OUTSET IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT WE H AVE ALREADY HELD THAT INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT VALID VIDE PARAGRAPH NO. 8 OF THIS ORDER. FOR THE DETAILED DISCUSSION PLEASE REFER THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPH. ONC E, THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN HELD AS INV ALID, THERE IS NO REASON TO DECIDE THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE ON MERIT. HE NCE, WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON MERIT AS INFRUC TUOUS AS THESE NOT REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDICATED SEPARATELY. HENCE THE APPEAL FILE D BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 11. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. IT(SS)A NO. 15/RJT/18 A/W CO NO. 10/RJT/18 & ORS. [LATE SHRI PRAVINSINH N ZALA & ORS.] - 12 - 12. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, THE CO. OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED WHEREAS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCT UOUS. COMING TO THE IT(SS)A NO. 16/RJT/2018 BY REVENUE AN D CO NO. 21/RJT/2018 BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF SMT. MON ABEN HARIKISHANBHAI FOR A.Y. 2014-15 13. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE GROUNDS IN THE CROS S OBJECTION AS DETAILED UNDER: 1.0 THE GROUNDS OF CROSS-OBJECTIONS MENTIONED HER EUNDER ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER. 2.0 THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-11, AHMEDABAD [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE 'CIT(A)'] ERRED ON FACTS AS ALSO IN LAW IN DISMISSING THE GROUND OF APPEAL RELATED TO THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2.1 THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153C OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THEREFORE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 14. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND/OR ON FACTS IN DELETING THE AD DITION OF RS. 5,58,67,080/- BEING ON-MONEY PAID ON THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND/OR ON FACTS IN DELETING THE AD DITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 7,91,253/- AND RS.22 ,00,000/- (WRONGLY ADDED AS RS.2,00,000/- IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME.). 3. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW IN GIV ING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY IGNORING THE CONTENTS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT AND TH E ORIGINAL STATEMENTS GIVEN BY THE 4 SELLERS, AND IN RELYING ON AFFIDAVITS OF T HE SELLERS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT A MUCH LATER DATE. 4. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW BY GIV ING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IGNORING THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE STATEMENTS OF THE FARMERS POINTED OUT BY THE AO REGARDING THE INCONSISTENCY IN THE STATEMENTS. 15. AT THE OUTSET IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IN T HE IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE CASE OF LATE SHRI PARVINSINH N ANUBHAI ZALA IN CO NO. 10/RJT/2018, WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT INITIATION O F THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, ARE NOT VALID VIDE PARAGRA PH NUMBER 8 OF THIS ORDER. IT(SS)A NO. 15/RJT/18 A/W CO NO. 10/RJT/18 & ORS. [LATE SHRI PRAVINSINH N ZALA & ORS.] - 13 - FOR THE DETAILED DISCUSSION PLEASE REFER THE RELEVA NT PARAGRAPH. THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME AND IN ORDER TO MAI NTAIN PARITY WITH FINDING WE HOLD THAT THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 1 53C OF THE ACT ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE. HENCE, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 16. ONCE, THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 1 53C HAVE BEEN HELD AS INVALID, THERE IS NO REASON TO DECIDE THE ISSUE RAI SED BY THE REVENUE ON MERIT. HENCE, WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE ON MERIT AS INFRUCTUOUS AS THESE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDIC ATED SEPARATELY. HENCE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCT UOUS. 17. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 18. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, THE CO. OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED WHEREAS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCT UOUS. COMING TO THE IT(SS)A NO. 17/RJT/2018 BY REVENUE AN D CO NO. 26/RJT/2018 BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASE OF SHRI. AKSHAY RAJSINH V GOHIL FOR A.Y. 2014-15 19. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE GROUNDS IN THE CROS S OBJECTION AS DETAILED UNDER: 1.0 THE GROUNDS OF CROSS-OBJECTIONS MENTIONED HER EUNDER ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER. 2.0 THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-11, AHMEDABAD [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE 'CIT(A)'] ERRED ON FACTS AS ALSO IN LAW IN DISMISSING THE GROUND OF APPEAL RELATED TO THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2.1 THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153C OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THEREFORE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 20. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND/OR ON FACTS IN DELETING THE AD DITION OF RS. 3,38,75,060/- BEING ON-MONEY PAID ON THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. IT(SS)A NO. 15/RJT/18 A/W CO NO. 10/RJT/18 & ORS. [LATE SHRI PRAVINSINH N ZALA & ORS.] - 14 - 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND/OR ON FACTS IN DELETING THE AD DITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 5,58,670/-. 3. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS IN OBSERVING THAT NAME OF THE VILLAGE IS NOT MATCHED BY FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT LAGDANA AND K ESHARDI ARE ADJACENT VILLAGES AND THE FACT THAT THE SURVEY NUMBER MATCHE S EXACTLY. 4. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW IN GIV ING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY IGNORING THE CONTENTS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT AND TH E ORIGINAL STATEMENTS GIVEN BY THE 4 SELLERS, AND IN RELYING ON AFFIDAVITS OF T HE SELLERS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT A MUCH LATER DATE. 5. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW BY GIV ING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IGNORING THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE STATEMENTS OF THE FARMERS POINTED OUT BY THE AO REGARDING THE INCONSISTENCY IN THE STATEMENTS. 21. AT THE OUTSET IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IN I DENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE CASE OF LATE SHRI PARVINSINH N ANUBHAI ZALA IN CO NO. 10/RJT/2018, WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT INITIATION O F THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, ARE NOT VALID VIDE PARAGRA PH NUMBER 8 OF THIS ORDER. FOR THE DETAILED DISCUSSION PLEASE REFER THE RELEVA NT PARAGRAPH. THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME AND IN ORDER TO MAI NTAIN PARITY WITH FINDING WE HOLD THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 153C O F THE ACT ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE. HENCE, THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS ALLOWED. 22. ONCE, THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 1 53C HAVE BEEN HELD AS INVALID, THERE IS NO REASON TO DECIDE THE ISSUE RAI SED BY THE REVENUE ON MERIT. HENCE, WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE ON MERIT AS INFRUCTUOUS AS THESE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDIC ATED SEPARATELY. HENCE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCT UOUS. 23. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 24. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, THE CO. OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED WHEREAS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCT UOUS. IT(SS)A NO. 15/RJT/18 A/W CO NO. 10/RJT/18 & ORS. [LATE SHRI PRAVINSINH N ZALA & ORS.] - 15 - COMING TO THE IT(SS)A NO. 19/RJT/2018 BY REVENUE AN D CO NO. 9/RJT/2018 BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASE OF SHRI. KETANBH AI G SHOBHANA FOR A.Y. 2014-15 25. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE GROUNDS IN THE CROS S OBJECTION AS DETAILED UNDER: 1.0 THE GROUNDS OF CROSS-OBJECTIONS MENTIONED HER EUNDER ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER. 2.0 THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-11, AHMEDABAD [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE 'CIT(A)'] ERRED ON FACTS AS ALSO IN LAW IN DISMISSING THE GROUND OF APPEAL RELATED TO THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2.1 THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153C OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THEREFORE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 26. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND/OR ON FACTS IN DELETING THE AD DITION OF RS.2,47,36,148/- BEING ON-MONEY PAID ON THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND/OR ON FACTS IN DELETING THE AD DITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 9,42,859/-. 3. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS IN OBSERVING THAT NAME OF THE VILLAGE IS NOT MATCHED BY FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT LAGDANA AND K ALYANGADH ARE ADJACENT VILLAGES AND THE FACT THAT THE SURVEY NUMBER MATCHE S EXACTLY. 4. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW IN GIV ING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY IGNORING THE CONTENTS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT AND TH E ORIGINAL STATEMENTS GIVEN BY THE 4 SELLERS, AND IN RELYING ON AFFIDAVITS OF T HE SELLERS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT A MUCH LATER DATE. 5. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW BY GIV ING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IGNORING THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE STATEMENTS OF THE FARMERS POINTED OUT BY THE AO REGARDING THE INCONSISTENCY IN THE STATEMENTS. 27. AT THE OUTSET IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IN I DENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE CASE OF LATE SHRI PARVIN SINH NANUBHAI ZALA IN CO NO. 10/RJT/2018, WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT INITIATION O F THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, ARE NOT VALID VIDE PARAGRA PH NUMBER 8 OF THIS ORDER. FOR THE DETAILED DISCUSSION PLEASE REFER THE RELEVA NT PARAGRAPH. THEREFORE IT(SS)A NO. 15/RJT/18 A/W CO NO. 10/RJT/18 & ORS. [LATE SHRI PRAVINSINH N ZALA & ORS.] - 16 - RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME AND IN ORDER TO MAI NTAIN PARITY WITH FINDING WE HOLD THAT THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 1 53C OF THE ACT ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE. HENCE, THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS ALLOWED. 28. ONCE, THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 1 53C HAVE BEEN HELD AS INVALID, THERE IS NO REASON TO DECIDE THE ISSUE RAI SED BY THE REVENUE ON MERIT. HENCE, WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE ON MERIT AS INFRUCTUOUS AS THESE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDIC ATED SEPARATELY. HENCE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCT UOUS. 29. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 30. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, THE CO. OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED WHEREAS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCT UOUS. COMING TO THE IT(SS)A NO. 21/RJT/2018 BY REVENUE AN D CO NO. 13/RJT/2018 BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASE OF SMT. DHARA H ARSADRAI PANDAYA/DHARABEN MAHIJITBHAI BHATT FOR A.Y. 2014-15 31. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE GROUNDS IN THE CROS S OBJECTION AS DETAILED UNDER: 1.0 THE GROUNDS OF CROSS-OBJECTIONS MENTIONED HER EUNDER ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER. 2.0 THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-11, AHMEDABAD [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE 'CIT(A)'] ERRED ON FACTS AS ALSO IN LAW IN DISMISSING THE GROUND OF APPEAL RELATED TO THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2.1 THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153C OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THEREFORE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 32. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND/OR ON FACTS IN DELETING THE AD DITION OF RS.5,50,22,256/- BEING ON-MONEY PAID ON THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. IT(SS)A NO. 15/RJT/18 A/W CO NO. 10/RJT/18 & ORS. [LATE SHRI PRAVINSINH N ZALA & ORS.] - 17 - 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND/OR ON FACTS IN DELETING THE AD DITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE OF RS.9,65,298/-. 3. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW IN GIV ING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY IGNORING THE CONTENTS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT AND TH E ORIGINAL STATEMENTS GIVEN BY THE 4 SELLERS, AND IN RELYING ON AFFIDAVITS OF T HE SELLERS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT A MUCH LATER DATE. 4. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW BY GIV ING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IGNORING THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE STATEMENTS OF THE FARMERS POINTED OUT BY THE AO REGARDING THE INCONSISTENCY IN THE STATEMENTS. 33. AT THE OUTSET IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IN I DENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE CASE OF LATE SHRI PARVIN SINH NANUBHAI ZALA IN CO NO. 10/RJT/2018, WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT INITIATION O F THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, ARE NOT VALID VIDE PARAGRA PH NUMBER 8 OF THIS ORDER. FOR THE DETAILED DISCUSSION PLEASE REFER THE RELEVA NT PARAGRAPH. THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME AND IN ORDER TO MAI NTAIN PARITY WITH FINDING WE HOLD THAT THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 1 53C OF THE ACT ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE. HENCE, THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS ALLOWED. 34. ONCE, THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 1 53C HAVE BEEN HELD AS INVALID, THERE IS NO REASON TO DECIDE THE ISSUE RAI SED BY THE REVENUE ON MERIT. HENCE, WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE ON MERIT AS INFRUCTUOUS AS THESE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDIC ATED SEPARATELY. HENCE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCT UOUS. 35. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 36. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, THE CO. OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED WHEREAS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCT UOUS. COMING TO THE IT(SS)A NO. 22/RJT/2018 BY REVENUE AN D CO NO. 25/RJT/2018 BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASE OF SHRI DHARMEN DRA SINGH B CHUDASMA FOR A.Y 2014-15 IT(SS)A NO. 15/RJT/18 A/W CO NO. 10/RJT/18 & ORS. [LATE SHRI PRAVINSINH N ZALA & ORS.] - 18 - 37. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE GROUNDS IN THE CROS S OBJECTION AS DETAILED UNDER: 1.0 THE GROUNDS OF CROSS-OBJECTIONS MENTIONED HER EUNDER ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER. 2.0 THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-11, AHMEDABAD [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE 'CIT(A)'] ERRED ON FACTS AS ALSO IN LAW IN DISMISSING THE GROUND OF APPEAL RELATED TO THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2.1 THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153C OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THEREFORE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 38. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND/OR ON FACTS IN DELETING THE AD DITION OF RS.1,81,37,650/- BEING ON-MONEY PAID ON THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND/OR ON FACTS IN DELETING THE AD DITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE OF RS.2,97,847/-. 3. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS IN OBSERVING THAT NAME OF THE VILLAGE IS NOT MATCHED BY FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT LAGDANA AND K ESHARDI ARE ADJACENT VILLAGES AND THE FACT THAT THE SURVEY NUMBER MATCHE S EXACTLY. 4. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW IN GIV ING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY IGNORING THE CONTENTS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT AND TH E ORIGINAL STATEMENTS GIVEN BY THE 4 SELLERS, AND IN RELYING ON AFFIDAVITS OF T HE SELLERS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT A MUCH LATER DATE. 5. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW BY GIV ING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IGNORING THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE STATEMENTS OF THE FARMERS POINTED OUT BY THE AO REGARDING THE INCONSISTENCY IN THE STATEMENTS. 39. AT THE OUTSET IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IN I DENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE CASE OF LATE SHRI PARVIN SINH NANUBHAI ZALA IN CO NO. 10/RJT/2018, WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT INITIATION O F THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, ARE NOT VALID VIDE PARAGRA PH NUMBER 8 OF THIS ORDER. FOR THE DETAILED DISCUSSION PLEASE REFER THE RELEVA NT PARAGRAPH. THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME AND IN ORDER TO MAI NTAIN PARITY WITH FINDING WE HOLD THAT THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 1 53C OF THE ACT ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE. HENCE, THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS ALLOWED. IT(SS)A NO. 15/RJT/18 A/W CO NO. 10/RJT/18 & ORS. [LATE SHRI PRAVINSINH N ZALA & ORS.] - 19 - 40. ONCE, THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 1 53C HAVE BEEN HELD AS INVALID, THERE IS NO REASON TO DECIDE THE ISSUE RAI SED BY THE REVENUE ON MERIT. HENCE, WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE ON MERIT AS INFRUCTUOUS AS THESE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDIC ATED SEPARATELY. HENCE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCT UOUS. 41. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 42. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, THE CO. OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED WHEREAS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCT UOUS. COMING TO THE ITA NO. 22/RJT/2018, AN APPEAL BY REV ENUE IN CASE OF SMT. DHARA HARSADRAI PANDAYA/DHARABEN MAHIJITBHAI B HATT PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2015-16 43. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND/OR ON FACTS IN DELETING THE AD DITION OF RS.4,87,24,277/- BEING ON-MONEY PAID ON THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. 2. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW IN GIV ING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY IGNORING THE CONTENTS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT AND TH E ORIGINAL STATEMENTS GIVEN BY THE 4 SELLERS, AND IN RELYING ON AFFIDAVITS OF T HE SELLERS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT A MUCH LATER DATE. 3. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW BY GIV ING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IGNORING THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE STATEMENTS OF THE FARMERS POINTED OUT BY THE AO REGARDING THE INCONSISTENCY IN THE STATEMENTS. 44. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,87,24,2 77/- ON ACCOUNT ON-MONEY PAID AGAINST PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. 45. THE FACTS IN BRIEF AS CULLED OUT FROM THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVI DUAL AND ENGAGED IN THE TRADING BUSINESS OF DRESS MATERIALS RUNNING IN HER PROPRIETARY CONCERN UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE M/S DHARA FASHIONS. THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER IT(SS)A NO. 15/RJT/18 A/W CO NO. 10/RJT/18 & ORS. [LATE SHRI PRAVINSINH N ZALA & ORS.] - 20 - CONSIDERATION FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECT ION 139 OF THE ACT DATED 23 RD MARCH 2016 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 7,81,470/- ONLY. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR HAS PURCHASED 2 PIECE OF PLOTS BEARING SUR VEY NO. 1223 AND 1242 AT RS. 27,75,000/- AND RS. 58,40,000/- RESPECTIVELY. T HE ASSESSEE PURCHASED BOTH THE PLOTS DATED 21 ST FEBRUARY 2015. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE AREA OF THE PLOTS BEARING NO. 1223 AND 1242 CONSISTS OF THE ARE A 8.21 AND 17.31 BIGHA RESPECTIVELY. HOWEVER, THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS F OUND THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION CARRIED OUT AT THE PRE MISES OF ADPL DATED 16 OCTOBER 2014. AS A RESULT OF SEARCH VARIOUS DOCUMEN TS INCRIMINATING IN NATURE WERE FOUND INCLUDING TWO EXCEL SHEETS BEARING BOOK1 (1) AND BOOK1(2) WHICH WERE EXTRACTED FROM THE HARD DISK DRIVE OF THE COMP UTER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. THESE DOCUMENTS WERE EXCEL SHEETS CONTAININ G VARIOUS DETAILS SUCH AS SURVEY NUMBERS, SIZE (VIGHA), AMOUNT PAID AND LEGAL STATUS ETC. ON THE TOP OF EXCEL SHEET, THE DATE WAS MENTIONED I.E. 14 APRIL 2 014. OUT OF VARIOUS SURVEY NUMBERS MENTIONED IN THE EXCEL SHEET, ONE SURVEY BE ARING NO. 1223 WAS REPRESENTING THE LAND PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO ON VERIFICATION OF THE SALE DEEDS OF THE IMP UGNED SURVEY NOS. FOUND THAT THE AMOUNT MENTIONED THEREIN VIZ A VIZ THE AMO UNT MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT DOES NOT MATCH. AS SUCH THE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WAS GREATER THAN THE AMOUNT MENTION IN TH E REGISTERED DOCUMENTS. ACCORDINGLY HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S MADE INVESTMENT IN THE IMPUGNED LANDS WITHOUT RECORDING THE SAME IN THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO PROPOSED TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS BY ISSUING A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 10 TH DECEMBER 2016: 6. FURTHER AS PER YOUR SUBMISSION FOR AY 2015-16 YOU HAVE ALSO PURCHASED SURVEY NUMBER 1223 AND 1242 AT VILLAGE GANGAD DURING THE Y EAR. AS PER THE SEIZED DATA THE AVERAGE ON-MONEY FIGURE PER 'BIGAH' IS ARRIVED AT R S 12,58,700/-. THEREFORE THE AVERAGE ON-MONEY PAID ON THE PURCHASE FOR THESE SUR VEY NUMBERS IS CALCULATED AS TABULATED BELOW: IT(SS)A NO. 15/RJT/18 A/W CO NO. 10/RJT/18 & ORS. [LATE SHRI PRAVINSINH N ZALA & ORS.] - 21 - SURVEY NUMBER AS PER SEIZED DOCUMENT AMOUNT AS PER REGISTERED AGREEMENT REG NUMBER DATE AVERAGE ON-MONEY PAID 1223 RS 27,75,000/- 481 21/2/2015 12.45*1258700 = 1,56,70,815/- 1242 RS 58,40,000/- 482 21/2/2015 26.26*1258700 = 3,30,53,462/- 7. THE ABOVE FACTS WERE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE SHOW CAUSE DATED 10.12.2016. THE ASSESSEE WAS FURTHER ASKED TO SUBMI T WHY THE ADDITION OF RS 4,87,24,277/- BEING ON MONEY PAYMENT SHOULD NOT BE MADE IN HER HANDS FOR AY 2015-16. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO SUCH SHOW CAUSE NOTICE VIDE LETTER DATED 24 DECEMBER 2016 SUBMITTED AS UNDER: I. THE EXCEL SHEETS WERE FOUND FROM THE HDD OF THE COM PANY NAMELY ADPL IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT. THERE WAS NO DIRECT OR INDIRECT RELATIO NSHIP BETWEEN HER AND THE SEARCHED PERSON AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. THE RE WAS NO NAME, SIGNATURE, BANKING DETAILS, PAN OF THE ASSESS EE EXCEPT THE SURVEY NUMBER REGISTERED IN HER NAME. THERE WAS NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE AUTHOR OF SUCH SEIZED MATERIALS. SIMILARL Y THE PURPOSE OF SUCH NOTING IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL WAS ALSO NOT ASC ERTAINABLE. THE SEARCH PARTY HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECOR D SUCH AS THE PURPOSE AND THE AUTHOR OF SUCH NOTING. THE SEIZED D OCUMENT WAS NEITHER WRITTEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEING THE PURCHASER NOR BY THE SELLER OF THE IMPUGNED SURVEY NUMBER. THE DATE MENT ION ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENT WAS 14 TH APRIL 2014 WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL LANDS AT DIFFERENT DATES WHI CH VARY MUCH BEFORE AND MUCH LATER FROM THE DATE MENTIONED IN TH E SEIZED DOCUMENT. II. THERE WAS NO OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS-EXAMINATION PROVI DED TO THE ASSESSEE OF THE SELLER ( MOHD. KHAN GULAB KHAN PATH AN) OF THE LAND BEARING SURVEY NO. 1223 WHEREIN IT WAS ACCEPTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID ON MONEY. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILE D THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE SELLER DENYING THE FACT TO HAVE RECEIVED ANY ON MONEY . IT(SS)A NO. 15/RJT/18 A/W CO NO. 10/RJT/18 & ORS. [LATE SHRI PRAVINSINH N ZALA & ORS.] - 22 - III. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD SUGGESTIN G THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID ANY ON MONEY ON THE PURCHASE OF S UCH PIECES OF LANDS. IV. THERE WAS NO REFERENCE ABOUT THE LAND BEARING SURVE Y NO. 1242 IN THE EXCEL SHEET FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH A S DISCUSSED ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF MAKING ANY ADD ITION ON ACCOUNT OF ON MONEY IN THE PURCHASE OF SUCH PIECES OF LAND. HOWEVER, THE AO DISREGARDED THE CONTENTION OF THE A SSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 9. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE IS PERSUED AND THE SAME IS NOT FOUND CONVINCING. THE POINT WISE REBUTTAL TO THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSION IS GIVEN IN THE ENSUING PARAGRAPHS. 9.1. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT HE WAS NOT ALL OWED THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS- EXAMINE. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT MAY BE STATED THAT REQUEST FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION WAS MADE AT THE FAG END OF LIMITATION PERIOD AND THE DE PONENTS HAVE IN THEIR STATEMENTS SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT ASSERTIONS MADE IN THE STA TEMENTS ARE TRUE AND CORRECT WITHOUT ANY THREAT OR COERCION. THEREFORE, THE STATEMENTS R ECORDED IN POST-SEARCH ENQUIRIES CARRY HIGH EVIDENTIARY VALUE, WHICH CANNOT BE BRUSH ED ASIDE SIMPLY BECAUSE OF AN OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS-EXAMINATION WAS NOT AVAILED. 9.2. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THE AFFIDAVITS OF THE SELLER PARTIES DENYING THE RECEIPT OF ON-MONEY. THESE AFFIDAVITS ARE VERIFIED, BUT IT IS OBSERVED THAT AVERMENTS MADE IN THE AFFIDAVITS ARE CONTRARY TO THE FACTS, S TATEMENTS RECORDED OF SOME SELLERS IN POST-SEARCH ENQUIRIES AND EXCEL SHEET SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH AND THEREFORE, SUCH AFFIDAVITS ARE NOTHING BUT AFTERTHOUGHT STORY. THER EFORE, THIS STAND OF THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SURVIVE. 9.3. SECONDLY, THE ASSESSEE RAISED DOUBT ABOUT THE AUTHENTICITY OF EXCEL SHEET SEIZED FROM THE COMPUTER HARD DISK OF M/S. AMIDHARA DEVELO PERS PVT. LTD. ('ADPL') AND IT IS ALSO STATED THAT NAME AND SIGNATURE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ABSENT IN THE SEIZED SHEET, THEREFORE, SUCH SHEET IS NOTHING BUT A DUMB DOCUMEN T. SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THOROUGHLY CONSIDERED BUT NOT FOUND CONVINCING IN V IEW OF THE FOLLOWING UNDISPUTED FACTS: I. THE DIRECTOR OF THE ADPL ACCEPTED THE FACT REGAR DING THE EXCEL SHEET RECOVERED FROM THE COMPUTER HARD-DISK LYING AT THEIR BUSINESS PREMISES. II. NAME OF THE VILLAGE 'GANGAD' AND SURVEY NUMB ERS OF THE LAND IN THE EXCEL SHEET MATCHES WITH THE LAND PURCHASED BY THE ASSESS EE. III. PAYMENT MADE AS PER THE EXCEL SHEET FOR P URCHASE OF LAND VARIES WITH THE REGISTERED SALE DEED. IV. IN THE POST-SEARCH ENQUIRIES, SOME OF THE SE LLERS OF LAND HAVE ACCEPTED RECEIPT OF HIGHER AMOUNT THEN RECORDED IN THE REGIS TERED SALE DEED. NOT IT(SS)A NO. 15/RJT/18 A/W CO NO. 10/RJT/18 & ORS. [LATE SHRI PRAVINSINH N ZALA & ORS.] - 23 - ONLY THAT, THEY HAVE ALSO EXPLAINED THE APPLICATION OF SUCH HIGHER AMOUNT RECEIVED. V. UNDER THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS HARD T O BELIEVE THAT NO ON-MONEY COMPONENT IS INVOLVED IN THE LAND DEALS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, PARTICULARLY WHEN THERE IS REFERENCE OF EXCESS AMOU NT PAID ON PURCHASE OF LAND IN THE EXCEL SHEET. 9.4. THIRDLY, THE ASSESSEE STATED THEY HAVE NO CONN ECTION WITH THE SEARCHED PARTY, I.E., ADPL, IN WHOSE POSSESSION AN EXCEL SHEET WAS FOUND. HOWEVER, THIS ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT SOME OF THE ASSESSEE'S FAMILY MEMBERS HAVE PURCHASED FLAT, WHICH WAS CONSTRUCTED BY ADPL. THEREFORE, IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN BUSINESS RELAT IONSHIP WITH ADPL AND ITS DIRECTORS / OWNERS. THUS, THIS ITSELF PROVES THAT AN EXCEL SHEE T FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF ADPL IS IMPORTANT PIECE OF PAPER, WHICH CARRIES HIGH EVIDEN TIARY VALUE. 9.5. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT THERE IS D IFFERENCE IN ON-MONEY PAYMENT AS STATED IN EXCEL SHEET AND AS PER THE STATEMENT OF S ELLERS OF LAND AND THEREFORE, THE DATA CONTAINED IN EXCEL SHEET HAS NO RELATION WITH THE A CTUAL DEAL AND NO CONCLUSION CAN BE DRAWN ON THE BASIS OF SOME CASUAL NOTING. THE CONTE NTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CORRECT AND MISLEADING, BECAUSE, ACCEPTANCE BY THE SELLERS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OF HIGHER CONSIDERATION IN CASH ITSELF SUGGEST THE INVOLVEMEN T OF ON-MONEY. FURTHER, EXCEL SHEET RECOVERED DURING THE SEARCH CARRIES HIGH EVIDENTIAR Y VALUE AND THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENT HAS NO OPTION EXCEPT TO TAKE THE BASE OF SEIZED EXCEL SHEET TO DETERMINE CORRECT QUANTUM OF ON-MONEY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AN D THEREFORE, DATA CONTAINED IN EXCEL SHEET IS CONSIDERED THE ACTUAL VALUE OF THE L AND PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE. 9.6. IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE AT SURVEY NO. 1223, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ON-MONEY PAYMENT WORKED OUT IS ON THE BASIS OF HYPOTHETICAL FIGURE OF AVERAGE ON-MONEY PER BIGHA A ND THEREFORE, ADDITION PROPOSED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS ON ARBITRARY MANNER, IN TH IS REGARD, IT CAN BE STATED THAT THE EXCEL SHEET SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF ADPL REFLEC TS 'TOKEN MONEY' PAID BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS. 4,50,000/- IN RESPECT OF LAND AT SU RVEY NO. 1223. THIS INFERS THAT AT THE TIME OF PREPARATION OF EXCEL SHEET, FULL MONEY WAS NOT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE SELLER. FURTHER, ON VERIFICATION OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED, IT OBSERVED THAT THE LAND AT SURVEY NO. 1223 WAS PURCHASED VIDE SALE DEED REGIST ERED ON 21.02.2015, I.E., AFTER THE SEARCH IN THE CASE OF ADPL AND THERE IS NO REFERENC E OF THE AMOUNT PAID OF RS.4,50,000/- IN THE SAID SALE DEED. THIS FACT PROV ES THAT BALANCE CONSIDERATION TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF LAND IS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE SEARCH AND THEREFORE, THERE IS NO REFERENCE OF ANY ON-MONEY PAYMENT IN THE SEIZED EXC EL SHEET. HOWEVER, LOOKING TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID ON-MONEY IN THE OTH ER LANDS PURCHASED IN THE SAME VICINITY AND SELLERS OF SUCH OTHER LANDS HAVE ACCEP TED THE RECEIPT OF ON-MONEY, IT IS ILLOGICAL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID ANY ON-MON EY IN THE LAND PURCHASED AT SURVEY NO. 1223. THEREFORE, THE ON-MONEY PAYMENT IN THE IM PUGNED LAND IS WORKED OUT ON SCIENTIFIC BASIS BY APPLYING THE ON-MONEY RATE PER BIGHA IN THE OTHER LANDS PURCHASED BY THE APPLICANT, REFERENCE OF WHICH IS FOUND IN TH E SEIZED EXCEL SHEET. HENCE, THE ON- MONEY PAYMENT DETERMINED IS ON SCIENTIFIC BASIS AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF HYPOTHETICAL FIGURES. 9.7. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THERE IS N O REFERENCE OF LAND PURCHASED BY HER IN SURVEY NO. 1242 IN THE SEIZED EXCEL SHEET AN D THEREFORE, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE OF ON-MONEY PAID FOR SUCH LAND. IN THIS CONNEC TION, AS STATED SUPRA, IT IS AN ESTABLISHED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID ON-MONE Y IN THE OTHER LANDS SITUATED AT NEARBY SURVEY NUMBERS IN THE SAME LOCALITY. FURTHER , IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE LAND AT SURVEY NO, 1242 IS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE BY SAL E DEED REGISTERED ON 21.02.2015, I.E., AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH IN THE CASE OF ADPL. THEREFORE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE REFERENCE OF SAID LAND DEAL IS NOT FOUND IN THE EXC EL SHEET SEIZED. HOWEVER, LOOKING TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID ON-MONEY IN THE OTHER LANDS PURCHASED IN THE SAME IT(SS)A NO. 15/RJT/18 A/W CO NO. 10/RJT/18 & ORS. [LATE SHRI PRAVINSINH N ZALA & ORS.] - 24 - VICINITY AND SELLERS OF SUCH OTHER LANDS HAVE ACCEP TED THE RECEIPT OF ON-MONEY, IT IS ILLOGICAL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID ANY ON-MON EY IN THE LAND PURCHASED AT SURVEY NO. 1242. THEREFORE, THE ON-MONEY PAYMENT IN THE IM PUGNED LAND IS WORKED OUT ON SCIENTIFIC BASIS BY APPLYING THE ON-MONEY RATE PER BIGHA IN THE OTHER LANDS PURCHASED BY THE APPLICANT, REFERENCE OF WHICH IS FOUND IN TH E SEIZED EXCEL SHEET. HENCE, THE ON- MONEY PAYMENT DETERMINED IS ON SCIENTIFIC BASIS AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF HYPOTHETICAL FIGURES. 9.8. THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON VARIOUS DECI SION OF THE ITAT, HIGH COURTS AND SUPREME COURTS. ALL SUCH CASES ARE GIVEN DUE CONSID ERATION, BUT THE FACTS OF THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT F ROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON HAND AND ARE DISTINGUISHABLE. THEREFORE, SUCH DECISIONS COUL D NOT COME TO THE HELP OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE RECENT DECIS ION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF PIL FILED BY THE LAWYER PRASHA NT BHUSHAN, WHEREIN, HON'BLE COURT REFUSED TO ORDER ANY INQUIRY AGAINST THE POLITICIAN S ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS RECOVERED BY DEPARTMENT DURING SEARCHES CONDUCTED AT BIRLA & SAHARA OFFICES. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS SEEN THAT HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS DIRECTED THE PETITIONER AND THE DEPARTMENT TO COME WITH 'BETTER MATERIAL' TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGATI ONS, IN THIS CONTEXT, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE DEPARTMENT IS HAVING SOUND PROOF IN THE F ORM OF EXCEL SHEET HAVING REFERENCE OF NAME OF VILLAGE, SURVEY NUMBER, AMOUNT PAID ETC. , WHICH IS THE IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, CORROBORATI VE EVIDENCES IN FORM OF STATEMENTS RECORDED OF SELLERS OF LAND IN POST-SEARCH ENQUIRIE S STRENGTHENS THE STAND OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE, INDEED HAS PAID ON-MO NEY FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS. 9.9. NOW, MOVING TOWARDS THE QUANTUM OF SUCH ON-MON EY PAYMENT, I BELIEVE THAT NOTHING SHALL BE BETTER THAN THE EXCEL SHEET SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF ADPL. THE CONTENT IN THE EXCEL SHEET IS SELF-SPEAKING THE FAC TS AND SHOWS ACTUAL PURCHASE VALUE OF THE LAND AND PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 10. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE INCOME BY NOT OFFERING THE SAME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S 139, PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S 271(L)(C) IS BEING INITIATED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME ON RS 5,50,22,256/-, BEING ON -MONEY PAID ON THE PURCHASE OF LAND IN AY 2015-16. 11. WITH ABOVE REMARKS, THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE IS COMPUTED AS UNDER:- RETURNED INCOME RS.7,81,470/- + ADDITION BEING ON-MONEY PAID ON THE PURCHASE RS. 4,87,24,277/- ASSESSED INCOME RS.4,95,05,747/- 46. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO THE L EARNED CIT (A). 47. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A) BESIDES REITERATING THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BEFORE THE AO FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE AO HAS WORKED OUT THE RATE OF ON MONEY AT RS. 12,58,700 PER BIGHA AT HIS OWN SURMISE AND CONJECTURE WITHOUT BRINGING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS SUCH THERE WAS NO BASIS ADOPTED BY THE AO FOR WORKING OUT THE AMOUNT OF ON MONEY. THE AO IN HIS LETTER DATED 12 DECEMBER 2016 HAS STATED THAT THIS IMPLIES THAT THE BALANCE AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID AS ON MONEY IT(SS)A NO. 15/RJT/18 A/W CO NO. 10/RJT/18 & ORS. [LATE SHRI PRAVINSINH N ZALA & ORS.] - 25 - THE AO HAS TAKEN THE AREA OF LAND PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE BEARING NO. 1223 AND 1242 AT 12.45 AND 26.26 BIGHAS WHEREAS THE ACTU AL AREA OF THE LAND IS AT 8.21 AND 17.31 BIGHAS . THE LEARNED CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIO N OF THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED THE AO TO PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR CROSS-EXAMINA TION TO THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT. THE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT HAS SUBMITTED THAT MOHD. KHAN GULAB KHAN PATHAN, THE SE LLER OF THE LAND BEARING NO. 1223 HAS RETRACTED FROM HIS EARLIER STATEMENT F URNISHED ON 7 NOVEMBER 2014 DURING THE CROSS-EXAMINATION FOR HAVING RECEIV ED ANY ON MONEY FROM THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER THE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT HAS C OMMENTED THAT THE RETRACTION STATEMENT OF THE PARTY SHOULD NOT BE ACC EPTED WHICH WAS GIVEN AFTER THE GAP OF 2 YEARS AND 8 MONTHS. THE LEARNED CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIO N OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REMAND REPORT ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD SUGGESTING THAT THERE WAS ANY ON MONEY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE SELLER OF THE LAND. SIMILARLY THERE WAS NO MENTION ABOUT THE SURVEY NUM BER BEARING 1242 IN THE EXCEL SHEET FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THER EFORE THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION WITH RESPECT TO SUCH SURVEY NUMBER ON ACCO UNT ON MONEY AS ALLEGED BY THE AO. ACCORDINGLY THE LEARNED CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 48. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 49. BOTH THE LEARNED DR AND THE AR BEFORE US RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS FAVORABLE TO THEM. IT(SS)A NO. 15/RJT/18 A/W CO NO. 10/RJT/18 & ORS. [LATE SHRI PRAVINSINH N ZALA & ORS.] - 26 - 50. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE PRECEDING D ISCUSSION WE NOTE THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF TH E EXCEL SHEET FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE CASE OF ADPL WHICH IS 3 RD PARTY AND HAS NO CONNECTION EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY WITH THE A SSESSEE. FURTHERMORE, THERE WAS ENQUIRY CONDUCTED WITH THE SELLER OF THE LAND W HO ACCEPTED TO HAVE RECEIVED ON MONEY FROM THE ASSESSEE. FIRST OF ALL, WE FIND THAT THERE WAS NO MENTION/REF ERENCE OF SURVEY NO. 1242 IN THE EXCEL SHEET FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ON MONEY. IT IS BECAUSE THERE WAS NO IOTA OF EVIDENCE AVAILABLE WITH THE AO SUGGE STING THAT THERE WAS ANY ON MONEY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. REGARDING THE LAND BEARING SURVEY NO. 1223, WE NOTE THAT THIS IMPUGNED SURVEY NUMBER WAS VERY MUCH MENTIONED IN THE EXCEL SHEET FOUND FROM THE 3 RD PARTY AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. HOWEVER THAT INFORMATION CANNOT BE THE BASIS OF MAKING ANY ADDITION TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE. IT IS BECAUSE IT DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT ANY ON MONEY HAS BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHERMORE IT IS A PIECE OF INFORMATION FOUND FROM THE 3 RD PARTY WHICH HAS NO DEALING OF WHATSOEVER WITH THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, NO FACT HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO EXCEPT THAT THE RELATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED SOME FLATS PROPERTY CONSTRUCTED BY ADPL WHICH IS NOT SUFFICIEN T ENOUGH TO DRAW ANY INFERENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BASED ON SUCH EXCEL SHEET. THUS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ABOUT THE PAYMENT OF ON MONEY, WE HOLD THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN HOLDING SO WE DRAW SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE FROM THE ORDER THIS TR IBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JAWAHARBHAI ATMARAM HATHIWALA V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER REPORTED IN 128 TTJ 36 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: HELD THAT NO EVIDENCE COULD BE BROUGHT ON RECORD B Y THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT IN FACT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID 'ON MONEY' TO THE DEV ELOPERS. NO DOCUMENT CONTAINING SIGNATURE OF THE ASSESSEE OR HANDWRITING OF THE ASSESSEE TO CORROBORATE THE ABOVE MAKING OF PAYMENT BY THE ASSE SSEE WAS FOUND DURING THE IT(SS)A NO. 15/RJT/18 A/W CO NO. 10/RJT/18 & ORS. [LATE SHRI PRAVINSINH N ZALA & ORS.] - 27 - COURSE OF THE SEARCH. MERELY RECORDING MADE BY A TH IRD PARTY OR STATEMENT OF A THIRD PARTY COULD NOT BE TREATED AS SO SACROSANCT S O AS TO READ AS A POSITIVE MATERIAL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF 'ON-MONEY' WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE OR DER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A). ACCORDINGLY WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE. HENCE THE GROU ND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. COMING TO THE IT(SS)A NO. 23/RJT/2018 BY REVENUE AN D CO NO. 11/RJT/2018 BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF SMT. SEE MABEN ASHOKBHAI SATIKUNVER FOR A.Y. 2014-15 51. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE GROUNDS IN THE CROS S OBJECTION AS DETAILED UNDER: 1.0 THE GROUNDS OF CROSS-OBJECTIONS MENTIONED HER EUNDER ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER. 2.0 THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-11, AHMEDABAD [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE 'CIT(A)'] ERRED ON FACTS AS ALSO IN LAW IN DISMISSING THE GROUND OF APPEAL RELATED TO THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2.1 THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153C OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THEREFORE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 52. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND/OR ON FACTS IN DELETING THE AD DITION OF RS. 5,35,51,897/- BEING ON-MONEY PAID ON THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND/OR ON FACTS IN DELETING THE AD DITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 6,02,218/- AND RS. 2 ,00,000/-. 3. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW IN GIV ING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY IGNORING THE CONTENTS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT AND TH E ORIGINAL STATEMENTS GIVEN BY THE 4 SELLERS, AND IN RELYING ON AFFIDAVITS OF T HE SELLERS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT A MUCH LATER DATE. 4. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW BY GIV ING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IGNORING THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE STATEMENTS OF THE FARMERS POINTED OUT BY THE AO REGARDING THE INCONSISTENCY IN THE STATEMENTS. IT(SS)A NO. 15/RJT/18 A/W CO NO. 10/RJT/18 & ORS. [LATE SHRI PRAVINSINH N ZALA & ORS.] - 28 - 53. AT THE OUTSET IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IN T HE IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE CASE OF LATE SHRI PARVINSINH N ANUBHAI ZALA IN CO NO. 10/RJT/2018, WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT INITIATION O F THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, ARE NOT VALID VIDE PARAGRA PH NUMBER 8 OF THIS ORDER. FOR THE DETAILED DISCUSSION PLEASE REFER THE RELEVA NT PARAGRAPH. THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME AND IN ORDER TO MAI NTAIN PARITY WITH FINDING WE HOLD THAT THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 1 53C OF THE ACT ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE. HENCE, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 54. ONCE, THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 1 53C HAVE BEEN HELD AS INVALID, THERE IS NO REASON TO DECIDE THE ISSUE RAI SED BY THE REVENUE ON MERIT. HENCE, WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE ON MERIT AS INFRUCTUOUS AS THESE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDIC ATED SEPARATELY. HENCE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCT UOUS. 55. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 56. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, THE CO. OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED WHEREAS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSE D AS INFRUCTUOUS. 57. BEFORE WE PART WITH THE ISSUE/APPEAL AS DISCUSS ED ABOVE, IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE CLAUSE OF RULE 34 OF THE APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL RULES 1963 REQUIRES THE BENCH TO MAKE ENDEAVOUR TO PRONOUNCE T HE ORDER WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. HOWEVER THE PER IOD OF 60 DAYS CAN BE EXTENDED UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES BUT THE SA ME SHOULD NOT ORDINARILY BE FURTHER EXTENDED BEYOND ANOTHER 30 DAYS. IN SIMP LE WORDS THE TOTAL TIME AVAILABLE TO THE BENCH IS OF 90 DAYS UPON THE CONCL USION OF THE HEARING. HOWEVER, DURING THE PREVAILING CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE ENTIRE WORLD IS FACING THE UNPRECEDENTED CHALLENGE OF COVID 2019 OUTBREAK, RESULTING THE LOCKDOWN IN THE COUNTRY, THE ORDERS THOUGH SUBSTANTIALLY PREPAR ED BUT COULD NOT BE PRONOUNCED FOR THE UNAVOIDABLE REASONS WITHIN THE M AXIMUM PERIOD OF 90 DAYS. IT(SS)A NO. 15/RJT/18 A/W CO NO. 10/RJT/18 & ORS. [LATE SHRI PRAVINSINH N ZALA & ORS.] - 29 - IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE MUMB AI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JSW LIMITED VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN ITA NO. 6103/MUM/2018 VIDE ORDER DATED 14-5-2020 EXTENDED THE TIME FOR PRONOUNCING THE ORDER WITHIN 90 DAYS OF TIME BY OBS ERVING AS UNDER: 9. LET US IN THIS LIGHT REVERT TO THE PREVAILING SI TUATION IN THE COUNTRY. ON 24TH MARCH, 2020, HONBLE PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA TOOK T HE BOLD STEP OF IMPOSING A NATIONWIDE LOCKDOWN, FOR 21 DAYS, TO PREVENT THE SP READ OF COVID 19 EPIDEMIC, AND THIS LOCKDOWN WAS EXTENDED FROM TIME TO TIME. AS A MATTER OF FACT, EVEN BEFORE THIS FORMAL NATIONWIDE LOCKDOWN, THE FUNCTIONING OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT MUMBAI WAS SEVERELY RESTRICTED ON ACCOUNT OF LOC KDOWN BY THE MAHARASHTRA GOVERNMENT, AND ON ACCOUNT OF STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF HEALTH ADVISORIES WITH A VIEW OF CHECKING SPREAD OF COVID 19. THE EPIDEMIC SITUAT ION IN MUMBAI BEING GRAVE, THERE WAS NOT MUCH OF A RELAXATION IN SUBSEQUENT LO CKDOWNS ALSO. IN ANY CASE, THERE WAS UNPRECEDENTED DISRUPTION OF JUDICIAL WOK ALL OV ER THE COUNTRY. AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT HAS BEEN SUCH AN UNPRECEDENTED SITUATION, CAUSING DISRUPTION IN THE FUNCTIONING OF JUDICIAL MACHINERY, THAT HONBLE SUP REME COURT OF INDIA, IN AN UNPRECEDENTED ORDER IN THE HISTORY OF INDIA AND VID E ORDER DATED 6.5.2020 READ WITH ORDER DATED 23.3.2020, EXTENDED THE LIMITATION TO E XCLUDE NOT ONLY THIS LOCKDOWN PERIOD BUT ALSO A FEW MORE DAYS PRIOR TO, AND AFTER , THE LOCKDOWN BY OBSERVING THAT IN CASE THE LIMITATION HAS EXPIRED AFTER 15.03.2020 THEN THE PERIOD FROM 15.03.2020 TILL THE DATE ON WHICH THE LOCKDOWN IS L IFTED IN THE JURISDICTIONAL AREA WHERE THE DISPUTE LIES OR WHERE THE CAUSE OF ACTION ARISES SHALL BE EXTENDED FOR A PERIOD OF 15 DAYS AFTER THE LIFTING OF LOCKDOWN . HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, IN AN ORDER DATED 15TH APRIL 2020, HAS, BESIDES EXTEND ING THE VALIDITY OF ALL INTERIM ORDERS, HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT, IT IS ALSO CLARIFIED THAT WHILE CALCULATING TIME FO R DISPOSAL OF MATTERS MADE TIME-BOUND BY THIS COURT, THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ORDER DATED 26TH MARCH 2020 CONTINUES TO OPERATE SHALL BE ADDED AND TIME SHALL STAND EXTENDED ACCORDINGLY , AND ALSO OBSERVED THAT ARRANGEMENT CONTINUED BY AN ORDER DATED 26TH MARCH 2020 TILL 30TH APRIL 2020 SH ALL CONTINUE FURTHER TILL 15TH JUNE 2020 . IT HAS BEEN AN UNPRECEDENTED SITUATION NOT ONLY IN INDIA BUT ALL OVER THE WORLD. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA HAS, VIDE NOTIFICATI ON DATED 19 TH FEBRUARY 2020, TAKEN THE STAND THAT, THE CORONAVIRUS SHOULD BE CO NSIDERED A CASE OF NATURAL CALAMITY AND FMC (I.E. FORCE MAJEURE CLAUSE) MAYBE INVOKED, WHEREVER CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE, FOLLOWING THE DUE PROCEDURE. THE TER M FORCE MAJEURE HAS BEEN DEFINED IN BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY, AS AN EVENT OR EFFECT THAT CAN BE NEITHER ANTICIPATED NOR CONTROLLED WHEN SUCH IS THE POSITION, AND IT IS OFFICIALLY S O NOTIFIED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND THE COVID-19 EPIDEMI C HAS BEEN NOTIFIED AS A DISASTER UNDER THE NATIONAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT ACT , 2005, AND ALSO IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSIONS ABOVE, THE PERIOD DURING WHICH LOCK DOWN WAS IN FORCE CAN BE ANYTHING BUT AN ORDINARY PERIOD. 10. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE ARE O F THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT RATHER THAN TAKING A PEDANTIC VIEW OF THE RULE REQUIRING P RONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS WITHIN 90 DAYS, DISREGARDING THE IMPORTANT FACT THAT THE ENTI RE COUNTRY WAS IN LOCKDOWN, WE SHOULD COMPUTE THE PERIOD OF 90 DAYS BY EXCLUDING A T LEAST THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THE LOCKDOWN WAS IN FORCE. WE MUST FACTOR GROUND RE ALITIES IN MIND WHILE INTERPRETING THE TIME LIMIT FOR THE PRONOUNCEMENT O F THE ORDER. LAW IS NOT BROODING OMNIPOTENCE IN THE SKY. IT IS A PRAGMATIC TOOL OF T HE SOCIAL ORDER. THE TENETS OF LAW BEING ENACTED ON THE BASIS OF PRAGMATISM, AND THAT IS HOW THE LAW IS REQUIRED TO INTERPRETED. THE INTERPRETATION SO ASSIGNED BY US I S NOT ONLY IN CONSONANCE WITH THE IT(SS)A NO. 15/RJT/18 A/W CO NO. 10/RJT/18 & ORS. [LATE SHRI PRAVINSINH N ZALA & ORS.] - 30 - LETTER AND SPIRIT OF RULE 34(5) BUT IS ALSO A PRAGM ATIC APPROACH AT A TIME WHEN A DISASTER, NOTIFIED UNDER THE DISASTER MANAGEMENT AC T 2005, IS CAUSING UNPRECEDENTED DISRUPTION IN THE FUNCTIONING OF OUR JUSTICE DELIVERY SYSTEM. UNDOUBTEDLY, IN THE CASE OF OTTERS CLUB VS DIT [(2017) 392 ITR 244 (BOM)] , HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DID NOT APPROVE AN ORDER BEING PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL BEYOND A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS, BUT THEN IN THE PRESENT SITUATION HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT ITSELF HAS, VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 15 TH APRIL 2020, HELD THAT DIRECTED WHILE CALCULATING THE TIME FOR DISPOSAL OF MATTERS MADE T IME-BOUND BY THIS COURT, THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ORDER DATED 26TH MARCH 2020 CO NTINUES TO OPERATE SHALL BE ADDED AND TIME SHALL STAND EXTENDED ACCORDINGLY . THE EXTRAORDINARY STEPS TAKEN SUO MOTU BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND H ONBLE SUPREME COURT ALSO INDICATE THAT THIS PERIOD OF LOCKDOWN CANNOT BE TRE ATED AS AN ORDINARY PERIOD DURING WHICH THE NORMAL TIME LIMITS ARE TO REMAIN I N FORCE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, EVEN WITHOUT THE WORDS ORDINARILY, IN THE LIGHT O F THE ABOVE ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL POSITION, THE PERIOD DURING WHICH LOCKOUT WAS IN FO RCE IS TO EXCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF TIME LIMITS SET OUT IN RULE 34(5) OF THE APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. VIEWED THUS, THE EXCEPTION, TO 90-DAY TIME-LIMIT FOR PRONO UNCEMENT OF ORDERS, INHERENT IN RULE 34(5)(C), WITH RESPECT TO THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS WITHIN NINETY DAYS, CLEARLY COMES INTO PLAY IN THE PRESENT CASE. OF COU RSE, THERE IS NO, AND THERE CANNOT BE ANY, BAR ON THE DISCRETION OF THE BENCHES TO REF IX THE MATTERS FOR CLARIFICATIONS BECAUSE OF CONSIDERABLE TIME LAG BETWEEN THE POINT OF TIME WHEN THE HEARING IS CONCLUDED AND THE POINT OF TIME WHEN THE ORDER THER EON IS BEING FINALIZED, BUT THEN, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, NO SUCH EXERCISE WAS REQUIR ED TO BE CARRIED OUT ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. 11. TO SUM UP, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D, AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED UNDER RULE 3 4(4) OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1962, BY PLACING THE DE TAILS ON THE NOTICE BOARD. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, WE EXPRESS TO PRONOUNCE THE ORDER BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 90 DAYS. ACCORDINGLY, WE PROCEED TO PRONOUNCE TH E ORDER AS ON DATE. 58. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IN IT( SS)A NOS. 15, 16, 17, 19, 21 & 22/RJT/2018 & ITA NO.23/RJT/2018 ARE DISMISSED WHEREAS ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTIONS IN CO NOS. 10, 21, 26, 9, 13, 25 & 11/RJ T/2018 ARE ALLOWED. SD/- SD/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (WASEEM AH MED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 01/06/2020 TRUE COPY S. K. SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / REVENUE THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT 01/06/2020 IT(SS)A NO. 15/RJT/18 A/W CO NO. 10/RJT/18 & ORS. [LATE SHRI PRAVINSINH N ZALA & ORS.] - 31 - 2. ' / ASSESSEE 3. ,-.! /! / CONCERNED CIT 4. /!- / CIT (A) 5. 345 6!6-., ' -.&, 89',' / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 5;< = / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, RAJKOT