Shri Deepak G.Prajapati, Ahmedabad V. The ACIT.,Cent.Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

ITSSA 202/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4470 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 13-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 10-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P SHARMA
• Section: 145; 132

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ IT (SS) A NO. 202/AHD/2013 / ASSTT. YEAR : 2010 - 2011 DEEPAK G. PRAJAPATI 2, KUNTA PARK SOCIETY , NAVA VADAJ , OPP. GANESH SCHOOL , AHMEDABAD - 380013. PAN: ABCPP4846L VS . A.C.I.T CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) , AHMEDABAD. (APPLICANT) ( RESPON D ENT ) ASSESSEE BY : MS NUPUR SHAH , A .R REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. SHARMA , CIT, D .R / DATE OF HEARING : 05 / 03 / 201 9 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27 /05 /2 01 9 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX , (APPEALS) - I , AHMEDABAD [ LD. CIT (A) IN SHORT] , DATED 18 / 10 / 2013 ARISING IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER S. 143 (3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( HERE - IN - AFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') DATED 30/12 / 201 1 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2010 - 2011 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: IT(SS) NO.202/AHD/2013 ASSTT. YEAR 2010 - 11 2 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL PARTLY. HE OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE APPEAL FULLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE HIM. 2. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS WHILE OBSERVING IN THE APPELLATE ORDER THAT IF THE MONEY WOULD HAVE BEEN COLLECTED FROM THE FIVE INDIVIDUAL PARTNERS OUT OF THEIR OWN RESOURCES THEN THE PROFIT ARISING FROM THE SALE WOULD HAVE TO BE TAXED IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL HANDS IN NOT THE HAND OF THE FIRM . IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASSESSED THE INCOME ON SALE PF THE LAND IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM WHERE THE PARTNERS ARE NOT SHARING PROFITS EQUALLY . THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE L D. CIT - A ERRED IN OBSERVING THAT THE PROFIT WOULD HAVE BEEN TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNERS IF THE PARTNERS WOULD HAVE COLLECTED THE MONEY OU T OF THEIR SOURCES . 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS ALSO A PARTNER IN THE FIRM , NAMELY UMA SHAKTI CORPORATION. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, A SEARCH U/S 132 WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF U MIYA GROUP ON 04 - 03 - 2010 AND SUBSEQUENT DATES. ACC ORDINGLY A WARRANT U/S 132 WAS ALSO ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BEING ONE OF THE PART IES OF THE U MIYA GROUP . DURING THE SEARCH, A STATEMENT OF ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF UMA SHAKTI CORPORATION NAMELY SHREE VIKAS R PATEL U/S 132(4) WAS RECORDED ON 05 - 03 - 2010 WHERE H E ADMITTED THAT THE FOLLOWING PERSONS HAVE 50% SHARES IN SMAMARPAN SCHEME.: NAME OF THE PATY PERCENTAGE VIKAS R PATEL 10% BHAGWAN K AJARA 10% BRIJESH S PATEL 10% DEEPAK G PRAJAPATI 10% ARVIND N PRAJAPATI 10% HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE FIVE PARTNERS TILL THE DATE OF SEARCH CONTRIBUTED RS. 45 LACS (9 LACS EACH). THE TOTAL CONTRIBUTION REQUIRED FROM IT(SS) NO.202/AHD/2013 ASSTT. YEAR 2010 - 11 3 ABOVE 5 PARTNERS IN SAMARPAN GROUP UP TO DECEMBER 2010 WAS RS. 1,50,00,000/ - . 2.1 HOWEVER THE AO FOUND THAT THE SHREE KRISHNA CORPORATION EXECUTED THE SAMARPAN PROJECT, AND THE ABOVE NAMES DO NOT APPEAR IN THE PARTNERSHIP DEED OF THE SHREE KRISHNA CORPORATION. 2.2 ACCORDINGLY , THE AO ISSUED SCN TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE CONTRIBUTION MADE BY HIM FOR RS. 9 L ACS . BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE. 2.3 THE AO FURTHER NOTICED THAT ABOVE DETAILS OF RS. 45 LACS IS APPEARING ON PAGE NO. 145 OF DIARY S E IZED VIDE ANNEXURE A - I FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI BHAGWAN K AJARA ANOTHER PA RTNER OF THE UMA SHAKTI CORPORATION. 2.4 SHRI B HAGWAN K AJARA VIDE HIS SUBMISSION DATED 17 - 10 - 2011 STATED THAT THE NOTING ON PAGE 145 OF THE DIARY SEIZED IN ANNEXURE A - I PERTAINS TO THE LAND AT SURVEY NO . 1004, KALOL OF THE SAMARPAN PROJECT OF SHREE KRISHNA CORPORATION. 2.5 THE RELEVANT ENTRIES AS RECORDED BY THE AO ARE DETAILED AS UNDER: DATE PARTICULARS AMOUNT(RS) 11 - 09 - 09 RECEIVED FROM PARTNER VIKASBHAI BRIJESHBHAIM DEEPAKBHAI USC K 2100000 09 - 10 - 09 RECEIVED FROM PARTNER VIKAS BHAI, BRIJESHBHAI, DEEPAKBHAI - USC K 900000 2.6 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CONTRIBUTION AMOUNTING TO RS. 9 LACS FOR THE SAMARPAN PROJECT. HENCE THE L D. AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 9 LACS TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT(SS) NO.202/AHD/2013 ASSTT. YEAR 2010 - 11 4 THE AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE L D. CIT - A. 3. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD.CIT (A) SUBMITTED AS UNDER: (I) THE UMA SHAKTI CORPORATION GOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO BUY A PIECE OF LAND BEARING SURVEY NO . 1004 IN AUGUST 2009. THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM THOUGHT TO START A NEW PROJECT ON THIS LAND. (II) IMMEDIATELY THE FIRM GOT AN OFFER FROM SHREE KRISHNA CORPORATION TO START THE PROJECT IN JV WITH 50 - 50 RATIO TOGETHER. I T WAS ALSO DECIDED TO CONTRIBUTE 1.5 CRORE S BY DEC EMBER 2010 . (III) PAYMENT OF LAND WAS MADE BY THE MAIN PARTNER SHRI BHAGWANBHAI K PATEL FROM THE EXTRA COLLECTION FROM THE MEMBER OF USC KALOL PROJECT. ANY PARTNER MADE NO PERSONAL INVESTMENT. (IV) AFTER PAYMENT MADE BY THE GROUP, THE STRATEGY WAS CHANG ED , AND THE LAND WAS SOLD OUT TO SHRI KRISHNA CORPORATION. (V) NOTING ON PAGE NO 145 OF SEIZED ANNEXURE A - I ARE AS UNDER: AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM SAMARPAN GROUP RS. 2.40 CRORES AMOUNT PAID TO FARMERS RS. 185.30 LACS AMOUNT PAID FOR SETTLEMENT OF OCCUPYING FARMER RS. 21.00 LACS AMOUNT PAID FOR AUDA AND NA RS. 12,36,500/ - TOTAL PAYMENT OF RS. 2,19,66,500/ - IT(SS) NO.202/AHD/2013 ASSTT. YEAR 2010 - 11 5 3.1 T HUS , THE UMA SHAKTI CORPORATION EARNED A PROFIT OF RS. 20,33500 PLUS CHE QUE PAYMENT OF RS. 10.40 LACS. THEREFORE THE TOTAL PROFIT OF RS. 31 LACS WAS OFFERED TO TAX BY THE USC IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2010 - 11. 3.2 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 9 LACS BY THE PARTNERS WAS APPROPRIATED FROM THE EXTRA COLLECTION OF THE FIRM M/S UMA SHAKTI CORPORATION. THE FUNDS FOR THE SAMPARPAN PROJECT WERE DEPLOYED BY THE FIRM M/S UMA SHAKTI CORPORATION. THE NAMES OF THE PARTNERS WERE NOTED FOR MEMORIES. THE FIRM OFFERED RS. 109 LACS AS PR OFIT FROM THE EXTRA COLLECTION. THEREFORE THE PAYMENTS ARE NOT UNEXPLAINED. 4. HOWEVER, LD. CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION S MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOUND THAT USC INVESTED IN THE PURCHASE OF LAND FOR SAMARPAN PROJECT AMOUNTING TO RS. 45 LACS AND A FTER THAT THE LAND WAS SOLD TO SHREE KRISHNA CORPORATION. THE PROFIT ON SUCH TRANSACTION WAS DECLARED IN THE IT RETURN OF THE FIRM, I.E. , UMA SHAKTI CORPORATION WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING OF USC. 4.1 IT IS ALSO NOTI CED BY THE LD .CIT (A) THAT THE CONTRIBUTION OF RS. 45 LACS WAS MADE BY THE 5 PARTNERS FOR RS. 9 LACS EACH WHEREAS THERE ARE 6 PARTNERS IN THE FIRM M/S USC. THEREFORE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT THE 5 PARTNERS MADE THE INVESTMENT , BUT THE PROFIT WAS DISTRIBUTED IN 6 PARTNERS. 4.2 THE LD. CIT (A) ALSO NOTICED THAT THE PROFIT SHARING OF ALL THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM IS NOT EQUAL. HOWEVER, THE INVESTMENT MADE BY EACH PARTNER WAS OF AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF RS. 9 LACS. THEREFORE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT 5 PEOPLE INVESTED THE SAME AMOUNT BUT AGREED TO SHARE PROFIT IN DIFFERENT RATIOS. IT(SS) NO.202/AHD/2013 ASSTT. YEAR 2010 - 11 6 4.3 THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE FUND OF THE FIRM WAS UTILIZED FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND WHICH WAS LATER SOLD TO S HREE KRISHNA CORPORATION . THE QUESTION FOR THE SHARE OF PROFIT BETWEEN 6 PARTNERS ONLY ARISES WHEN THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE OUT OF THE UNACCOUNTED COLLECTION OF THE FIRM M/S USC. 4.4 IF THE FIVE INDIVIDUAL PARTNERS WOULD HAVE COLLECTED THE MONEY OUT OF THEIR RESOURCES, THEN THE P ROFIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAXED IN THE INDIVIDUAL HANDS OF THE PARTNERS, NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM USC. FINALLY, LD . CIT - A HELD THAT INVESTMENT WAS NOT MADE OUT OF THE UNACCOUNTED FUNDS. 4.5 IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AO ASSESSED THE INCOME FROM THE SALE OF LAND IN THE HAND OF THE FIRM WHERE THE PARTNERS ARE NOT SHARING THE PROFIT EQUALLY. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD.CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LD. AR BEFORE US AT THE OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. BHAGWAN BHAI KARMANBHAI AJARA IN ITA 1373 /AHD/201 3 VIDE ORDER DATED 12 - 04 - 2017. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NO BEARING ON THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS COVERED IN HIS FAVOR BY THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE IT(SS) NO.202/AHD/2013 ASSTT. YEAR 2010 - 11 7 CASE OF BHAGWAN BHAI KARMANBHAI AJARA (SUPRA). THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 55. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIO NS AND PERUSED THE RECORD PLACED BEFORE US. WE NOTICE THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ID. ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT MR. VIKAS R. PATEL, PARTNER OF USCKP MADE IN HIS STATEMENT DATED 05.03.2010 RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT THAT FIVE PE RSONS MENTIONED THEREIN INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE WERE SUPPOSED TO CONTRIBUTE RS.1.50 CRORES IN THE SAMARPAN SCHEME; HOWEVER, TILL THE DATE OF SEARCH ONLY RS.45,00,000/ - WAS CONTRIBUTED. FURTHER FROM PAGE NO.145 OF ANNEXURE - A/1, ID. ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND TH AT THERE WAS A NOTING OF CONTRIBUTION OF RS.9,00,000/ - IN THE SAMARPAN SCHEME AND MERELY ON THE BASIS OF THIS NOTING, HE MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE OU T OF FUNDS RECEIVED FROM MEMBERS OF USCKP AND NOT BY THE ASSESSEE. IN FACT, PROFIT OF RS.31,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF LAND DEAL IN THE SAMARPAN SCHEME HAS ALSO BEEN DECLARED IN THE HANDS OF USCKP IN AY 2010 - 11 WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES. C ERTAINLY, WHEN PROFIT ON SUCH LAND DEAL HAS BEEN TAXED IN USCKP'S HANDS, THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE BELIEVED THE FACT THAT INVESTMENT IN SUCH LAND WAS MADE BY USCKP AND NOT BY ASSESSEE. WE FURTHER FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TH AT THE THEORY OF EQUAL CONTRIBUTION BY EACH OF THE FIVE PERSONS MENTIONED BY SHRI VIKAS PATEL IS ALSO NOT ACCEPTABLE SINCE THE PROFIT ON THE SAID LAND DEAL HAS BEEN OFFERED IN USCKP, WHEREIN THERE ARE SIX PARTNERS. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO BELIEVE THAT FIVE P ERSONS WOULD INVEST IN A LAND IN THE INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT THE PROFIT ON SUCH LAND DEAL WOULD BE SHARED BY SIX PERSONS. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ON TH E BASIS OF SEIZED RECORDS, INVESTMENT IN SAMARPAN SCHEME' WA S MADE BY USCKP FROM THE FUNDS RECEIVECD FROM ITS M EMBERS AND THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION I S UNCALLED FOR IN THE ASSESSEE'S HANDS. IN THE RESULT, NO INTERFERE NCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE IMPU GNED ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS FOLLO WS: - '7. / HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMISSION OF THE 'A.R. OF THE APPELLANT CAREFULLY. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED TLIE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE CASH AMOU NTING TO RS.9,00,000/ - REPRESENTED ON MONEY COLLECTIONS OF THE FIRM FROM KALOL PROJECT. HE HAS HELD THAT THE INVESTMENT NOTED IN THE DIARY WRITTEN BY SHRI BHAGWAN K. AJARA SEIZED AT ANNEXURE - A - 1 REPRESENTED UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITED BY THE APPELLANT. THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE SOUND. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE INVESTMENT FOR PURCHASE OF THE LAND NAMED SAMARPAN PROJECT AMOUNTED TO RS.45,00,000/ - AFTER IT. WAS SOLD TOM/S. SHREE KRISHNA CORPORATION. THE PROFIT FROM THE TR ANSACTIONS HAD BEEN DECLARED IN THE HANDS OF M/S, UMA SHAKTI CORPORATION WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF M/S. UMA SHAKTI CORPORATION. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE TOTAL FUNDS CONTRIBUTED IN CASH AMOUNTED TO RS.45,00,000/ - WAS BY FIVE PARTNERS WHO CONTRIBUTED RS.9,00,000/ - EACH WHEREAS THE FIRM M/S. UMA SHAKTI CORPORATION HAS THE FOLLOWING PARTNERS : IT(SS) NO.202/AHD/2013 ASSTT. YEAR 2010 - 11 8 SR.NO. NAME SHARE 1. SHRI VIKAS RAMCHANDRA PATEL 10% 2. SHIR BHAGWAN KARAMANBHAI AJARA 35% 3. SHRI BRIJESH SUKHDEVBHAI PATEL 10% 4. SHRI DEEPAK GOVINDBHAI PRAJAPATI 15% 5. SHRI ARVIND NATVARLAL PRAJAPATI 10% 6. SHRI KAMALBHAI JAYANTIBHAI PATEL 20% TOTAL 100% IF IT WAS A FACT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.45,00,000 / - HAVE BEEN CONTRIBUTED BY FIVE PARTNERS @ RS.9,00,000/ - EACH FROM THEIR OWN SOURCES THEN THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO OCCASION TO OFFER THE PROFIT IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM WHERE THERE WERE SIX PARTNERS. THIS IS TO SAY THAT IF FIVE PERSONS HAD CONTRIBUTED TOW ARDS COST OF LANDS THEN THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO REASON FOR THEM TO SHARE THE PROFIT FROM THE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE SIXTH PERSON I.E. SHRI KAMALBHAI JAYANTIBHAI PATEL WHO HAD NOT CONTRIBUTED ANY CAPITAL. IT IS ALSO TO BE NOTED THAT THE PROFIT SHARING RATIO OF ALL THE PARTNERS IN THE FIRM IS NOT EQUAL. IF THE FIVE PERSONS HAD CONTRIBUTED RS.9,00,000/ - EACH THEN THERE WOULD BE NO OCCASION TO NOT SHARE THE PROFITS FROM THE TRANSACTION EQUALLY. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT ONLY TLIE FUNDS OF THE FIRM M/S. UMA SHAKTI CORPORATION WERE UTILISED FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND TITLED AS SAMARPAN PROJECT WHICH WAS LATER SOLD TO SHRI KRISHNA CORPORATION. THE REASON TO SHARE THE PROFIT BETWEEN ALL THE SIX PARTNERS OF THE FIRM WOULD ONLY ARISE IF THE FUNDS HAVE BEEN CONTRIBUTED FROM THE UNACCOUNTED COLLECTION OF M/S. UMA SHAKTI CORPORATION, KALOL I.E. THE FIRM WHERE THERE ARE SIX PARTNERS. IT IS A FACT THAT THE FIRM M/S. UMA SHAKTI CORPORATION HAD COLLECTED ON MONEY FROM THE KALOL PROJECT WHICH WAS KEPT WITH SHRI BHAGWANBHAI K. AJARA AND ONLY SHR BHAGWANBHAI K. AJARA WAS KEEPING TRACK OF THE CASH COLLECTIONS. 7.1 THE FACT THAT UNACCOUNTED CASH COLLECTION FROM THE KALOL PROJECT WAS UTILISED WAS THE ONLY REASON ONLY THE FIVE PARTNERS VIZ. SR.NO. NAME 1. VIKAS R PATEL 2. BHAGWAN K AJARA 3. BRIJESH S PATEL IT(SS) NO.202/AHD/2013 ASSTT. YEAR 2010 - 11 9 4. DEEPAKG PRAJAPATI 5. ARVIND N PRAJAPATI WOULD AGREE TO SHARE THE PROFIT WITH THE SIXTH PERSON SHRI KAMALBHAI JAYANTIBHAI PATEL. IF THE MONEY WOULD HAVE BEEN COLLECTED FROM THE FIVE INDIVIDUAL PARTNERS OUT OF THEIR OWN R ESOURCES THEN THE PROFIT ARISING FROM TH E SALE WOULD, HAVE TO BE TAXED IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL HANDS IN NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM. IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASSESSED THE INCOME ON SALE OF THE LAND IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM WHERE THE PARTNERS ARE NOT SHARING THE PROFITS EQUALLY. 7.2 THUS, IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT THE FUNDS WERE INVESTED IN THE SAMPARPAN PROJECT OUT OF THE UNACCOUNTED FUNDS COLLECTED FROM THE KALOL PROJECT. 7.3 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ON SOUND FOOTING. THE SAME IS HENCE DELETED.' 56. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND NO.L OF THE REVENUE'S APPEAL FOR AY 2010 - 11 IS DISMISSED. 7.1 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL, WE ALLOW THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 27 /05 / 2019 AT AHMEDABAD. - SD - - SD - ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ( WASEEM AHMED ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (TRUE COPY) A HMEDABAD; DATED 27 / 05 /2019 MANISH