The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Ahmedabad V. Shri Mahendra Natvarlal Patel, Mehsana

ITSSA 180/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2187 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P SHARMA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources; Loose papers; Document seized; Source of fund; Cost of acquisition; Corroborative evidences; Valuation report; Documents seized; Set aside
• Section: 142(1); 153A; 69B; 131; 132; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A NOS. 180 TO 186/AHD/2017) (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07 TO 2012-13) THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), AHMEDABAD. VS. MAHENDRA NATVARLAL PATEL, A-10 & 11, SANTRAMNAGAR, KADI, MAHSANA, GUJARAT. [PAN NO. AUFPP 9729 A] ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI O. P. SHARMA, CIT-D.R. RESPONDENT BY : MS. IRA KAPOOR, A.R. DATE OF HEARING 18.06.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26.06.2019 O R D E R PER MS. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: THE BUNCH OF SEVEN APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SAME ORDERS DATED 02.01.2017 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-13, AHMEDABAD UNDER SECTION 144 READ WITH SECTION 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS TO THE ACT) ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 11.02.2014 PASSED BY THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(4), AHMEDABAD FOR ASSES SMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2012-13. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THIS CASE IS THIS THA T A SEARCH AND SEIZER ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT IN MASCOT GROUP BASED AT KA DI AND GANDHINAGAR ALSO COVERING RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF CONNECTED PERSONS ON 13.10. 2011. ITA NO.180/AHD/2017 FOR A.Y. 2006-07: 3. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATIONS, CERTAIN MATERIAL, LOOSE PAPERS, DOCUMENTS AND DATA/NOTING OF CERTAIN RECEIPTS/EXPENSES FROM C ONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF - 2 - IT(S S)A NO.180 TO 186/AHD/2017 ACIT VS. MAHENDRA NATVARLAL PATEL ASST.YEARS 2006-07 TO 2012-13 PROJECTS OF THE GROUP WERE FOUND. THE CASE WAS CENT RALIZED WITH CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), AHMEDABAD BY THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE LEARNED CIT, G ANDHINAGAR DATED 26.03.2012. NOTICE DATED 16.08.2012 U/S 153A OF THE ACT DIRECTI NG THE ASSESSEE TO FILE ITS RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN 30 DAYS WERE ALSO SERVED. THE ASSESSE E FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 18.11.2013 DECLARING INCOME AT RS.69,480/-; SUCH IN COME WAS SHOWN AS DERIVED BY WAY OF BANK INTEREST AND INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND PROFE SSION AND FROM AGRICULTURE AS WELL. NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) DATED 26.12.2013 DIREC TING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH P&L ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET FOLLOWED BY FURTHER NOTIC E DATED 30.01.2014 ALONG WITH DETAILED QUESTIONER WAS SERVED. SINCE NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF NOTICE OF HEARING BEING SENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ULTIMATELY PROCEEDED WITH THE MATTER TO DECIDE THE SAME EX-PARTE. THE STATEMENT OF THE KEY PERSON NAMELY SHRI SANJAY N. PATEL BEING THE BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE WHO IS IN THE LINE OF BUSINESS ACTIVIT Y OF REAL ESTATE/CIVIL CONSTRUCTION SINCE 2000, MANAGING ALL THE AFFAIRS OF THE GROUP CONCERN S WERE RECORDED IN POST SEARCH INVESTIGATION BY THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES ON 16 .11.2011 WHEREBY AND WHEREUNDER HE HAD MADE AN ADHOC DISCLOSURE OF RS.10 CRORES FOR TH E GROUPS. THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO RECORDED DURING THE INVESTIGATION U/S 131 OF THE ACT ON 11.11.2011. HOWEVER, NO OFFER OF ADDITIONAL INCOME HAS BEEN MAD E BY HIM AT THAT MATERIAL POINT OF TIME IN HIS HAND. A STATEMENT OF LAND HOLDING AND T HE DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED WERE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING POST S EARCH PROCEEDING WHEREUPON HE WAS DIRECTED TO SUBMIT PROOF IN RESPECT OF HAVING CARRI ED OUT AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES INCLUDING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND HELD BY HIM. COPIES OF SALE BILLS, ACCORDINGLY, WERE PRODUCED ALONG WITH THE CERTIFICA TE OF THE TALATI. THE DETAIL OF ENTRIES MADE BY HIM IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS BEING ANNEXURE A1 TO A-10 WAS ALSO DIRECTED TO FURNISH. SINCE NONE OF THESE DOCUMENTS WERE SUBMITT ED BY THE ASSESSEE, AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED AT RS.64,32,271/- SINCE F.Y. 2005-06 AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE BY THE LEARNED AO. FURTHER T HAT, THE SAME WAS ALSO FOUND - 3 - IT(S S)A NO.180 TO 186/AHD/2017 ACIT VS. MAHENDRA NATVARLAL PATEL ASST.YEARS 2006-07 TO 2012-13 CONTRADICTORY TO THE RETURN FILED U/S 153 OF THE AC T. IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE SOURCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 30.01.2 014 WAS ISSUED DIRECTING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH NECESSARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLA IM. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CO-OPERATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, ON THE BASIS OF JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAS BEEN DISALLOWED AND ADDE D TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE TUNE OF RS.9,76,500/- TREATING THE SAME AS U NDISCLOSED SOURCES OF THE ASSESSEE. IN APPEAL THE SAME WAS DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). HENCE, THE INSTANT APPEAL BEFORE US. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDING, THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND REMAND REPORT WAS ALSO CALLED FOR. IN THE SAID WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE SEIZED MATERIAL BEING ANNEXURE A-1 TO A-10 WHICH WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE LEARNED AO CONTAINS THE EVIDENCES OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE GROSS A GRICULTURE RECEIPTS UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES HAS BEEN ADDED BY THE L EARNED AO WITHOUT BEING SUPPORTED BY ANY COGENT EVIDENCE. THE STATEMENT AS MADE BY TH E LEARNED AO THAT THE GROSS INCOME WAS THE ISSUE DECLARED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN TH E RETURN OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS TOTALLY INCORRECT SINCE THE NET INCOME OF RS.9,76,5 00/- AS MENTIONED IN THE RETURN HAS BEEN SHOWN AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION. IT WAS FURTHER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ALL DETAILS RELATING TO HIS AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME WAS CATEGORICALLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED AO, THE SAME WAS ALSO AVAILABLE IN SEIZED RECORDS, WHICH WAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AT ALL BY THE LEARNED ASSE SSING OFFICER. THE EXTRACT OF 7/12 AGRICULTURE LAND HELD BY THE MAHENDRABHAI N. PATEL, THE SALE DEED OF SADRA LAND (AGRICULTURAL LAND), PANCHAYAT CERTIFICATE OF THE S AME, GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION FOR SADRA LAND WERE ALSO MADE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW WHEREVER IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HOLDS 80.031 SQ.METERS OF AGRICULTURAL LAN D WHICH HAPPENS TO BE MORE THAN 20 ACRES OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. THUS, IT IS APPAREN T ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HOLDING AGRICULTURAL LAND. FURTHER THAT QUESTION NO.14 WHICH WAS PUT TO THE ASSESSEE DURING POST SEARCH PERIOD REFLECTS CATEGOR ICALLY SPEAKS OF AVAILABILITY OF THE - 4 - IT(S S)A NO.180 TO 186/AHD/2017 ACIT VS. MAHENDRA NATVARLAL PATEL ASST.YEARS 2006-07 TO 2012-13 DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE SEIZED RECORD S LYING WITH THE LEARNED AO WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS : Q.14 GIVE DETAILS OF YEAR WISE AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED BY YOU AND ALSO SUBMIT PROOF OF AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS, COPIES OF DO CUMENTS IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND HELD BY YOU, EXPENDITURE AND PROO F OF HAVING CONDUCTED AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. A.14 I SUBMIT HEREWITH DETAILS OF YEAR WISE AGRICU LTURAL INCOME EARNED BY ME WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS: ASSESSMENT YEAR AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED 2006 - 07 7,81,200 2007-08 8,02,100 2008-09 7,90,100 2009-10 8,30,500 2010 - 11 7,38,950 2011 - 12 18,63,768 2012-13 6,25,654 TOTAL 64,32,272 THE PROOF IN RESPECT OF HAVING CARRIED OUT AGRICUL TURAL ACTIVITIES INCLUDING COPY OF DOCUMENTS OF LAND, SALE BILLS OF AGRICULTUR AL PRODUCE, CERTIFICATE FROM THE TALATI ETC. SHALL BE SUBMITTED SOON. SIR, IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL ALSO YOU CAN SEE THAT T HERE ARE ENTRIES OF MY AGRICULTURAL INCOME DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER: SR. NO. RECEIPT (RS.) ASSTT. YEAR ANNEXURE 1. 738950 2010 - 11 PAGE NO.75 TO 87 OF A - 1 2. 1863768 2011-12 PAGE NO.87 TO 112 OF A-1 3. 625654 2012-13 PAGE NO.112 TO 122 OF A-1, PAGE NO.15 A-10 IT WAS REPEATED AND REITERATED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFO RE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY THAT DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS AVAILABLE IN THE SEIZED RECORDS. PART OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WHICH IS IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE HAS BEE N ACCEPTED PART OF WHICH SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT AT ALL BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE LEARNED AO AS THE CASE MADE OUT BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE FIRST APPE LLATE AUTHORITY. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, TREATING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND THAT TOO BY WRONGLY STATING THAT THE GROSS AGRICULTURAL INCO ME WAS THE INCOME DECLARED AS - 5 - IT(S S)A NO.180 TO 186/AHD/2017 ACIT VS. MAHENDRA NATVARLAL PATEL ASST.YEARS 2006-07 TO 2012-13 AGRICULTURAL INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. THE DECISION IN THE MATTER OF APURVA GIRISHBHAI SHETH WAS ALSO RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). IN THE SAID MATTER FROM 22 BIGHAS OF LAND A ND FROM ONE CROP ONLY THE INCOME WAS ESTIMATED BY THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL AT RS.9,25,000/- FOR A.Y. 2004-05. THE ASSESSEE, WHEREAS HOLDING THE AGRICULTURAL LAND OF 20 ACRES I .E. MORE THAN 30 BIGHAS AND THEREFORE ESTIMATE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOULD BE MUCH MORE THAN WHAT HAS BEEN OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSE SSEE IS PROPER AND REASONABLE WHICH HAS BEEN WRONGLY TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. NO ENQUIRY, WHATSOEVER, WAS ALSO CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THE BASIS OF THE ENTIRE GAMUT OF THE MATTER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: DECISION: I HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE SUBMISSIO NS MADE AND THE REMAND REPORT WITH IT'S REJOINDER, IH THIS REGARD. AT THE VERY OUTSET, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE A.OS DECISION TO TREAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS UNTENABLE. THE NATURE OF INCOME BEING AGRICULTURAL IS EVIDENCED ON THREE INSTANCES, NAMELY, THE STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT R ECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS EVIDENCED AS IT IS, F ROM ANNEXURE-A-1 TO A-10, 7/12 EXTRACTS AND THE APPELLANT FILING A STATUTORY STATE MENT IN THE FORM OF RETURN U/S. 153A OF THE ACT OWNING UP SUCH INCOME AS AGRICULTUR AL INCOME. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OTHER THAN THE OBSERVATION OF THE A.O. THA T NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE WAS FILED BEFORE HIM, THAT SUCH INCOME COULD BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IS UNT ENABLE BY CHANGING THE HEAD OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. C OMING TO THE 2 ND DISPUTE OF TREATING THE ENTIRE GROSS RECEIPTS AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME, I FIND THAT WHEN AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS ARE OWNED UP, CERTAIN EXPENDI TURES ARE NATURAL TO EARN SUCH AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE INCURRENCE OF EXPENSE TO E ARN THE AGRICULTURE INCOME IS ALSO WELL EVIDENT FROM THE SEIZED MATERIAL AS IS PO INTED OUT. FURTHER, IN THIS REGARD, THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE APPELLANT OF JUR ISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL'S DECISION IN THE CASE OF APURVA G. SHETH (ITA NO. 1430/AHD/20 08) IS NOTICE WORTHY. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE LAND HOLDING OF THE APPELLANT IS MUCH MORE THAN THE LAND HOLDING IN THE CITED DECISION AND HENCE, IT IS EXPECTED THA T THE INCOME EARNED BY THE APPELLANT IS ALSO MORE THAN WHAT WAS OFFERED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S. 153A OF THE ACT. IN MY VIEW, THE NATURE OF THIS INC OME IS UNDISPUTEDLY AN AGRICULTURAL INCOME, AS IS INDICATED EARLIER AND TH E QUANTUM OF NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME SO OFFERED, AFTER MAKING ALLOWANCE OF THE EX PENSES, BY THE APPELLANT - 6 - IT(S S)A NO.180 TO 186/AHD/2017 ACIT VS. MAHENDRA NATVARLAL PATEL ASST.YEARS 2006-07 TO 2012-13 APPEARS TO BE REASONABLE AS IT IS ON THE BASIS OF S EIZED MATERIAL. THIS GROUND, IS THEREFORE, DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT ACCOR DINGLY. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL, TH E LEARNED ADVOCATE APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE DETAILS R ELATING TO THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME THOUGH WAS LAYING WITH THE LEARNED AO BEING PART OF THE SE IZED MATERIALS HAVE NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE TREATING THE AGRICULTURE I NCOME AS UNDISCLOSED SOURCE OF INCOME. EVERY DETAILS INCLUDING THE BILLS OF AGRICULTURAL P RODUCE, THE LAND RECORDS, THE EXTRACT OF 7/12 RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL LAND HELD BY ASSESSEE WERE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THOSE DOCUMENTS THE L EARNED CIT(A) ULTIMATELY DELETED SUCH ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED AO. 5. HEARD THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES, PERUSED THE RELEVA NT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT APPEARS ON RECORDS THAT COPY OF THE SUMMARY OF AGRI CULTURAL BILLS ALONG WITH YEAR WISE BREAKUP, SAMPLE BILLS FOR A.Y. 2006-07 TO 2012-13 A RE AVAILABLE AT PAGE 809 TO 865 OF PAPER BOOK BEFORE US. PAGE 351 TO 359 CONTAINS THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THE LAND HOLDING AS EVIDENCED BY 7/12 EXTRACT EVIDENCING THE HOLDING OF 80.031 SQ.METERS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS APPROX 5 0 BIGHAS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 453 TO 490 WERE ALSO PLACED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY. FURTHER THAT, THE AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS WERE ALSO MADE AVAILABLE EVEN WITH THE LEARNED AO B EING PART OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL BEING ANNEXURE A1 TO A10. APART FROM THAT THE REPLY TO THE QUESTION NO.14 AS PUT TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 131 OF T HE ACT DATED 11.11.2011 BY THE REVENUE CATEGORICALLY MENTIONS THE MAIN SOURCE OF I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FROM AGRICULTURE ONLY WHICH OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN KEPT ASIDE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WHILE MAKING ADDITION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. - 7 - IT(S S)A NO.180 TO 186/AHD/2017 ACIT VS. MAHENDRA NATVARLAL PATEL ASST.YEARS 2006-07 TO 2012-13 WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THESE ENTIRE DETAILS OF DOCUMENTS AND WE FIND THAT UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THOSE DOCUMENTS THE L EARNED CIT(A) HAS CAME TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC FINDING: 1. AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS EVIDENCED FROM ANNEXURE A1 TO A10, 7/12 EXTRACT, STATEMENT IN THE FORM OF RETURN U/S 150A 2. WHEN AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS ARE OWNED UP, CERTAIN EX PENDITURES ARE NATURAL TO EARN SUCH AGRICULTURAL INCOME THOUGH EVIDENT FROM THE SE IZED MATERIAL HAS WRONGLY NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE LEARNED AO, 3. THE INCOME EARNED BY THE APPELLANT IS ALSO MORE THA N WHAT WAS OFFERED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S 153A OF THE ACT WHICH INDICATE S THAT QUANTUM OF NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME SO OFFERED AFTER MAKING ALLOWAN CE EXPENSES BY THE APPELLANT 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT PA SSED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE MATTER OF APURVA G. SHETH IN ITA NO.14 30/AHD/2008 ON THIS ISSUE RELEVANT PART WHEREOF IS AS FOLLOWS: (868 TO 870) THUS THE LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT HAVE ANY OTHER OPTI ON BUT TO DELETE SUCH ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED AO WHO HAS WRONGLY CHANGED THE HEAD OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE E VIDENCES ALREADY AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM IN ITS PROPER PROSPECTIVE. UPON CONSIDERING SUCH EXPLANATION RENDERED BY THE L EARNED CIT(A) RECORDING THE DETAILS AVAILABLE WITH THE REVENUE IN SUPPORT OF TH E CASE AS MADE OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF T HE JUDGMENT RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ORDER IMPUGNED PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT SUFFERING FROM ANY INFIRMITY SO AS TO WARRANT INTERFERENCE. THE QUESTION IS ACCORDINGLY ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE , I.E. IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEAL FAILS AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. - 8 - IT(S S)A NO.180 TO 186/AHD/2017 ACIT VS. MAHENDRA NATVARLAL PATEL ASST.YEARS 2006-07 TO 2012-13 ITA NO.181/AHD/2017 FOR 2007-08: 6. GROUND NO.1: IN THE INSTANT APPEAL ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,05,000/- HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BEFORE US. 7. DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSEE WAS A SKED TO SUBMIT DETAILS OF INVESTMENTS MADE BY HIM IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES DUR ING THE PERIOD OF 01.04.2005 TO 13.10.2011. UPON PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS SUBMITTED B Y THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS FOUND THAT FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENTS WERE MADE ON THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES : SR. NO. DATE SURVEY NO AND NAME OF VILLAGE AND MEASUREMENT PRICE AS PER DOCUMENT NAME OF SELLER ACTUAL PURCHASE PRICE F.Y. 2006-07 1 2.11.2006 1623 OF SANTRAM NAGAR (A-10) 12011 SQ. METERS 82,000 GOVINDBHAI A. PATEL 82,000 F.Y. 2007 - 08 2. 22.05.2007 1623 OF SANTRAM NAGAR (A-11) 12011 SQ. METERS 1,30,000 GOVINDBHAI A. PATEL 1,30,000 3. 22.05.2007 1623 OF SANTRAM NAGAR (A-12) 12011 SQ. METERS 1,30,000 GOVINDBHAI A. PATEL 1,30,000 4. 18.05.2007 25/1, 25/2 & 25/3 AND 19/1 AT BABAJIPURA 2.81 BIGHA 63,000 THAKORE RAIBEN MAGANJI & OTHERS 2,70,000 5. 29.05.2007 107/2 P-5 AT KAMALAPURA, 3.35 BIGHA 50,000 PATEL RAMJIBHAI JIVANBHAI & 3,50,000 - 9 - IT(S S)A NO.180 TO 186/AHD/2017 ACIT VS. MAHENDRA NATVARLAL PATEL ASST.YEARS 2006-07 TO 2012-13 OTHERS 6. 04.11.2007 BUGLOW AT SANTRAMNAGAR SANJAY N. PATEL 5,50,000/- F.Y. 2010-11 7. 10.05.2010 200/2 AT BABAJIPURA 0.94 BIGHA 44,600 THAKORE CHAMPABEN MANSANJI & OTHERS 4,50,000 8. 28.06.2010 1447 AT MANDAL VILLAGE, 12.81 BIGHA 4,90,000 CHELABEN B. BHARVAD 5,00,000 9. 09.03.2011 492 AT KARANNAGAR 5.50 BIGHA 19,62,200 PATEL JAYANTIBHAI KESHAVLAL 19,62,200 10. 09.03.2011 493 AT KARANNAGAR 5.15 BIGHA 18,37,200 PATEL JAYANTIBHAI KESHAVLAL 18,37,200 11. 10.10.2010 RENOVATION OF HOUSE AT BABAJIPURA 8,20,000 (BANAKHAT) TAKEN IN F.Y. 2011-12 12. 19/1 BABAJIPURA AS PER SEIZED MATERIAL ANNEXURE A-5 9,31,000/- TOTAL 80,12,400 ON 30.01.2014 BY AND UNDER A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS AS TO WHEN THOSE P ROPERTIES WERE PURCHASED, AMOUNT OF MONEY PAID FOR SUCH PURCHASES, SOURCE OF FUND UTILI ZED FOR SUCH PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES AND IF SOLD THEN TREATMENT IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE DETAILS OF THOSE IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES. H OWEVER, NO SUBMISSION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD AS OBSERVED BY THE LEAR NED AO. IT ALSO APPEARED THAT AS PER BALANCE SHEET NO INVESTMENT ON IMMOVABLE PROPERTY O R MOVABLE PROPERTY WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE THOUGH AS PER STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 1 31 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON - 10 - IT(S S)A NO.180 TO 186/AHD/2017 ACIT VS. MAHENDRA NATVARLAL PATEL ASST.YEARS 2006-07 TO 2012-13 11.11.2011 THE ASSESSEE STATED THE DETAILS OF INVES TMENT IN MOVABLE PROPERTIES. THE LEARNED AO CAME TO A FINDING THAT IN SOME LAND TRAN SACTIONS THE REGISTERED VALUE AND PURCHASE VALUE ARE EQUAL WHEREAS IN CASE OF SOME OT HER DIFFERENCES WERE FOUND. THE LEARNED AO, THEREFORE, COULD NOT RELY UPON THE STAT EMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF PURCHASE COST OF THOSE INVESTMENTS OF IMM OVABLE PROPERTIES. IN ORDER TO COMPUTE THE PURCHASE COST OF THOSE INVESTMENTS THE RATIO OF 40:60 I.E. 40% PAYMENT THROUGH CHEQUE FOR DOCUMENT REGISTRATION PURPOSE AN D 60% PAYMENT THROUGH UNACCOUNTED CASH HAS BEEN CONSIDERED ON THE BASIS O F COMMON PRACTICE PREVALENT IN LAND TRANSACTION MARKET AS OBSERVED BY THE LEARNED AO AN D ACCORDINGLY RS.2,05,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT MADE IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY SINCE NOT REFLECTING CORRECTLY OR COMPLETELY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS MADE FOR A.Y. 2007-08 HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN APPEA L, THE SAME WAS DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). HENCE, THE INSTANT APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL, TH E LEARNED ADVOCATE APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE LEARNED A O WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND/OR CONCRETE EVIDENCE AND/OR SEIZED MATERIALS IN HIS POSSESSION PRESUMED UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT WH EREVER THE ACTUAL INVESTMENT IS MORE THAN THE INVESTMENT, AS PER DOCUMENTS FOUND, THE SA ME HAS BEEN OFFERED FOR TAX IN THE RETURN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED AO AS 60% OF THE DOCUMENT PRICE WAS PAID IN CASH IS HAVING NO FOUNDATION ON MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE IN POSSESSION WITH THE LEARNED AO AND ADDITION ON THAT COUNT IS WITHOUT AN Y BASIS, ARBITRARY, WHIMSICAL AND ERRONEOUS AND THUS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE AS ALSO A RGUED BY THE LEARNED AR. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF THE MATTER, THE L EARNED CIT(A) RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED AO AS ARGUED BY THE LE ARNED AR. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEAR NED AO. - 11 - IT(S S)A NO.180 TO 186/AHD/2017 ACIT VS. MAHENDRA NATVARLAL PATEL ASST.YEARS 2006-07 TO 2012-13 9. HEARD THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES, PERUSED THE RELEVA NT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT APPEARS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEED ING, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS FOLLOWS: 7.3 IN THIS REGARD, IT IS TO BE STATED THAT THERE W AS NO SEIZED DOCUMENTS TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS ANY UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN THESE PURCHASES. WHATEVER OPINION HAS BEEN FORMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND DETAILS OF PROPERTIES GIVEN BY HIM. TH E ASSESSEE HAS TRUTHFULLY STATED THE ACTUAL COST OF THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES. WHER EVER THE ACTUAL COST WAS MORE THAN THE REGISTERED DOCUMENTS, THE APPELLANT ON HIS OWN VOLITION HAS STATED THE FACTS TRUTHFULLY. THIS CANNOT BE A BASIS FOR ASSUMI NG THAT IN RESPECT OF ALL THE PROPERTIES REAL INVESTMENTS ARE MORE THAN THE DOCUM ENT PRICE. THERE WAS NO MATERIAL BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SHOW THAT ANY SUCH ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT WAS MADE BY THE APPELLANT, AS NO SUCH PAPERS WERE F OUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HON. BOMBAY HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF CIT THANE VS. CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSES (NAVA SHEVA) LTD. REPORT ED IN 58 TAXMAN.COM 78 THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE, IF THERE WAS NO INCRIMINAT ING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MIGHT HAVE HAD SOME DOUBTS, BUT THAT CAN ONLY BE A BASE OF SUSPICION, AND THE SUSPICION CANN OT TAKE PLACE OF PROOF. THUS, THE ADDITION IS BASED TOTALLY ON SURMISES AND CONJE CTURES. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE TYDN. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF UMACHAR AN SHAW & BROS. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 37 ITR 271 THAT ADDITIONS CANNOT BE MAD E ON MERE SURMISES AND CONJECTURES, AND THE CONCLUSION WHICH IS A RESULT O F SUSPICION, COULD NOT TAKE PLACE OF PROOF IN INCOME-TAX MATTERS. IN THIS CASE, EVEN THE NAME OF SELLER OF PROPERTIES WAS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER . HE HAS SIMPLY STATED THAT GENERALLY IN THE MARKET THE RATIO OF 40:60 IS BEING USED. THIS SWEEPING STATEMENT CANNOT BECOME PROOF FOR MAKING ADDITIONS. AT BEST, THIS COULD HAVE BEEN A STARTING POINT FOR FURTHER ENQUIRY, BUT WITHOUT ANY ENQUIRY AND ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL FOUND, THERE WAS NO SCOPE FOR ADOPTING A HIGHER PRICE THAN THERE WAS FOUND IN THE REGISTERED DOCUMENTS. SIMILAR TYPE OF ISSUE HAD COM E UP BEFORE THE HON. DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DISCOVERY STATES PVT. LTD. A DECISION REPORTED IN 356 ITR 159 IN WHICH THE HON.-HIGH COURT IN PARA 14 ONWARDS HAS DECIDED THAT IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, MERELY ON THE BAIS OF WHAT HE PERCEIVES TO BE THE MARKET CONDITION TO MAKE ADDITION WITHOUT EVIDE NCE OF ANY UNDER-STATEMENT. IN THIS CASE, THE HON. HIGH COURT HAS ALSO STATED THAT SUCH MARKET CONDITIONS AND ALLEGED MARKET TREND CANNOT PER SE CONSTITUTE A BAS IS OF ADDITION, THOUGH THIS CAN VERY WELL THE STARTING POINT FOR FURTHER INVESTIGAT ION. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY ENQUIRY ON HIS OWN, AND WI THOUT ANY EVIDENCE HE HAS WORKED OUT EXTRA AMOUNT ALLEGEDLY PAID BY THE APPLI CANT. THE ACTUAL PRICE FOR THIS PROPERTY FOR THE YEAR WAS ONLY RS.82,000 WHICH WAS THE REAL INVESTMENT. ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF DY. CIT, CIRCLE-9, V S. VALLABHABHAI REPORTED IN 27 TAXMAN.COM 306, WHILE DEALING WITH SECTION 69B H AS HELD THAT NO SUCH ADDITION CAN BE MADE WITHOUT ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY OR CORR OBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO - 12 - IT(S S)A NO.180 TO 186/AHD/2017 ACIT VS. MAHENDRA NATVARLAL PATEL ASST.YEARS 2006-07 TO 2012-13 SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY VARIOUS COURTS THAT FOR MAKING SUCH ADDITION BURDEN IS ON THE REVENUE T O PROVE THAT REAL INVESTMENT EXCEEDS THE INVESTMENTS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS VIEW HAS BEEN HELD BY DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NARESH KHATTAR (H UF) REPORTED IN 261 ITR 664, AND RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. AMARKU MARI SURANA VS. CIT REPORTED IN 226 ITR 344. 7.4 IT IS QUITE APPARENT THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY NOR ANY INDEPENDENT OR CORROBOR ATIVE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON RECORD. THE ADD ITION IS PURELY ON CONJECTURES & SURMISES AND, THEREFORE, ADDITION OF RS.2,05,000 BY INVOKING 40:60 THEORY IS PATENTLY INCORRECT. THE REAL INVESTMENT MADE BY THE APPELLANT IS RS.82,000 ONLY, AND THE SAME HAS BEEN MET OUT OF LOAN PROVIDED BY H IS BROTHER SHRI SANJAY N. PATEL. DETAILS OF WHICH ARE GIVEN IN PARA 1.4 OF TH IS SUBMISSION. THIS FACT HAS ALSO BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE HON. SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND , THEREFORE, THE SUM OF RS.82,000 REPRESENTS APPLICATION OF FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT, AND HENCE, THIS ADDITION OF RS.2,05,000 MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOUND NO ME RIT TO THE STAND TAKEN BY THE LEARNED AO THAT 60% OF DOCUMENT PRICE WAS PAID IN C ASH WITHOUT BEING SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE AVAILABLE WITH THE LEARNED AO. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH NO ADDIT ION CAN BE MADE AS SETTLE PRINCIPLE OF LAW; THE RATIO AS LAID DOWN BY THE NUMBER OF JUDGME NTS INCLUDING IN THE MATTER OF CIT-VS- CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSE LTD. REPORTED IN 58 TAXMAN.CO M 78 HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). WHILE COMING INTO CONCLUSION THAT N O ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES AND THE CONCLUSION WHICH IS BASED O N SUSPICION, CANNOT TAKE PLACE AS EVIDENCE IN INCOME TAX MATTERS AS HELD BY HONBLE A PEX COURT IN THE CASE OF UMACHARAN SHAW & BROS.-VS-CIT REPORTED IN 37 ITR 271 HAS ALSO BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). IT IS APPARENT ON RECORD THAT THE ADDITION IS NOTHING BUT A PRODUCT OF NON- APPLICATION OF MIND OF THE LEARNED AO HAVING NO BAS IS. NEITHER THE AO ACTED JUDICIOUSLY OR ON THE BASIS OR ANY EVIDENCE. - 13 - IT(S S)A NO.180 TO 186/AHD/2017 ACIT VS. MAHENDRA NATVARLAL PATEL ASST.YEARS 2006-07 TO 2012-13 WE HAVE FURTHER CONSIDERED THOSE JUDGMENTS AND RELY ING ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN THEREON WE FIND THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) CORRECTLY DID SO. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSE D BY THE FIRST APPELLANT AUTHORITY IN DELETING SUCH ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED AO SO AS TO WARRANT INTERFERENCE. THE QUESTION IS ACCORDINGLY ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE , I.E. IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEAL FAILS AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 10. GROUND NO.2 : THIS GROUND RELATES TO THE DELETION OF DISALLOWANC E OF EXEMPTION OF AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS.10,02,625/-. 11. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THAT OF T HE ISSUE ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH BY US IN ITA NO.180/AHD/2017 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 AT PARA NO. 5 AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES THE SAME SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.182/AHD/2017 FOR A.Y. 2008-09: 12. GROUND NO.1 : THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE I SSUE ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH BY US IN ITA NO.181/AHD/2017 FOR A.Y. 20 07-08 AT PARA NO.9 AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES THE SAME SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMIS SED. 13. GROUND NO.2: THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE ISSUE ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH BY US IN ITA NO.180/AHD/2017 FOR A.Y. 20 06-07 AT PARA NO.5 AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES THE SAME SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMIS SED. - 14 - IT(S S)A NO.180 TO 186/AHD/2017 ACIT VS. MAHENDRA NATVARLAL PATEL ASST.YEARS 2006-07 TO 2012-13 ITA NO.183/AHD/2017 FOR A.Y. 2009-10: 14. GROUND NO.1 THE DELETION OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS ON OF SALE OF SADRA LAND HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BEFORE US BY THE REVENUE. 15. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE LAND AT SURVEY NO. 172 OF SADRA VILLAGE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 AND SOLD ON 28.11 .2008 FOR RS.7.35 LACS UPON EARNING RS.1 LAC AS PROFIT. IN TERMS OF PAGE NO.83 OF ANNEX URE A-5 OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS, THE VALUATION CERTIFICATE DATED 20.09.2008 ISSUED BY TH E GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER EVALUATED MARKET PRICE OF THE SAID LAND AT RS.72,21 ,800/- DURING RECORDING OF STATEMENT WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO HOW TH E LAND VALUED AT RS.72,41,800/- AS ON 20.09.2008 WAS SOLD FOR RS.7.35 LACS ON 28.11.2008, THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT SUCH VALUATION WAS DONE FOR AVAILING LOAN. HOWEVER SUCH EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE THUS TAKING THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS.72,41,800/- AFTER DEDUCTING COST OF ACQUISITION, WORKED OUT PROFIT OF RS.66,06,800/- AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW IS THIS THAT SUCH VALUATION WAS DONE FOR OBTAINING LOAN FROM BANK WHICH IS EVID ENT FROM THE VALUATION REPORT CLEARLY SPECIFYING THAT SUCH REPORT HAS BEEN MADE SOLELY FO R THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING LOAN. ULTIMATELY LOAN WAS ALSO TAKEN FROM KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK IN THE JOINT NAME OF APPELLANTS BROTHER. THE FURTHER CASE MADE OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IS THIS T HAT SINCE THE SALE VALUE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE LEARNED AO WHICH IS IN ACCORDANCE W ITH THE PREVAILING JANTRI VALUE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO AUTHORITY TO COMPUTE SUCH SALE CONSIDERATION AT AN EXORBITANT VALUE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE ALLEGED PROPERT Y IS NOT CAPABLE OF EARNING SUCH HIGH VALUE. NEITHER THE PROFIT OF RS.1,00,000/- IS TAXAB LE AS THE PROFIT WAS ARRIVED FROM SELLING - 15 - IT(S S)A NO.180 TO 186/AHD/2017 ACIT VS. MAHENDRA NATVARLAL PATEL ASST.YEARS 2006-07 TO 2012-13 AGRICULTURAL LAND. IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT T HE LAND WAS SITUATED AT A DISTANCE OF MORE THAN 8 KMS FROM THE LIMIT OF THE TOWN KADI WHICH IS ALSO APPEARING AT PAGE NO.412 & 422 OF THE COMPILATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. 16. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL, T HE LEARNED ADVOCATE APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSE SSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING SUCH ADDITION. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED AO. 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES, PERUSED T HE RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT APPEARS THAT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEE DING, THE ASSESSEE ASSERTED ON THIS PARTICULAR GROUND THAT THE VALUATION SHOWN IN THE V ALUATION REPORT WAS SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING LOAN WHICH WAS ULTIMATELY UTIL IZED WHILE TAKING LOAN FROM KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK IN THE JOINT NAME OF APPELLANTS BROT HER. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER RELIED UPON CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT IN SUPPORT OF SUCH S UBMISSION AS DISCUSSED ABOVE; THE JUDGMENT IN THE MATTER OF RIDDHI STEEL AND TUBES PV T. LTD.-VS-ACIT REPORTED IN 36 TAXMAN.COM 369, MEICO BOARDS PVT. LTD.-VS-CIT REPOR TED IN TAX APPEAL NO.2041/2010 AND CIT-VS-VEERDIP ROLLER PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 323 ITR 341, ETC. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THOSE JUDGMENTS WHICH SPEAKS ABOUT THE RATIO AS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE APPELLATE AU THORITY. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE ENTIRE MATTER, WE FIND THAT THE OBSERVATION AND FINDING OF THE LEARNED AO IN BRINGING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUATION REPORT AND THE REA L SALE PRICE AND IN MAKING ADDITION THEREUPON IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE AVAILABLE IN THE FORM OF STATEMENT OR SEIZED MATERIALS DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH INDICATING TH AT LAND WAS SOLD AT HIGHER PRICE HAS NOT BEEN APPRECIATED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) SINCE THE VA LUATION REPORT ITSELF DOES NOT REVEAL THAT AT THE TIME OF SALE, CASH WAS RECEIVED. THE IN TENTION OF APPELLANT TO OBTAIN THE BANK - 16 - IT(S S)A NO.180 TO 186/AHD/2017 ACIT VS. MAHENDRA NATVARLAL PATEL ASST.YEARS 2006-07 TO 2012-13 LOANS SHOULD HAVE BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED A O AS ALSO CORRECTLY OBSERVED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). HE, THEREFORE, DELETED SUCH ADDITIO N MADE BY THE LEARNED AO. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHICH ACCORDING TO US IS SUPPORTED BY COGENT AND SPECIFIC REASONS AS DISCUSSED UPON DOES NOT CALL FOR INTERFERENCE. WE, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE S AME. HENCE, REVENUES APPEAL FAILS AND IS DISMISSED. 18. GROUND NO.2: THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE ISSUE ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH BY US IN ITA NO.180/AHD/2017 FOR A.Y. 20 06-07 AT PARA NO.5 AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES THE SAME SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMIS SED. ITA NO.184/AHD/2017 FOR A.Y. 2010-11: 19. GROUND NO.1: THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE I SSUE ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH BY US IN ITA NO.180/AHD/2017 FOR A.Y. 20 06-07 AT PARA NO.5 AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES THE SAME SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMIS SED. ITA NO.185/AHD/2017 FOR A.Y. 2011-12: 20. GROUND NO.1 : THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE I SSUE ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH BY US IN ITA NO.181/AHD/2017 FOR A.Y. 20 07-08 AT PARA NO.9 AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES THE SAME SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMIS SED. - 17 - IT(S S)A NO.180 TO 186/AHD/2017 ACIT VS. MAHENDRA NATVARLAL PATEL ASST.YEARS 2006-07 TO 2012-13 21. GROUND NO.2: THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE ISSUE ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH BY US IN ITA NO.180/AHD/2017 FOR A.Y. 20 06-07 AT PARA NO.5 AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES THE SAME SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMIS SED. ITA NO.186/AHD/2017 FOR A.Y. 2012-13: 22. GROUND NO.1 : THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE I SSUE ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH BY US IN ITA NO.181/AHD/2017 FOR A.Y. 20 07-08 AT PARA NO.9 AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES THE SAME SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMIS SED. 23. GROUND NO.2: THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE ISSUE ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH BY US IN ITA NO.180/AHD/2017 FOR A.Y. 20 06-07 AT PARA NO.5 AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES THE SAME SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMIS SED. 24. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, REVENUES ALL APPEALS A RE DISMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 26/06/2019 SD/- SD/- ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) ( MS . MADHUMITA ROY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 26/06/2019 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS - 18 - IT(S S)A NO.180 TO 186/AHD/2017 ACIT VS. MAHENDRA NATVARLAL PATEL ASST.YEARS 2006-07 TO 2012-13 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A).13, AHMEDABAD. 5. , ! ' , #$%% / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. &' () / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) !, #$ / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 19.06.2019 (PAGE NOS.18) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 24/06/2019 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S 25.06.2019 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER