THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-II, Indore V. Shri Nitesh Chugh, Indore

ITSSA 22/IND/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7249 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-08-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 24-05-2021
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S MANTRI
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Unexplained expenditure; Capital asset; Business income; Depreciation; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Additional evidence; Cost of acquisition; Valuation report; Documents seized; Capital Gains
• Section: 69C; 43CA; 143(3); 54B; 50C; 54F; 142(1); 153A; 133(6); 69B; 201; 143(2); 69A; 208; 64; 43; 48; 73; 72; 13; 153; 22; 132; 11; 139

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIRTUAL HEARING) IT(SS)A NOS.267 & 268/IND/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2011-12 & 2012-13 ACIT, CENTRAL - 2 INDORE / VS. SHRI MOHANLAL CHUGH KHASRA NO.84/3/5, GRAND EXOTICA NEAR AGRAWAL PUBLIC SCHOOL, BICHOLI MARDANA ROAD, INDORE (APPELLANT) (RE SPONDENT ) P.A. NO. ADOPC2849Q ITA NO.239/IND/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2013-14 ACIT, CENTRAL - 2 INDORE / VS. SHRI MOHANLAL CHUGH KHASRA NO.84/3/5, GRAND EXOTICA NEAR AGRAWAL PUBLIC SCHOOL, BICHOLI MARDANA ROAD, INDORE (A PPELLANT) (RE SPONDENT ) P.A. NO. ADOPC2849Q IT(SS)A NO.77/IND/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 2 ACIT, CENTRAL - 2 INDORE / VS. SMT. REENA DEVI CHUGH KHASRA NO.84/3/5, GRAND EXOTICA NEAR AGRAWAL PUBLIC SCHOOL, BICHOLI MARDANA ROAD, INDORE (APPELLANT) (RE SPONDENT ) P.A. NO. ABMPC2562Q IT(SS)A NO.22/IND/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ACIT, CENTRAL - 2 INDORE / VS. SHRI NITESH CH UGH KHASRA NO.84/3/5, GRAND EXOTICA NEAR AGRAWAL PUBLIC SCHOOL, BICHOLI MARDANA ROAD, INDORE (APPELLANT) (RE SPONDENT ) P.A. NO. AD KPC7515P ITA NO.122/IND/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2013-14 ACIT, CE NTRAL - 2 INDORE / VS. SHRI NITESH CHUGH KHASRA NO.84/3/5, GRAND EXOTICA NEAR AGRAWAL PUBLIC SCHOOL, BICHOLI MARDANA ROAD, INDORE (APPELLANT) (RE SPONDENT ) P.A. NO. ADKPC7515P ITA NO.238/IND/2017 ASSESSM ENT YEAR:2013-14 ACIT, CENTRAL - 2 INDORE / VS. M/S CHUGH REALTY OFFICE NO.503, PLOT NO.305-306, ORBIT MALL, SCHEME NO.54, A.B. RAODE, INDORE (APPELLANT) (RE SPONDENT ) P.A. NO. AAGFC0376F MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 3 A PPELLANT BY SHRI S.S. MANTRI, CIT - DR RESPONDENT BY S/SHRI ANIL KAMAL GARG & ARPIT GAUR, ARS DATE OF HEARING: 24.05.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23.08.2021 / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD: THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEALS AT THE INSTANCE OF REV ENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF LD. COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-III, (IN SHORT CIT(A)), INDORE DATED 29.09.2016, 16.12.2016 24.10.2016 & 30.11.2016. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN IT(SS)ANO.267/IND/2016, SHRI M OHANLAL CHUGH 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS .1,89,38,425/- ON ACCOUNT OF ON-MONEY RECEIVED ON SALE OF VARIOUS UNI TS IN THE VIEW PROJECT AND RS.32,70,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ON-MONEY R ECEIVED ON SALE OF VARIOUS UNITS IN ALMAS ELEMENTS PROJECT WITHOU T APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES BROUGHT INTO LIGHT BY THE AO DU RING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN IT(SS)ANO.268/IND/2016, SHRI M OHANLAL CHUGH 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS .27,30,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ON-MONEY RECEIVED ON SALE OF VARIOUS UNI TS IN THE VIEW PROJECT AND RS.3,65,88,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF ON-MONEY RECEIVED ON SALE OF VARIOUS UNITS IN ALMAS ELEMENTS PROJECT W ITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES BROUGHT INTO LIGHT BY THE A O DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITANO.239/IND/2017, SHRI MOHAN LAL CHUGH 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 4 ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS .1,40,74,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ON-MONEY RECEIVED ON SALE OF VARIOUS UNI TS IN ALMAS ELEMENT PROJECT AND RS.1,75,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY AND RS.3,79,04,952/- ON ACCO UNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT FOR PURCHASE OF PLOTS IN PU LAK CITY PROJECT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES BROUGH T IN TO LIGHT BY THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN IT(SS)ANO.77/IND/2017, SMT. RE ENA DEVI CHUGH 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS .20,85,427/- ON ACCOUNT OF ON-MONEY RECEIVED ON SALE OF VARIOUS UNI TS IN THE VIEW PROJECT AND RS.1,89,38,425/- ON ACCOUNT OF ON-MONEY RECEIVED ON SALE OF VARIOUS UNITS IN THE VIEW PROJECT AND RS. 2,49,482/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN HOUSE PROPERTY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES BROUGHT INTO L IGHT BY THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN IT(SS)ANO.22/IND/2017, SHRI NI TESH CHUGH 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION RS.2,08,00,000/- MAD E BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF ON-MONEY RECEIVED ON SALE OF AGRICULTURA L LAND WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES BROUGHT INTO L IGHT BY THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITANO.122/IND/2017, SHRI NITES H CHUGH 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION RS.3,39,000/- MADE B Y THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF CASH LOAN GIVEN FROM UNACCOUNTED INCOME AND RS.1,75,48,900/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTME NT IN PURCHASE OF PLOTS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AN D EVIDENCES BROUGHT INTO LIGHT BY THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITANO.238/IND/2017, M/S CHUGH REALITY 1.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS .22,71,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION FROM THE SALE OF UNIT S OF THE MARK PROJECT AND RS.5,26,74,600/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAI NED INVESTMENT MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 5 IN PULAK CITY PROJECT AND RS.3,81,11,476/- ON ACC OUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN SUN CITY PROJECT WITHO UT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES BROUGHT IN TO LIGHT BY THE AO D URING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2. FIRST, WE SHALL TAKE UP THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS FILED IN THE CASE OF MOHANLAL CHUG FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011 -12 TO 2013- 14. FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN IN DIVIDUAL AND A KEY PERSON OF ONE REAL ESTATE GROUP OF INDORE TITLED AS CHUGH GROUP. SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS U/S. 132 OF THE ACT W ERE INITIATED IN THE CHUGH GROUP BY THE DDIT(INV.)-II, INDORE ON 21- 09-2012. SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICES U/S 153A OF THE ACT WERE ISSU ED TO THE ASSESSEE AND IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED RE TURNS FOR RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THEREAFTER, THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE, FOR ALL THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTIN Y AND NECESSARY NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT SERVED UPO N THE ASSESSEE. FINALLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FRAMED THE ASSESSMEN TS FOR A.YS. 2011-12 AND 2012-13 U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE A CT AND FOR A.Y. 2013-14 U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, BY PASSING A COMMON ORDER DATED 30.03.2015. MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 6 3. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEALS FOR ALL THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. 4. FELT AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEALS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL FOR ALL THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS. AS ALL THREE AP PEALS RELATE TO THE SAME ASSESSEE AND THE ISSUES RAISED ARE COMMON, THE Y WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. GROUND NO. 1 FOR A.Y. 2011-12 : 5 . THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE PERTAINS T O ADDITIONS OF RS.1,89,38,425/- AND RS.32,70,000/- MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ON-MONEY RECEIVED ON SALE OF UNITS IN THE VIEW AND ALMAS ELEMENTS PROJECTS RESPECTIVELY OF THE ASSES SEE. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE RECORDS ARE THAT THE A SSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS WIFE NAMELY SMT. REENA DEVI CHUGH HAD CONSTRUCT ED MANY MULTI-STORIED HOUSING UNITS IN THE NAME OF THE VIE W NEAR LAAD COLONY, INDORE DURING F.YS. 2009-10, 2010-11 AND 20 11-12. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ON EXAMINATION DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE, THE RECEIPTS OF RS.6,33,12,350/ - AS PER REGISTERED SALE DEEDS FROM SALE OF UNITS IN THE VI EW PROJECT WERE NOT MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 7 FOUND RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT THE TAXABLE PROFIT CANNO T BE LESS THAN 30% OF THE TOTAL SALES CONSIDERATION AS PER REGISTERED SALE DEEDS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT IN REAL ESTATE BU SINESS, NORMALLY THE ACTUAL SALES CONSIDERATIONS ARE AT LEAST TWICE OF THE AMOUNTS SHOWN IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEEDS. THE ASSESSING O FFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT 19% PROFIT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SALE OF UNITS IN THE VIEW PROJECT IS CONTRARY TO THE ACTUAL SCENARIO. THE AO MADE A COMPARISON OF THE VIEW PR OJECT WITH ONE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT OF THE ASSESSEE TITLED AS ALMA S ELEMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER ADDED THAT THE COST OF CO NSTRUCTION WOULD HAVE BEEN LOWER IN COMMERCIAL PROJECT AS THE QUALIT Y OF FINISHING VARIES DRASTICALLY IN BOTH THE TYPE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT THE VARIOUS MEMBERS OF THE GROUP WERE INVOLVED IN RECEIVING ON- MONEY IN LAND TRANSACTIONS. AS PER THE ASSESSING OF FICER, SOME INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND BY THE SEARCH PA RTY IN THIS REGARD AND SHRI NITESH CHUGH HAD ALSO CONFIRMED THE RECEIPT OF ON- MONEY IN HIS CASE. IN ANOTHER CASE, IT WAS FOUND TH AT SHRI VIVEK CHUGH HAD RECEIVED CASH OF RS.35 LAKHS AND THE SAME WAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 8 OFFICER ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE AN D HIS WIFE SMT. REENA DEVI CHUGH FROM THE VIEW PROJECT @ 30% AND MADE AN ADDITION IN THE ASSESSEES INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SHO RT-TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE AO ALSO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE AND THE CO-OW NER MIGHT HAVE RECEIVED ON-MONEY EQUIVALENT TO THE VALUE STATED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEEDS, ON SALE OF VARIOUS UNITS IN THE VIEW PROJECT AND THEREFORE, HE MADE ADDITIONS EQUIVALENT TO THE AMOU NT STATED IN REGISTERED SALE DEEDS BY DIVIDING SUCH AMOUNT BETWE EN THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE EQUALLY IN THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS VIZ. A.YS. 2010-11 TO 2012-13 IN THE SAME PROPORTION IN WHICH THE SALE RE GISTRIES WERE EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE [RS.1,89,38,425/- FOR A.Y. 2011-12 AND RS.27,30,000/- FOR A.Y. 2012-13]. IN RESPECT OF ONE ANOTHER PROJECT OF THE ASSESSEE TITLED AS ALMAS ELEMENTS, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD MANY FLATS AND DUP LEXES IN THE NAME OF ALMAS ELEMENTS NEAR SAKET NAGAR, INDORE D URING F.Y. 2011-12 AND F.Y. 2012-13. AGAIN, IN RESPECT OF THIS PROJECT TOO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.5,39, 32,500/- AS PER REGISTERED SALE DEEDS FROM SALE OF FLATS IN ALMAS ELEMENTS WAS NOT FOUND RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF T HE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAIN NOTED THAT NORMALLY THE ACT UAL SALES MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 9 CONSIDERATIONS ARE AT LEAST TWICE THE AMOUNT AS PER THE REGISTERED DEEDS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN A DDITION OF RS.32,70,000/-, RS.3,65,88,500/- AND RS.1,40,74,000 /-, RESPECTIVELY, FOR A.YS. 2011-12, 2012-13 AND 2013-1 4 ON ACCOUNT OF ON-MONEY FROM SALE OF UNITS IN ALMAS ELEMENTS PRO JECT. 6. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS HIMSELF CLAIMED NOT TO HAVE MAINTAINED ANY REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S 44AA OF THE ACT, BUT THE BILLS, VOUCHERS AND DETAIL S IN RESPECT OF THE PROJECTS WERE DULY PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OF FICER. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO NOTED THAT IN THE ORIGINAL RETURNS U/S 139 AS WELL AS RETURNS FURNISHED IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICES U/S 153A , THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY SHOWN INCOME FROM SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAIN FROM SALE OF UNITS IN THE VIEW PROJECT. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADDED RS.30 ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT AND RS .100/- AS ON- MONEY RECEIVED I.E. RS.130/- ON SALES OF RS.100/- W HICH IS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE AND ARBITRARY IN THE LINE OF THIS BUSINE SS. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUN D IN THE HANDS OF OTHER MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEES FAMILY HAVE NO R ELATION WITH THE MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 10 ISSUE ON HAND. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER NOTED THAT TH E TWO PROJECTS THE VIEW AND ALMAS ELEMENTS CANNOT BE COMPARED AS THE FIRST ONE IS COMMERCIAL AND THE SECOND IS RESIDENTIAL, THEY A RE SITUATED AT DIFFERENT LOCATIONS AND TIME PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION IS ALSO DIFFERENT. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD PRODUCED ALL THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF COST OF CONSTR UCTION OF THE PROJECT AND NO DEFECT OR DISCREPANCY IN SUCH BILLS AND VOUCHERS WAS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE HAVE JOINTLY SHOWN SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.1,20,21,991/- ON DEEMED SALES CONSIDERATION OF RS.6,55,18,000/- U/S 50C WHICH WORKS OUT TO 18.34%. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE AND CO-OWNER HAVE NOT CLAIMED ANY OTHER AD MINISTRATIONS EXPENSES, FINANCIAL EXPENSES OR DEPRECIATION AS THE ASSESSEE CARRIED OUT THE ACTIVITIES OF DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT AS AN INVESTOR AND NOT AS A BUILDER. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO NOTED THAT WITHOUT B RINGING ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE ON RECORD THE PROFIT OF THE PROJECT CANNOT BE ESTIMATED @30%. IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER PROJECT AL MAS ELEMENTS, THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY SHO WN INCOME FROM BUSINESS IN RESPECT OF SALE OF UNITS IN ALMAS ELEM ENTS IN HIS ORIGINAL RETURNS OF INCOME AS WELL AS RETURNS FURNI SHED IN RESPONSE MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 11 TO NOTICES U/S 153A. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER NOTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN INCOME AGGREGATING TO RS.3,21,08,829/- FO R A.YS. 2011- 12, 2012-13 AND 2013-14 WHICH IS MORE THAN 30% OF S ALE CONSIDERATION OF VARIOUS UNITS. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED A LIST SHOWING COMPLETE NAME , ADDRESS, PAN ETC. OF THE BUYERS TO WHOM THE UNITS IN THE ALMAS ELEMENTS PROJECT HAD BEEN SOLD AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS REQUEST ED TO VERIFY THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF RECEIPT OF SALE CONSIDERATION FROM THE BUYERS OF PROPERTIES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SIMPLY B Y REJECTING THE EXPLANATION AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIS REGARDING ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES MADE AN ADDITION EQUIVALE NT TO THE AMOUNT OF SALES CONSIDERATION WHICH WAS GETTING REF LECTED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEEDS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO A SSUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE ON-MONEY COMPONENT ON THE SALE OF FLATS BELONGING TO THE SHARE OF THE DEVELOPER. THE LD. CI T(A) RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F K.P. VARGHESE VS. ITO & ANR. (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) WHEREIN IT H AS BEEN HELD THAT THE ONUS LIES ON THE REVENUE TO ESTABLISH THAT AN A SSESSEE HAS UNDERSTATED THE CONSIDERATION FOR TRANSFER OF AN IM MOVABLE PROPERTY AND UNLESS SUCH ONUS IS DISCHARGED BY THE REVENUE, THERE CANNOT BE MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 12 ANY PRESUMPTION AS REGARD TO THE UNDERSTATEMENT. AC CORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT NO EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MAKING ANY INVESTIGATION OR ENQUIRY TO SUBSTANT IATE HIS THEORY OF RECEIPT OF ON-MONEY OR ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT @30 %. FINALLY, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITIONS SO MADE BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSEES INCOME IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE VIEW AND ALMAS ELE MENTS PROJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), TH E REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE LD. CIT-DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. DR ALSO FILED A PAPE R BOOK WHICH IS CAREFULLY PERUSED AND PLACED ON RECORD. PER CONTRA LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED AND RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT- DR, EXCEPT PLACING HIS RELIANCE ON THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, COULD NOT BRING ANY CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO J USTIFY THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE FIND TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY SHOWN THE SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAIN FROM SAL E OF UNITS IN THE VIEW PROJECT AND BUSINESS INCOME FROM SALE OF UNITS IN ALMAS MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 13 ELEMENTS PROJECT IN HIS ORIGINAL RETURNS OF INCOME FURNISHED U/S 139 OF THE ACT. WE FURTHER FIND THAT DURING THE COU RSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY FURNI SHED ALL THE NECESSARY DETAILS, DOCUMENTS, BILLS, VOUCHERS ETC. IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE PROJECTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT MADE ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION FROM THE BUYERS OF THE PROPERTY AS RE GARD TO ACTUAL RECEIPT OF SALE CONSIDERATION DESPITE SPECIFICALLY BEING INSISTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANY INCR IMINATING MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE ON RECORD WHICH COULD SUBSTANT IATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED ANY ON-MONEY FROM TH E SALE OF UNITS IN THE VIEW AND ALMAS ELEMENTS PROJECTS. WE ALS O FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY SHOWN THE INCOME BY HAVING REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITIONS PURELY ON HIS GUESS WORK AND SURMISES WHICH DO NOT HAVE ANY BASIS WHATSOEVER. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE ACTION OF THE L D. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.1,89,38,425/- AND RS.32,70,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 14 THE VIEW AND ALMAS ELEMENTS PROJECTS RESPECTIVE LY, IS HEREBY SUSTAINED. THUS, THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IN THE APPE AL OF THE REVENUE FOR THE A.Y. 2011-12 IS DISMISSED. GROUND NO. 1 FOR A.Y. 2012-13: 8. THE ONLY GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR A.Y . 2012-13 PERTAINS TO ADDITIONS OF RS.27,30,000/- AND RS.3,65 ,88,500/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ON-MONEY REC EIVED ON SALE OF UNITS IN THE VIEW AND ALMAS ELEMENTS PROJECTS R ESPECTIVELY OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS IDENTICAL WITH THAT RAISED FOR THE A.Y. 2011- 12. FURTHER, WHILE DEALING WITH THE IDENTICAL GROUN D NO. 1 FOR A.Y. 2011-12 IN THE PRECEDING PARAS, WE HAVE DISCUSSED I N DETAIL ON THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE VIE W AND ALMAS ELEMENTS PROJECTS. ACCORDINGLY, FOLLOWING OUR OWN FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE PRECEDING PARAS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE R EVENUE IS DISMISSED. GROUND NO. 1 FOR A.Y. 2013-14: 9. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE FOR A.Y. 2013-14 PERTAINS TO ADDITIONS OF RS.1,40,74,000/- O N ACCOUNT OF ON- MONEY RECEIVED ON SALE OF UNITS IN ALMAS ELEMENTS PROJECT, MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 15 RS.1,75,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTME NT IN PROPERTY AND RS.3,79,04,952/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVE STMENT FOR PURCHASE OF PLOTS IN PULAK CITY PROJECT. 10. THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE ADDITION OF RS.1,40,7 4,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ON-MONEY RECEIVED ON SALE OF UNITS IN A LMAS ELEMENTS PROJECT HAS ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH BY US WHILE ADJ UDICATING THE GROUND NO. 1 FOR A.Y. 2011-12 IN THE PRECEDING PARA S. ACCORDINGLY, FOLLOWING OUR OWN FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE PRECEDING P ARAS, THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,40, 74,000/- FOR A.Y. 2013-14 IS CONFIRMED. 11. NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS.1,75,00, 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY, THE BRIEFLY STATED FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE RECORDS ARE THAT DURIN G THE COURSE OF SEARCH, AN UNEXECUTED, UNSIGNED, UNDATED SALE AGREE MENT BETWEEN PARTNERS OF M/S. GOLD TERRACE APARTMENT AND CHUGH F AMILY FOR SALE OF 16.34 ACRES LAND AT VILLAGE BHORASALA FOR RS.18, 00,00,000/- WAS FOUND AND SEIZED VIDE PAGE NO. 112 TO 116 OF LPS-6. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF PAYMENTS MAD E IN RESPECT OF MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 16 SUCH SALE AGREEMENT AND TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY AN ADDITION OF RS.1,75,00,000/- BE NOT MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLO SED PAYMENT FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT SUCH AGREEMENT WAS NOT EXECUTED AND ULTIMATELY, THE DEAL HAS GOT CANCELLED. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT IN RESP ECT OF THE SAID LAND, ONLY TOKEN MONEY OF RS.50,00,000/- WAS PAID T HROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE DATED 23-05-2012 AND EXCEPT MAKING SUC H PAYMENT, NO FURTHER PAYMENT WAS MADE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND STATED THAT IF THE AGREEMENT WAS CANCELLED, THE AMOUNT WOULD HAVE BEEN REFUNDED TO T HE CHUGH FAMILY. HOWEVER, THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.50,00,000/- WAS NOT FOUND RETURNED BY THE SELLER TO THE ASSESSEE FAMILY. THUS , THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE INSTALLMENT OF RS.1,75,00,00 0/- WHICH, AS PER THE AGREEMENT, WAS PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE ON 01.09 .2012, WOULD HAVE ALSO BEEN PAID BY THE CHUGH FAMILY. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT WHILE EXAMINING THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FAMILY, THIS PAYMENT WAS NOT FOUND RECORDE D IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ANY OF THE ASSESSEES OF CHUGH F AMILY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SUMMONS AND NOTICES U/S 13 1 AND 133(6) TO SHRI MAHAVIR JAIN, EX-PARTNER OF THE FIRM M/S. G OLD TERRACE MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 17 APARTMENT, BUT SHRI MAHAVIR JAIN HAD NEITHER ATTEND ED NOR FILED ANY REPLY. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN A DDITION OF RS.1,75,00,000/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON AC COUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE IN HOUSE PROPERTY. 11.1 BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A), AT PARA (5.2) OF THE IM PUGNED ORDER, NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS ON LY AT DRAFT STAGE, A FACT WHICH IS BROUGHT OUT BY THE UNSIGNED, UNDATED AGREEMENT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SELLERS FAILED TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS ESTABLISHING THEIR CLEAR TITLE DUE TO WHICH THE AGREEMENT CAME TO AN END. THE SUM OF RS.5 0,00,000/- WHICH WAS PAID BY SHRI NITESH CHUGH, THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE, TO THE SELLERS WAS RETURNED BY THEM TO SHRI NITESH CHU GH VIDE RTGS ON 29.04.2013. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER A NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI ANIL SOGANI, ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF M/S. GOLD TERRACE APARTMENT, THE PURPORTED SELLE R, STATING THAT OTHER THAN THE INITIAL TOKEN MONEY OF RS.50,00,000/ -, NO OTHER PAYMENT WAS MADE TOWARDS THE SAID AGREEMENT. IT IS ALSO STATED IN THE AFFIDAVIT THAT THE ADVANCE OF RS.50,00,000/- WA S REFUNDED ON MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 18 29.04.2013 THROUGH RTGS. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER FOU ND THAT THE AFFIDAVIT REMAINED UNCONTROVERTED. THE LD. CIT(A) A LSO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE FIRST INSTALLMENT OF RS.1,75,00,000/- WAS PAID BEFORE THE DATE OF THE SEARCH. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER OBSE RVED THAT THE AGREEMENT STATES THE ASSESSEE AND HIS TWO SONS AS T HE JOINT PURCHASERS AND THE ADVANCE OF RS.50,00,000/- WAS PA ID BY ONE OF THE SONS, SHRI NITESH CHUGH BUT THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,75,00,000/- TOWARDS THE FIRST INSTALLMENT HAS BEEN MADE ONLY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT HIS TWO SONS WITHOUT ANY BASIS OR JUSTIFICATION. THE LD. CIT(A) CITED AND RELIED UPON VARIOUS AUTHORITIE S WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHEN THE SEIZED PAPERS HAVE NOT BEEN CORROBORATED BY ANY INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE, IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERE D AS ACCEPTABLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE. FINALLY, THE LD. CIT(A) MADE A F INDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SIMPLY PROCEEDED TO MAKE ADDI TIONS ON THE BASIS OF THE DOCUMENTS IN QUESTION WITHOUT BRINGING ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT RS.1,75,00,000/- WAS PAID BY TH E ASSESSEE TOWARDS THE FIRST INSTALLMENT AS PER THE TERMS OF T HE UNSIGNED, UNDATED AGREEMENT SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARC H WHICH IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE, SUSTAINABLE AND JUSTIFIED APPROACH. ACCORDINGLY, THE MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 19 LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,75,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 11.2 FELT AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFO RE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE LD. CIT-DR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED SUPPORTI NG THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. DR ALSO FILED A PAPE R BOOK WHICH IS CAREFULLY PERUSED AND PLACED ON RECORD. PER CONTRA LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED AND RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A). 11.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREF ULLY PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT-DR, EXCEPT PLACING HIS RELIANCE ON THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, COULD NOT BRING ANY CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO J USTIFY THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE FIND TH AT DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY FURNISHED A NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI ANIL SOGANI , ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF M/S. GOLD TERRACE APARTMENT, STATING TH AT EXCEPT A PAYMENT OF RS.50,00,000/-, NO OTHER PAYMENT WAS MAD E TOWARDS THE SAID AGREEMENT. HOWEVER, THE SAID AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE ALSO FIND THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ONLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DEMONSTRATED MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 20 THE REFUND OF RS.50,00,000/- TO SHRI NITESH CHUGH O N 29.04.2013 THROUGH RTGS BUT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT MAK E ANY REFERENCE THEREOF IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER AND INSTEAD, THE AO MADE AN INCORRECT FINDING TO THE EFFECT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.50,00,000/- WAS NOT FOUND REFUNDED BY THE SELLER TO THE ASSESSEE FA MILY. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, EXCEPT PLACING HIS RELI ANCE ON THE PAYMENT TERMS STATED IN THE UNSIGNED AND UNDATED AG REEMENT, COULD NOT BRING ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE ON RECOR D TO ESTABLISH THAT THE INSTALLMENT OF RS.1,75,00,000/- WAS ACTUAL LY PAID BEFORE THE DATE OF THE SEARCH. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY PERU SED THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED AND DISCUSSED BY THE LD. CIT(A ) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD . CIT(A) ARE DIRECTLY APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT ISSUE TO AVOID R EPETITION, THE SAME ARE NOT DISCUSSED HERE AGAIN. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDI TION OF RS.1,75,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON T HIS COUNT. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE T O THIS EFFECT HAS NO MERITS. MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 21 12. NOW, AS REGARD THE ADDITION OF RS.3,79,04,952/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT FOR PURCHASE OF P LOTS IN PULAK CITY, THE BRIEFLY STATED FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM T HE RECORDS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED 25 PLOTS (TOTAL AREA 31, 372 SQ. FT.) IN PULAK CITY COLONY LOCATED AT RAU PITHAMPUR ROAD. TH E ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PURCHASE OF THESE PLOTS IN MARCH 2013 AT A TO TAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,25,48,800/- (EXCLUDING REGIST RY EXPENSES). HOWEVER, IT IS SEEN FROM THE REGISTRY DOCUMENTS THA T AS PER THE GOVERNMENT GUIDELINE VALUE FOR THESE PLOTS WAS RS.3 ,20,93,556/-. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS AGAINST THE GUIDELINE VALUE OF RS.1023/- PER SQ FT., THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PURCHA SE OF THESE PLOTS AT RS.400/- PER SQ. FT. ONLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT SHRI VIVEK CHUGH (SON OF THE ASSESSEE) HAS ALSO PUR CHASED 27 PLOTS (TOTAL AREA 31,372 SQ. FT.) IN PULAK CITY FOR A TOT AL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,23,40,800/- (EXCLUDING REGISTRY EXPENSES) A S AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT GUIDELINE VALUE OF RS.3,07,00,996/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO OBSERVED THAT IN ANOTHER SEARCH GROUP NAMELY JHAVERI GROUP OF INDORE, EVIDENCES WERE FOUND THAT IN THEI R PROJECT NAMELY SILICON CITY LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF THE PULAK C ITY, PREVAILING RATE OF PLOTS IN A.Y. 2012-13 WAS RS.750/- PER SQ. FT. AND IN A.Y. 2013-14, MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 22 IT WAS RS.1100/- PER SQ. FT. THE AO FURTHER NOTED T HAT DURING THE COURSE OF SIMULTANEOUS ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN TH E CASE OF SHRI VIVEK CHUGH, AN UNDERTAKING WAS FILED BY THE ASSESS EE THAT IF ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME/ EXPENDITURE/ INVESTMENT IS FOUN D, THE SAME MAY BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, B EING FATHER OF SHRI VIVEK CHUGH AND MAIN EARNING MEMBER OF FAMILY. THEREFORE, THE AO NOTED THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT FOUND IN PULAK CITY IN THE NAME OF SHRI VIVEK CHUGH WILL ALSO BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y. 2013-14. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPRESSED THE P URCHASE PRICE OF PLOTS IN PULAK CITY, INDORE AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1,95,44,756/- [RS.3,20,93,556 MINUS RS.1,25,48,8 00] IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y. 2013-14 ON ACCOU NT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PLOTS IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE IN PULAK CITY. FURTHERMORE, AN ADDITION OF RS.1,83, 60,196/- [RS.3,07,00,996 MINUS RS.1,23,40,800] HAS ALSO BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INV ESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN PURCHASE OF PLOTS IN PULAK CITY IN THE NAME OF SHRI VIVEK CHUGH. ACCORDINGLY, AN AGGREGATE ADDITIO N OF RS.3,79,04,952/- WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 23 ASSESSEES INCOME FOR A.Y. 2013-14 ON ACCOUNT OF UN EXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN LAND. 12.1 BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN AP PEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A), AT PARA (6.4) OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE AD DITION BY RELYING ON THE OBSERVATION THAT THE ASSESSEE GROUP IS IN CO NTINUOUS PROCESS OF EARNING UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND HAS MADE REFERENC E TO SOME EVIDENCES FOUND DURING THE SEARCH REGARDING OTHER I SSUES. AS PER THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN ANOTHER PROJECT SILICON CITY OF THE JHAVERI GROUP LOCATED I N THE VICINITY OF PULAK CITY, THE PREVAILING RATE OF PLOTS WAS RS.750 /- PER SQ. FT. IN A.Y. 2012-13 AND RS.1100/- PER SQ. FT. IN A.Y. 2013 -14. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A), ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WERE SUBMITTED UNDER RULE 46A WHICH WERE DULY FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR COMMENTS. AC CORDING TO THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NEITHER OBJEC TED TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES NOR OFFERED A NY COMMENTS. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER NOTED THAT THE COLONY PULAK CITY WAS BEING DEVELOPED BY SHRI RITESH AJMERA AND DUE TO SOME ENC ROACHMENTS, MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 24 VARIOUS CASES WERE PENDING BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FORU MS IN RESPECT OF THE SAID COLONY. SUCH FACT IS SEEN FROM THE NEWSPAP ER CUTTINGS WHICH HAVE BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT(A) AL SO NOTED THAT THE DETAILS OF OTHER PARTIES WHO HAVE PURCHASED THE PLO TS IN SAME COLONY AT RS.400/- PER SQ. FT. HAVE ALSO BEEN PLACED ON RE CORD. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH, NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT OR MATERIAL WAS FOUND TO SHO W THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNT STATED IN THE PURCHASE DEEDS FOR THE PLOTS IN PULAK CITY. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT ESTIMATION OF THE ADDITIONS ON THE BA SIS OF THE ASSUMPTION THAT AS THE GROUP MEMBERS INDULGE IN REC EIVING ON- MONEY IN LAND TRANSACTIONS, THERE IS UNDISCLOSED CO NSIDERATION PAID FOR PURCHASE OF PLOTS IN PULAK CITY IS NOT AN ACCEP TABLE, SUSTAINABLE AND JUSTIFIED APPROACH. THE LD. CIT(A) RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF K.P. VARGHESE VS. ITO & ANR. (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD TH AT THE ONUS LIES ON THE REVENUE TO ESTABLISH THAT AN ASSESSEE HAS UN DERSTATED THE CONSIDERATION FOR TRANSFER OF AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND UNLESS SUCH ONUS IS DISCHARGED BY THE REVENUE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY PRESUMPTION AS REGARD TO THE UNDERSTATEMENT. THUS, THE LD. CIT(A) MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 25 HELD THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.3,79,04,952/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT FOR PURCHASE OF PLOTS IN PUL AK CITY ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE CONSIDERATION PAID BEING LESS T HAN THE GUIDELINE VALUE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT (A) DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS.3,79,04,952/- MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSEES INCOME. 12.2 BEING AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEF ORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE LD. CIT-DR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED SUPPORTI NG THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. DR ALSO FILED A PAPE R BOOK WHICH IS CAREFULLY PERUSED AND PLACED ON RECORD. PER CONTRA LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED AND RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A). 12.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREF ULLY PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS FURNISHED VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES INCLUDING N EWSPAPER CUTTINGS IN SUPPORT OF THE DISPUTED NATURE OF THE C OLONY. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED THE DETAI LS OF OTHER PARTIES WHO HAVE PURCHASED THE PLOTS IN SAME COLONY AT THE SAME RATE OF RS.400/- PER SQ. FT. AT WHICH THE ASSESSEE AND HIS SON PURCHASED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NEITHER COMMEN T NOR MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 26 CONTROVERT ANY SINGLE DOCUMENT OR EVIDENCE FURNISHE D BY THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO EST ABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID ANY CONSIDERATION OVER AND ABOVE THAT STATED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEEDS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS ALSO NOT MADE ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY FROM THE SELLERS OR FR OM THE OTHER PARTIES WHO HAVE PURCHASED THE PLOTS IN THE PULAK C ITY. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANY INCR IMINATING DOCUMENT OR MATERIAL ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS PAID ANY AMOUNT OVER AND ABOVE THE PURCHASE CONSIDE RATION STATED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEEDS. WE NOTED THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS MADE A REFERENCE OF SOME RATES PREVAILING IN SILICO N CITY OF JHAVERI GROUP OF INDORE BUT, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IT CANNOT BE A PARAMETER OR YARDSTICK FOR DETERMINING THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE PLOTS IN ANOTHER COLONY. THUS, IN OUR VIEW, THE ONU S WAS LYING ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D PAID ANY ON- MONEY OVER AND ABOVE THAT STATED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEEDS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO DISCHARGE SUCH ONUS AND MADE THE ADDITION MERELY ON ASSUMPTION AND PRESUMPT ION. WE FURTHER FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSE E THAT THE MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 27 IMPUGNED TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASES WERE CARRIED OUT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-13 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2013-14 AND FOR SUCH YEAR, THE PROVISIONS OF S.56(2)(VII) WERE NOT MADE APPLIC ABLE. IT IS WORTH TO NOTE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF S.56(2)(VII) HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED IN THE STATUTE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2013 W.E.F. 1.4.2014 ON LY AND SUCH PROVISIONS ARE NOT RETROSPECTIVE IN THE NATURE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, MERELY ON THE PRESUMPTION BASIS, ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE GUIDELINE VALUE AND APPARENT CONSIDERATION PAID BY AN ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY CANNOT BE DEE MED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. UNDISPUTEDLY, IN THE PRESENT CASE, NO POSITIVE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS PARTED WITH ANY CONSIDERATION OVER AND ABOVE TH AT SHOWN IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEEDS. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE AR E OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DEL ETED THE ADDITION OF RS.3,79,04,952/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER I N THE ASSESSEES INCOME ON THE ALLEGATION OF PAYMENT OF ON-MONEY BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS SON SHRI VIVEK CHUGH. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GRO UND OF THE REVENUE FOR THE A.Y. 2013-14 IS DISMISSED. MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 28 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE FOR T HE A.YS. 2011-12, 2012-13 AND 2013-14 ARE DISMISSED. SMT. REENA DEVI CHUGH (A.Y. 2011-12) 14. REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2 011-12 BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL RAISING THE ONLY GROUND OF APPEAL CHA LLENGING THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.20,85,427/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ON-MONEY RECEIVED ON SALE OF VARIOUS UNITS IN THE VIEW PROJECT AND RS.1,89,38,425/- ON ACCOUNT OF ON-MONEY RECEIVED ON SALE OF VARIOUS UNITS IN T HE VIEW PROJECT AND RS.2,49,482/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN HOUSE PROPERTY. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE RECORDS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH H ER HUSBAND NAMELY SHRI MOHANLAL CHUGH HAD CONSTRUCTED MANY MUL TI-STORIED HOUSING UNITS IN THE NAME OF THE VIEW NEAR LAAD C OLONY, INDORE DURING F.YS. 2009-10, 2010-11 AND 2011-12. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, NOTED THAT ON EXAMINATION DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE, THE RECEIPTS OF RS.6, 33,12,350/- AS PER REGISTERED SALE DEEDS FROM SALE OF UNITS IN THE VI EW PROJECT WERE NOT FOUND RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER STATED THAT THE TAXABLE PROFIT CANN OT BE LESS THAN 30% MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 29 OF THE TOTAL SALES CONSIDERATION AS PER REGISTERED SALE DEEDS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT IN REAL ESTATE BU SINESS, NORMALLY THE ACTUAL SALES CONSIDERATIONS ARE AT LEAST TWICE OF THE AMOUNTS SHOWN IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEEDS. THE ASSESSING O FFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT 19% PROFIT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SALE OF UNITS IN THE VIEW PROJECT IS CONTRARY TO THE ACTUAL SCENARIO. THE AO MADE A COMPARISON OF THE V IEW PROJECT WITH ONE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT OF THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE TITLED AS ALMAS ELEMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER ADD ED THAT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION WOULD HAVE BEEN LOWER IN COMMERCIAL PROJECT AS THE QUALITY OF FINISHING VARIES DRASTICALLY IN BOTH THE TYPE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT THE VARIOUS MEMBERS OF THE GROUP WERE INVOLVED IN RECEIVING ON-MONEY IN LAND TRANSACTIONS . AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SOME INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WER E FOUND BY THE SEARCH PARTY IN THIS REGARD AND SHRI NITESH CHUGH H AD ALSO CONFIRMED THE RECEIPT OF ON-MONEY IN HIS CASE. IN A NOTHER CASE, IT WAS FOUND THAT SHRI VIVEK CHUGH HAD RECEIVED CASH O F RS.35 LAKHS AND THE SAME WAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE NE T PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND SHRI MOHANLAL CHUGH FROM THE VIEW MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 30 PROJECT @ 30% AND MADE AN ADDITION IN THE ASSESSEE S INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAIN [RS.20,85,427/- FOR A.Y. 2011- 12]. BESIDES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE AND THE CO-OWNER MIGHT HAVE RECEIVED ON-MONEY EQUIVALENT TO THE VALUE STATED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEEDS, ON SALE OF VAR IOUS UNITS IN THE VIEW PROJECT AND THEREFORE, HE MADE ADDITIONS EQUI VALENT TO THE AMOUNT STATED IN REGISTERED SALE DEEDS BY DIVIDING SUCH AMOUNT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND EQUALLY IN THR EE ASSESSMENT YEARS VIZ. A.YS. 2010-11 TO 2012-13 IN THE SAME PRO PORTION IN WHICH THE SALE REGISTRIES WERE EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE [ RS.1,89,38,425/- FOR A.Y. 2011-12]. 15. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS HERSELF CLAIMED NOT TO HAVE MAINTAINED ANY REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S 44AA OF THE ACT, BUT THE BILLS, VOUCHERS AND DETAIL S IN RESPECT OF THE PROJECTS WERE DULY PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OF FICER. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO NOTED THAT IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN U/S 1 39 AS WELL AS RETURN FURNISHED IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICE U/S 153A, THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY SHOWN INCOME FROM SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAIN FROM SALE OF UNITS MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 31 IN THE VIEW PROJECT. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADDED RS.30 ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT AND RS.100/- A S ON-MONEY RECEIVED I.E. RS.130/- ON SALES OF RS.100/- WHICH I S HIGHLY IMPROBABLE AND ARBITRARY IN THE LINE OF THIS BUSINE SS. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUN D IN THE HANDS OF OTHER MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEES FAMILY HAVE NO R ELATION WITH THE ISSUE ON HAND. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER STATED THAT T HE TWO PROJECTS THE VIEW AND ALMAS ELEMENTS CANNOT BE COMPARED AS THE FIRST ONE IS COMMERCIAL AND THE SECOND IS RESIDENTIAL, THEY A RE SITUATED AT DIFFERENT LOCATIONS AND TIME PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION IS ALSO DIFFERENT. THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODU CED ALL THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT AND NO DEFECT OR DISCREPANCY IN SUCH BILLS AND VOUCHERS WA S FOUND BY THE AO. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND HAVE JOINTLY SHOWN SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.1,20,21 ,991/- ON DEEMED SALES CONSIDERATION OF RS.6,55,18,000/- U/S 50C WHI CH WORKS OUT TO 18.34%. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE AND CO-OWNER HAVE NOT CLAIMED ANY OTHER ADMINISTRATIONS EXPENSES, FINANCIAL EXPENSES OR DEPRECIATION AS THE ASSESSEE CARRIED OUT THE ACTIVITIES OF DEVEL OPMENT OF PROJECT AS AN INVESTOR AND NOT AS A BUILDER. THE LD. CIT(A) FU RTHER STATED THAT MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 32 WITHOUT BRINGING ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE ON RECO RD THE PROFIT OF THE PROJECT CANNOT BE ESTIMATED @30%. THE LD. CIT(A ) RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F K.P. VARGHESE VS. ITO & ANR. (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) WHEREIN IT H AS BEEN HELD THAT THE ONUS LIES ON THE REVENUE TO ESTABLISH THAT AN A SSESSEE HAS UNDERSTATED THE CONSIDERATION FOR TRANSFER OF AN IM MOVABLE PROPERTY AND UNLESS SUCH ONUS IS DISCHARGED BY THE REVENUE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY PRESUMPTION AS REGARD TO THE UNDERSTATEMENT. AC CORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT NO EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MAKING ANY INVESTIGATION OR ENQUIRY TO SUBSTANT IATE HIS THEORY OF RECEIPT OF ON-MONEY OR ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT @30 %. FINALLY, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITIONS OF RS.20,85,427/- AND RS.1,89,38,425/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN T HE ASSESSEES INCOME IN RESPECT OF THE VIEW PROJECT OF THE ASSE SSEE. 16. NOW, AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), TH E REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE LD. CIT-DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. PER CONTRA LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE REFERRED AND RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A). MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 33 17 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT- DR, EXCEPT PLACING HIS RELIANCE ON THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, COULD NOT BRING ANY CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO J USTIFY THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE FIND TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY SHOWN THE SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAIN FROM SAL E OF UNITS IN THE VIEW PROJECT IN HIS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FURNISHED U/S 139 OF THE ACT. WE FURTHER FIND THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY FURNISHED ALL TH E NECESSARY DETAILS, DOCUMENTS, BILLS, VOUCHERS ETC. IN RESPECT OF THE PROJECT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT MADE ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY OR INVEST IGATION FROM THE BUYERS OF THE PROPERTY AS REGARD TO ACTUAL RECE IPT OF SALE CONSIDERATION DESPITE SPECIFICALLY BEING INSISTED B Y THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FU RTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANY INCRIMIN ATING MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE ON RECORD WHICH COULD SUBSTANTIATE THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED ANY ON-MONEY FROM THE SALE OF UNI TS IN THE VIEW PROJECT. WE ALSO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY S HOWN THE INCOME BY HAVING REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C O F THE ACT. MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 34 THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITIONS PURELY ON HIS GUESS WORK AND SURMISES WHICH DO NOT HAVE ANY BASIS WHATSOEVER. WE FIND OURSELVES IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT( A). ACCORDINGLY, THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.20,85,427/- AND RS.1,89,38,425/- ON ACCOUNT OF THE VIEW PROJE CT IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. 18. NOW, AS REGARD THE ISSUE REGARDING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,49,482/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INVEST MENT IN HOUSE PROPERTY, THE BRIEFLY STATED FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE RECORDS ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH PR OCEEDINGS, IT WAS FOUND THAT A PALATIAL HOUSE IN THE NAME OF THE ASSE SSEE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT 85, PRAGATI VIHAR, INDORE. AS PER T HE ASSESSING OFFICER, INVESTMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE WA S NOT FOUND DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQ UIRED TO EXPLAIN THE TOTAL INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE MADE BY HER AND SOURCES THEREOF. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE FILED HE R REPLY. THEREAFTER, A REFERENCE U/S 142A OF THE ACT WAS MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 35 TO THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER, BHOPAL FOR ESTIM ATION OF VALUE OF INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAID HOUSE. THE D VO SUBMITTED HIS VALUATION REPORT ESTIMATING THE VALUE OF INVEST MENT AT RS.4,03,15,000/- AS AGAINST RS.3,60,40,102/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. FINALLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BY ACCEP TING THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE DVO AND REJECTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, MADE ADDITIONS OF RS.42,75,898/- IN FIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS VIZ. A.YS. 2009-10 TO 2013-14 [RS.2,49,482/- IN A.Y. 2011-12]. 19. BEING AGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT BESIDES INCURRING AN E XPENDITURE OF RS.3,60,40,102/-, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO INCURRED A SUM OF RS.47,61,258/- DURING THE F.Y. 2013-14 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2014-15. THE LD. CIT(A) STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN A REASON FOR NOT SUBMITTING THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES INCURRED ON CONS TRUCTION OF HOUSE DURING F.Y. 2013-14. THE LD. CIT(A) ADMITTED THE AD DITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46A. AS PER THE LD. CIT(A), TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REPORT DATED 29.11.2016 HAS NEITHER OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES NOR OFFERED A NY COMMENTS. THE LD. CIT(A) STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A COP Y OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF HOUSE CONSTRUCTION FOR F.Y. 2013-14 WHER EIN AN MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 36 EXPENDITURE OF RS.47,61,258/- HAS BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING F.Y. 2013-14. IN SUPPORT OF THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.47,61,258/-, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A COPY OF RE LEVANT BANK STATEMENT ALONG WITH COPIES OF BILLS. THE LD. CIT(A ) NOTED THAT AFTER INCLUDING THE SAID EXPENDITURE OF RS.47,61,258/-, T HE TOTAL INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS THE PROPERTY AMO UNTS TO RS.4,08,01,360/- WHICH IS MORE THAN THE VALUE OF RS .4,03,15,000/- DETERMINED BY THE DVO. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BA SIS OF THE DVOS REPORT. NOW, AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) , THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ADDITIONS D ELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT-DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. PER CONTRA LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RE FERRED AND RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A). 19. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFUL LY PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE CONSTRUC TION OF THE HOUSE AT 85, PRAGATI VIHAR, INDORE, HAS BEEN CLAIMED TO H AVE BEEN COMMENCED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE F.Y. 2008-09 [ A.Y. 2009-10] AND THE SAME HAS BEEN CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN COMPLETE D DURING THE F.Y. 2013-14 [A.Y. 2014-15]. IN THE SAID CONSTRUCTI ON, THE ASSESSEE MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 37 HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE INCURRED A SUM OF RS. 4,08,01,3 60/- IN VARIOUS YEARS. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS, THE ASSESSEE ALSO PROVIDED THE BREAK-UP OF THE FINANCIA L YEAR WISE INVESTMENT MADE IN CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE. WE AL SO FIND THAT AS PER THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DVO, THERE ARE TWO POINTS OF VARIATION BETWEEN THE DVO'S VALUATION AND THE ASSES SEE'S CLAIM. THE FIRST VARIATION IS AS REGARD TO THE PERIOD OF CONST RUCTION INASMUCH ACCORDING TO THE DVO'S ESTIMATION, THE CONSTRUCTION WORK WAS CARRIED OUT ONLY DURING THE PERIOD FROM THE F.Y. 20 08-09 TO THE F.Y. 2012-13 WHEREAS ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM, THE CONSTRUCTION WORK LASTED TILL F.Y. 2013-14. WE FIND THAT OVER AN D ABOVE THE COST OF RS.3,60,40,102/- INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE UPTILL F. Y. 2012-13 [A.Y. 2013-14], THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO INCURRED EXPENDITUR E TOWARDS COST OF CONSTRUCTION AMOUNTING TO RS. 47,61,258/- DURING THE F.Y. 2013- 14 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2014-15. WE ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE, IN SUPPORT OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF RS.47,61,258 /- DURING F.Y. 2013-14, THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY FURNISHED COPIES OF THE BILLS AND BANK STATEMENTS EVIDENCING PAYMENTS WHICH WERE FORW ARDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, WE FI ND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT CONTROVERT ANY OF THE D OCUMENTARY MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 38 EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO FIND T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANY CORROBORATIVE EVID ENCE OR MATERIAL ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE GOT COMPLETED AT ANY TIME EARLIER THAN THAT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CHALLENGED THE DVOS REPORT BY POINTING OUT VARIOUS DEFECTS AND DISCREPANCIES P REVAILING IN SUCH REPORT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NEITHE R BY HIMSELF CONTROVERT ANY OF THE POINTS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE NOR HE SOUGHT ANY CLARIFICATION FROM THE DVO AND MERELY, BY REJEC TING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCEPTING THE DVOS REPORT, MADE THE ADDITION IN THE ASSESSEES INCOME. THUS, WE FIN D THAT IF THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE F.Y. 201 3-14 AT RS.47,61,258/- IS ALSO TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, TH E TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE HERSELF WOULD WO RK OUT TO BE AT RS. 4,08,01,360/- WHICH IS MUCH HIGHER THAN THE COS T OF CONSTRUCTION OF RS.4,03,15,000/- DETERMINED BY THE DVO. THUS, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ASSESSEE HAS FULLY ESTA BLISHED THE TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF RS.4,08,01,360/- WITH SUPPO RTING EVIDENCES WHICH REMAINED UNREBUTTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DONT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE A CTION OF THE LD. MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 39 CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN HOUSE PROPERTY . ACCORDINGLY, WE HEREBY CONFIRM THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN D ELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,49,482/- MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 20. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR TH E A.Y. 2011-12 IS DISMISSED. SHRI NITESH CHUGH (A.Y. 2012-13 & A.Y. 2013-14) GROUND NO. 1 FOR A.Y. 2012-13: 21. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE PERTAINS T O ADDITION OF RS.2,08,00,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF ON-MO NEY RECEIVED ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OF THE ASSESSEE. BRIEF LY STATED FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE RECORDS ARE THAT DURING THE COU RSE OF THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, VARIOUS INCRIMINATING LOOSE PAPERS WER E FOUND AND SEIZED VIDE LPS-1 (PAGE NO. 82 & 83 TO 86), LPS-4 ( PAGE NO. 2 TO 6), LPS-6 (PAGE NO. 69 TO 78, 96 TO 90, 94 TO 108) AND LPS-7 (PAGE NO. 67 TO 68) FROM THE ASSESSEES PREMISES SITUATED AT 503, ORBIT MALL, A.B. ROAD, INDORE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE AS SESSMENT ORDER, NOTED THAT AGRICULTURAL LAND ADMEASURING 2.139 HECT ARES SITUATED AT MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 40 SURVEY NO. 149/1, 150/2, 150/1/2, PH NO. 26, VILLAG E MUNDLA NAYTA, TEHSIL INDORE WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/ S. AVALANCHE REALTY PVT. LTD.. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER STA TED THAT THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED DURING THE PERIOD FROM 01-01 -2011 TO 21-10- 2011 WAS AT RS.260 LACS I.E. @RS.50 LACS PER ACRE B UT ON RECORD, ONLY PAYMENT OF RS.52 LACS WAS DISCLOSED. THE ASSES SING OFFICER NOTED THAT SHRI MOHANLAL CHUGH, FATHER OF THE ASSES SEE, IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S. 132(4) OF THE ACT, ADMITTED AN ADDITIONAL INCOME OF ON-MONEY OF RS.2,08,00,000/- BY HIS SON, BEING THE ASSESSEE, AGAINST SALE OF THE AFORESAID AGRICULTURA L LAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS ADMITTED TO HAVE RECEIVED TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,60,0 0,000/- AGAINST SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT RS.52,00,000/-. THE AS SESSEE ALSO ADMITTED THAT OUT OF TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,60 ,00,000/-, ONLY SALES CONSIDERATION OF RS.52,00,000/- WAS RECORDED IN BOOKS AND THE REMAINING CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,08,00,000/- WAS REC EIVED BY HIM FROM THE PURCHASER AS ON-MONEY. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER NOTED THAT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED UNDER S.153A FOR A.Y. 2012-13, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN TAXABLE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN F ROM SALE OF LAND TO THE EXTENT OF RS.50,12,179/- ONLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 41 OBSERVED THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL SALES CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,60,00,000/-, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF LAND AT RS.76,06,453/- THEREBY SHOWING CAPITAL G AIN OF RS.1,83,93,547/-. HOWEVER, AGAINST SUCH GAIN OF RS. 1,83,93,547/-, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED A DEDUCTION U/S. 54F IN RE SPECT OF INVESTMENT OF RS.1,89,15,088/- IN PURCHASE OF ONE R ESIDENTIAL HOUSE SITUATED AT 18, MANISHPURI, INDORE. THE ASSESSEE HA S CLAIMED PRO- RATA DEDUCTION OF RS.1,33,81,367/- THEREBY OFFERING ONLY A SUM OF RS.50,12,179/- AS LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ON-MONEY OF RS.2,08,00,000/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A NORMAL RECEIPT ON SALE OF CAPITAL ASSET AN D THEREFORE, NO CLAIM UNDER ANY SECTION OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS AL LOWABLE AGAINST THIS RECEIPT. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, S INCE THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ADMITTED ONLY AFTER SEARCH ACTION, THE E NTIRE UNDISCLOSED RECEIPTS ARE TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD IN COME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND NO DEDUCTION UNDER S.54F WILL BE AVAIL ABLE AGAINST THIS RECEIPT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER STATED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 54F IS ALSO NOT ADMISSIBLE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF S.115BBE. THE AO ALSO AVERTED THAT ALTHOUGH THE SEC TION 115BBE IS APPLICABLE W.E.F. A.Y. 2013-14 BUT THE SAME IS APPL ICABLE FOR EARLIER MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 42 YEARS ALSO. FINALLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.2,08,00,000/- IN THE ASSESSEES INCOME ON ACCOUN T OF ON-MONEY RECEIVED ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR THE A.Y. 2012-13. 22 BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE DECISION OF THE CO ORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT, PUNE IN THE CASE OF SHRI MANISH MADHAV MALPAN I VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE IS APPLICABLE TO THE FACT S OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER NOTED THAT SECTION 54F PROVIDES OPTIONS TO THE ASSESSEE TO INVEST EVEN WITHIN A PER IOD OF ONE YEAR BEFORE THE DATE ON WHICH TRANSFER TOOK PLACE AND TH ERE IS NO PRECONDITION IMPOSED BY THE PROVISION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE PROPERTY IS TO BE PURCHASED OUT OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVE D ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT UNDOUBTEDLY, THE RECEIPT OF ON-MONEY IS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF LA ND WHICH IS A CAPITAL ASSET AND AS THE APPELLANT HAS INVESTED IN A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR BEFORE THE DATE O N WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE AND IS FULFILLING THE OTHER CON DITION U/S. 54F, THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 54F CANNOT BE DENIED ON TH E RECEIPT OF UNACCOUNTED MONEY DISCLOSED AND OWNED UP BY THE APP ELLANT. THE MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 43 LD. CIT(A) RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHETH DEVELOPERS (P) LTD. (2 012) 208/25 TAXMANN.COM 173 WHEREIN THE HONBLE COURT HAS HELD THAT THE INCOME DISCLOSED IN THE SEARCH WHICH WAS RECEIVED I N THE COURSE OF CARRYING OUT BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AS A BUILDER. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER STATED THAT THE AMOUNT OF ON-MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF LAND HAS TO BE TAXED UNDER THE H EAD INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS AND NOT UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT, PUNE IN THE CASE OF MALPANI ESTATES VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 64 SOT 105 (PUNE) WHEREIN IT IS HELD TH AT THE CHARACTER OF INCOME DOES NOT CHANGE BECAUSE OF THE SEARCH. TH E LD. CIT(A) FURTHER NOTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115BBE ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. FINALLY, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.2,08,00,000/- SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER O N ACCOUNT OF ON-MONEY RECEIVED ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR THE A.Y. 2012-13. NOW, AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE RE VENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE LD. CIT-DR RELIED UPON TH E ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. DR ALSO FILED A PAPER BO OK WHICH IS MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 44 CAREFULLY PERUSED AND PLACED ON RECORD. PER CONTRA LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED AND RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A). 23 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE LD. DR, EXCEPT PLACING HIS RELIANCE ON THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, COULD NOT BRING ANY FURTHER MATERIAL ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE AS REGARD TO THE RECEIPT OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,60,00,000/- F ROM SALE OF A CAPITAL ASSET (AGRICULTURAL LAND) BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT AGAINST SALE OF THE AFORESAID LAND, T HE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE SITUATED AT 18, MAN ISHPURI, INDORE FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,89,15,088/-. WE F IND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THE CLAIM O F DEDUCTION U/S. 54F MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE INVESTME NT IN PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THE ONLY POINT OF DISPUTE RAI SED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE ON-MONEY OF RS.2,08,0 0,000/- ADMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH U/S. 132(1) BY THE ASSE SSEE TO HAVE RECEIVED FROM SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IS TO BE DE CLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND NO MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 45 DEDUCTION U/S. 54F IS ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AGA INST THE RECEIPT OF ON-MONEY OF RS.2,08,00,000/-. WE ALSO FIND THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14 OF THE ACT, FOR THE PURPOS E OF CHARGE OF INCOME-TAX AND COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME, AN INCO ME HAS TO BE DIVIDED INTO FIVE HEADS. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE FIFT H HEAD OF INCOME I.E. INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS A RESIDUAL HEAD AND AN INCOME SHALL BE CHARGEABLE UNDER THIS HEAD ONLY IF IT DOES NOT F ALL UNDER ANY OTHER FOUR HEADS OF INCOME. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ON- MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST SALE OF CAPI TAL ASSET IS NOTHING BUT UN-RECORDED PART OF THE SALE CONSIDERAT ION ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, ANY GAIN AR ISING FROM TRANSFER OF SUCH CAPITAL ASSET HAS TO BE CHARGED ON LY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF S.45 OF THE ACT. WE FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE AR THAT UNDER PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 1 53A, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE EXPRESSION TOTAL I NCOME HAS BEEN DEFINED UNDER CLAUSE (45) OF SECTION 2 OF THE ACT A ND ACCORDING TO WHICH, THE EXPRESSION TOTAL INCOME MEANS THE TOTA L AMOUNT OF INCOME REFERRED TO IN SECTION 5, COMPUTED IN THE MA NNER LAID DOWN IN THE ACT. THUS, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, EVEN I N THE ASSESSMENT MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 46 PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153A, THE TOTAL INCOME HAS TO BE C OMPUTED IN THE SAME MANNER IN WHICH IT IS COMPUTABLE UNDER THE NOR MAL ASSESSMENTS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF S.143(3) OF THE ACT AND NO DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT CAN BE GIVEN FOR COMPUTATI ON OF TOTAL INCOME IN PURSUANCE OF THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S. 153 A OF THE ACT. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE POSITION OF LAW FOR GIVING A DIFFERENT TREATMENT HAS GOT CHANGED ONLY BY WAY OF INSERTION OF A NEW S ECTION 115BBE IN THE STATUTE BY WAY OF THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 W.E.F. 1-4-2013, WHICH IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION. THUS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE ON- MONEY OF RS.2,08,00,000/- RECEIVED FROM SALE OF SUBJECT CAPI TAL ASSET. THIS VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT, PUNE IN THE CASE OF SHRI MANISH MADHAV MALPANI VS. ACIT, AS ALSO RELIED UPON BY THE LD. CIT(A). WE FIND THAT IN THAT CASE TOO, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE FRESH CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 54F AT RS.31,20,000/- AGAINST THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS DECLARED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT U/S. 153A OF THE ACT WHICH WAS NOT SO DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S. 139. TH E COORDINATE BENCH WAS PLEASED TO HOLD THAT THE CHARACTER OF THE INCOME REMAINS MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 47 LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE FUL FILLS THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN PROVISIONS OF S.54F OF THE ACT, THE AS SESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S. 54F TO THE ACT. FURTHER, THE D ECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SH ETH DEVELOPERS (P) LTD. (2012) 208/25 TAXMANN.COM 173, AS ALSO REL IED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. CIT(A), IS ALSO APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE COURT, AT PARA (11), WAS PLEA SED TO HOLD AS UNDER: 11. THE FURTHER CASE OF THE APPELLANT-REVENUE THAT IN VIEW OF SECTION 69A OF THE SAID ACT THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTIO N UNDER CHAPTER VIA OF THE SAID ACT WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE TO THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE IS NOT WELL FOUNDED. IN THE PRE SENT FACTS IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE MONEY FOUND IN POSSESSION OF THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED AND/OR ITS SOURCE COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED TO THE SAT ISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE PRESENT CASE UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOUND IN THE FORM OF CASH WAS EXPLAINED AS HAVING BEEN AC QUIRED WHILE CARRYING ON BUSINESS AS A BUILDER AND THIS EXPLANAT ION WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY HAVING ASSESSE D THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD AS INCOME F ROM PROFITS MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 48 AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. THEREFORE, THE RELIANCE BY THE REVENUE UPON THE DECISION OF THE GUJRAT HIGH CO URT IN THE MATTER OF FAKIR MOHMED HAJI HASAN (SUPRA) IS NOT CO RRECT AS THE FACTS OF THAT CASE ARE COMPLETELY DISTINGUISHABLE F ROM THE PRESENT FACTS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, NO QUESTION OF APPLICATION OF SECTION 68,69 AND 69A, 69B AND 69C OF THE SAID ACT ARISES AS THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN INVOKED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS REFLECTED EVEN IN THE ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS IN FACT RECEIVED BY THE RESPONDENT IN THE COURSE OF CARRYIN G OUT ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AS A BUILDER. THE SAME WAS RETU RNED BY THE RESPONDENT AS INCOME ARISING FROM PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AND THE SAME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPA RTMENT UNLIKE IN THE MATTER OF FAKIR MOHMAD HAJI HASAN (SU PRA) WE ALSO FIND THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT, PUN E IN THE CASE OF MALPANI ESTATES VS. ACIT (2014) 39 CCH 0413 (PUNE T RIB), BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF SHETH DEVELOPERS SUPRA , HAS ALSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) IN RELATION TO ADDITIONAL INCOME MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 49 OFFERED IN STATEMENT U/S. 132(4) IN THE COURSE OF S EARCH AND SUBSEQUENTLY DECLARED IN RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE T O NOTICE U/S. 153A. WE FIND THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT, AH MEDABAD IN THE CASE OF SHREE BHAGWANBHAI REVABHAI PRAJAPATI VS. AC IT (IT(SS)A NO. 377/AHD/2014, ORDER DATED 24.06.2015) HAS ALSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FULLY ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPT ION U/S. 54B OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE ON-MONEY. 24. BEFORE US, THE LD. CIT-DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT ANY OF THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. C IT(A) AND ALSO COULD NOT BRING ON RECORD ANY CONTRARY DECISION TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ON-MONEY RECEIVED BY THE AS SESSEE FROM THE SALE OF CAPITAL ASSET WOULD BE TAXED SEPARATELY AND NO DEDUCTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSES SEE AGAINST SUCH RECEIPT OF ON-MONEY. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSI DERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITIO N WITHOUT ANY BASIS WHATSOEVER. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTE RFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,08,00,000/- ON ACCOUN T OF RECEIPT OF ON-MONEY FROM SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, IS CONFIRM ED. THEREFORE, MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 50 THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR THE A.Y. 2 012-13 IS DISMISSED. GROUND NO. 1 FOR A.Y. 2013-14: 25. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2 013-14 PERTAINS TO ADDITION OF RS.3,39,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF CASH LOAN GIVEN FROM UNACCOUNTED INCOME AND RS.1,75,48,900/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTME NT IN PURCHASE OF PLOTS BY THE ASSESSEE. 26. AS REGARD THE ADDITION OF RS.3,39,000/-, THE BR IEFLY STATED FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE RECORDS ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, VARIOUS INCRIMINATING LOOSE PAPERS WER E FOUND AND SEIZED VIDE LPS-7 (PAGE NO. 63 & 64), LPS-2 (PAGE N O. 24) AND LPS-7 (PAGE NO. 56, 57 & 59) FROM THE ASSESSEES PREMISES . AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THESE PAPERS SHOW THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD GIVEN LOANS IN CASH AND AGAINST THESE LOANS, HE HAD OBTAI NED UNDATED CHEQUES FROM THE BORROWERS. AS PER THESE LOOSE PAPE RS, THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN CASH LOANS AGGREGATING TO RS.8,39,000/- D URING A.Y. 2013- 14. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO MAKE HIS EXPLANATION. THE ASSESSEE, IN HIS REPLY, MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 51 ADMITTED TO HAVE MADE CASH LOANS AGGREGATING TO RS. 1,89,000/- I.E. RS.50,000/- (PAGE NO. 56), RS.39,000/- (PAGE NO. 57 ), RS.50,000/- (PAGE NO. 63), RS.50,000/- (PAGE NO. 64) OUT OF HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR A.Y. 2013-14. FURTHER, IN RESPECT OF THE REMAINING AMOUNT, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE PAGE NO. 24 O F LPS-2 DID NOT PERTAIN TO HIM BUT IT PERTAINS TO HIS YOUNGER BROTH ER SHRI VIVEK CHUGH, WHO HAS GIVEN CASH LOAN OF RS.5,00,000/- TO SOME MR. AMIT CHAWLA AGAINST ONE UNDATED CHEQUE. THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THAT SHRI VIVEK CHUGH HAS ALREADY OWNED SUCH LOOSE PAPER BEARING NO. 24 OF LPS-2 AND HAS ALSO MADE A DISCLOSURE OF RS.5, 00,000/- ON THIS COUNT IN HIS RETURN FILED U/S. 153A FOR A.Y. 2013-1 4. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN RESPECT OF T HE REMAINING CASH LOANS OF RS.1,50,000/- I.E. (RS.8,39,000 RS.1,89, 000 RS.5,00,000), THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY SA TISFACTORY EXPLANATION. THUS, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER, THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN CASH LOAN OF RS.3,39,000/- (RS.1,89,000 + RS.1,50,000) OUT OF HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR A.Y. 2013-14. ACC ORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.3,39,000/- IN THE ASSESSEES INCOME FOR A.Y. 2013-14 ON ACCOUNT OF CA SH LOANS GIVEN BUT NOT FOUND RECORDED IN BOOKS. MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 52 27. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFO RE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT OUT OF THE CASH LOANS AGGREGATING TO RS.3,39,000/-, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY OFFERED A S UM OF RS.1,89,000/- IN HIS RETURN FOR A.Y. 2013-14 FILED POST-SEARCH AND THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION TO T HE TUNE OF RS.1,89,000/- MADE ON THIS COUNT. FURTHER, AS REGAR D THE REMAINING ADDITION OF RS.1,50,000/-, THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THA T SUCH ADDITION IS MADE ON THE BASIS OF LPS-7/59 WHICH IS A PROMISSORY NOTE DATED 25.03.2007 GIVEN BY SHRI SANJAY WADHWANI IN FAVOUR OF SHRI VIVEK CHUGH. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE SAID LOOSE PAPER IS NOT PERTAINING TO HIM OR ANY OTHER F AMILY MEMBER AND FURTHER, THE DATE ON THE PROMISSORY NOTE IS 25.03.2 007 AND THE INCOME ON THE BASIS OF SUCH LOOSE PAPER CANNOT BE M ADE IN A.Y. 2013-14. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NEITHER THE LENDER NOR THE BORROWER IN SUCH LOOSE PAPER AND THEREFORE, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR MAKING THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER RELIED UPON DECISIONS OF THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES. FINALLY, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE AD DITION OF RS.3,39,000/- SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON A CCOUNT OF CASH MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 53 LOANS FOR THE A.Y. 2013-14. NOW, AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUN AL. THE LD. CIT- DRRELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. T HE LD. DR ALSO FILED A PAPER BOOK WHICH IS CAREFULLY PERUSED AND P LACED ON RECORD. PER CONTRA LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED AN D RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A). 28. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFUL LY PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT- DR, EXCEPT PLACING HIS RELIANCE ON THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, COULD NOT BRING ANY FURTHER MATERIAL ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAD OFFERED A SUM OF RS.1,89,000/- AS ADDITIONAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF CASH LOANS IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FILED POST-SEARC H FOR THE A.Y. 2013-14. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIF IED IN RE-MAKING THE ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,89,000/- IN THE AS SESSEES INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. EVEN, AS REGARD T HE ADDITION OF RS.1,50,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF PAGE N O. 59 OF LPS-7, WE FIND THAT THE SAID LOOSE PAPER IS IN THE FORM OF A PROMISSORY NOTE DATED 25.03.2007 GIVEN BY SHRI SANJAY WADHWANI IN F AVOUR OF SHRI MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 54 VIVEK CHUGH. WE ARE IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH THE FIND ING OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE SAID PROMISSORY NOTE NEITHER CONTAI NS THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE NOR IT PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, NO ADDITIO N COULD BE MADE IN THE ASSESSEES INCOME ON THIS COUNT FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS.3,39,000/- (RS.1,89,000 + RS.1,50,000) IS CONFIRMED. . 29 NOW, AS REGARD THE ADDITION OF RS.1,75,48,900/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT FOR PURCHASE OF PLOTS IN PUL AK CITY, THE BRIEFLY STATED FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE RECORDS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED 25 PLOTS (TOTAL AREA 27,534 SQ. FT.) IN PULAK CITY COLONY LOCATED AT RAU PITHAMPUR ROAD. THE ASSE SSEE HAS SHOWN PURCHASE OF THESE PLOTS IN MARCH 2013 AT A TO TAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,10,13,600/- (EXCLUDING REGIST RY EXPENSES). HOWEVER, IT IS SEEN FROM THE REGISTRY DOCUMENTS THA T AS PER THE GOVERNMENT GUIDELINE VALUE FOR THESE PLOTS WAS RS.2 ,85,62,500/-. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS AGAINST THE GUIDELINE VALUE OF RS.1037/- PER SQ FT., THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PURCHA SE OF THESE PLOTS MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 55 AT RS.400/- PER SQ. FT. ONLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO OBSERVED THAT IN ANOTHER SEARCH GROUP NAMELY JHAVERI GROUP OF IN DORE, EVIDENCES WERE FOUND THAT IN THEIR PROJECT NAMELY SILICON CIT Y LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF THE PULAK CITY, PREVAILING RATE OF PLOT S IN A.Y. 2012-13 WAS RS.750/- PER SQ. FT. AND IN A.Y. 2013-14, IT WA S RS.1100/- PER SQ. FT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPRESSED THE PURCHASE PRICE OF PLOTS IN PULAK CIT Y, INDORE AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1,75,48,900/- [RS.2,85,62,50 0 MINUS RS.1,10,13,600] IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR TH E A.Y. 2013-14 ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PL OTS IN PULAK CITY. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN AP PEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A), AT PARA (7.2) OF THE OR DER, NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION BY RELYING ON T HE OBSERVATION THAT THE ASSESSEE GROUP IS IN CONTINUOUS PROCESS OF EARNING UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND HAS MADE REFERENCE TO SOME E VIDENCES FOUND DURING THE SEARCH REGARDING OTHER ISSUES. AS PER THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN ANOTHER PROJECT SILICON CITY OF THE JHAVERI GROUP LOCATED IN THE VI CINITY OF PULAK CITY, THE PREVAILING RATE OF PLOTS WAS RS.750/- PER SQ. F T. IN A.Y. 2012-13 AND RS.1100/- PER SQ. FT. IN A.Y. 2013-14. DURING T HE COURSE OF MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 56 APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCES WERE SUBMITTED UNDER RULE 46A WHICH WERE DULY FORWA RDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR COMMENTS. ACCORDING TO THE LD . CIT(A), THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NEITHER OBJECTED TO THE ADMIS SIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES NOR OFFERED ANY COMMENTS. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER NOTED THAT THE COLONY PULAK CITY WAS BEING DEVELOPED BY SHRI RITESH AJMERA AND DUE TO SOME ENCROACHMENTS, VARIOU S CASES WERE PENDING BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FORUMS IN RESPECT OF TH E SAID COLONY. SUCH FACT IS SEEN FROM THE NEWSPAPER CUTTINGS WHICH HAVE BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO NOTED THAT TH E DETAILS OF OTHER PARTIES WHO HAVE PURCHASED THE PLOTS IN SAME COLONY AT RS.400/- PER SQ. FT. HAVE ALSO BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. THE LD . CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, NO INCRI MINATING DOCUMENT OR MATERIAL WAS FOUND TO SHOW THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNT STATED IN TH E PURCHASE DEEDS FOR THE PLOTS IN PULAK CITY. THE LD. CIT(A) A LSO OBSERVED THAT ESTIMATION OF THE ADDITIONS ON THE BASIS OF THE ASS UMPTION THAT AS THE GROUP MEMBERS INDULGE IN RECEIVING ON-MONEY IN LAND TRANSACTIONS, THERE IS UNDISCLOSED CONSIDERATION PA ID FOR PURCHASE OF PLOTS IN PULAK CITY IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE, SUSTAINAB LE AND JUSTIFIED MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 57 APPROACH. THE LD. CIT(A) RELIED UPON THE DECISION O F HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF K.P. VARGHESE VS. ITO & ANR. (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE ONUS LIES ON THE REVENUE TO ESTABLISH THAT AN ASSESSEE HAS UNDERSTAT ED THE CONSIDERATION FOR TRANSFER OF AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND UNLESS SUCH ONUS IS DISCHARGED BY THE REVENUE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY PRESUMPTION AS REGARD TO THE UNDERSTATEMENT. FINALL Y, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.1,75,48,900/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT FOR PURCHASE OF PLOTS IN PUL AK CITY ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE CONSIDERATION PAID BEING LESS T HAN THE GUIDELINE VALUE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT (A) DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS.1,75,48,900/- MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSEES INCOME. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST TH E ADDITION DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT-DR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. DR ALSO FIL ED A PAPER BOOK WHICH IS CAREFULLY PERUSED AND PLACED ON RECORD. PE R CONTRA LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED AND RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A). MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 58 30. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFUL LY PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES INCLUDING NEWSPAPER C UTTINGS IN SUPPORT OF THE DISPUTED NATURE OF THE COLONY. WE AL SO FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF OTHER PA RTIES WHO HAVE PURCHASED THE PLOTS IN SAME COLONY AT THE SAME RATE OF RS.400/- PER SQ. FT. AT WHICH THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED. HOWEVER, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NEITHER COMMENT NOR CONTROVERT ANY SI NGLE DOCUMENT OR EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANY CORROBOR ATIVE EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID ANY CONSIDERATION OVER AND ABOVE THAT STATED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEEDS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT MADE ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY FROM THE SELLERS OR FROM THE OTHER PARTIES WHO HAVE PURC HASED THE PLOTS IN THE PULAK CITY. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT OR MATERIAL ON R ECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID ANY AMOUNT OVE R AND ABOVE THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION STATED IN THE REGISTERED SAL E DEEDS. WE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE A REFERENCE OF SOME RATES PREVAILING IN SILICON CITY OF JHAVERI GROUP OF INDO RE BUT, IN OUR MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 59 CONSIDERED OPINION, IT CANNOT BE A PARAMETER OR YAR DSTICK FOR DETERMINING THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE PLOTS IN ANOT HER COLONY. THUS, IN OUR VIEW, THE ONUS WAS LYING ON THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID ANY ON-MONEY OVER AND AB OVE THAT STATED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEEDS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FAILED TO DISCHARGE SUCH ONUS AND MADE THE ADDITION MERELY ON PRESUMPTION AND ASSUMPTION. WE FURTHER FIND FORCE IN THE CONTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE S WERE CARRIED OUT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-13 RELEVANT TO A .Y. 2013-14 AND FOR SUCH YEAR, THE PROVISIONS OF S.56(2)(VII) WERE NOT MADE APPLICABLE. IT IS WORTH NOTABLE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF S.56(2)( VII) HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED IN THE STATUTE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2013 W.E.F. 1.4.2014 ONLY AND SUCH PROVISIONS ARE NOT RETROSPECTIVE IN T HE NATURE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, MERELY ON THE PRESUMPTION BASIS, ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE GUIDELINE VALUE AND APPARENT CONSIDERATION PAID BY AN ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY CANNOT BE DEE MED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. UNDISPUTEDLY, IN THE PRESENT CASE, NO POSITIVE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS PARTED WITH ANY CONSIDERATION OVER AND ABOVE TH AT SHOWN IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEEDS. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE AR E OF THE MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 60 CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DEL ETED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,75,48,900/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER I N THE ASSESSEES INCOME ON THE ALLEGATION OF PAYMENT OF ON-MONEY BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUE FOR TH E A.Y. 2013-14 IS DISMISSED. 31. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE FOR T HE A.YS. 2012-13 AND 2013-14 ARE DISMISSED. M/S. CHUGH REALITY (A.Y. 2013-14) GROUND NO. 1: 32. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE PERTAINS T O ADDITION OF RS.22,71,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACC OUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION FROM SALE OF UNITS OF THE MARK PROJ ECT, ADDITION OF RS.5,26,74,600/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTME NT IN PURCHASE OF PLOTS IN PULAK CITY PROJECT AND ADDITION OF RS .3,81,11,476/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE IN SUN CITY PR OJECT BY THE ASSESSEE. 33. AS REGARD THE ADDITION OF RS.22,71,000/-, THE B RIEFLY STATED FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE RECORDS ARE THAT DURIN G THE COURSE OF MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 61 SEARCH AND POST-SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAD PURCHASED AN OLD HOUSE SITUATED AT PLOT NO . 24A, OLD PALASIA, INDORE, ADMEASURING 25,464 SQ. FT. FOR A T OTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.8,21,00,000/- UNDER A REGISTERED SALE DEED DA TED 06-10-2008. IT IS STATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT AFTER PU RCHASING THE ABOVE OLD HOUSE, THE ASSESSEE FIRM GOT THE OLD HOUSE DEMO LISHED AND CONSTRUCTED A MULTI-STOREYED BUILDING THEREON, TITL ED AS THE MARK. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS SEEN THAT THE SALES CONSIDERATI ON FROM THE UNITS OF THE MARK PROJECT HAVE BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESS EE FIRM AT A LOWER SIDE DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PROJECT IS COM MERCIAL IN NATURE AND LOCATED AT BUSINESS CENTRE OF INDORE. IT HAS AL SO BEEN OBSERVED THAT THE SALES CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN SHOWN EVEN BE LOW THE GUIDELINE VALUE FIXED BY THE REGISTRAR OF PROPERTIE S. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT DURING F.Y. 2010-11 TO F .Y. 2012-13, THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS SOLD 69570.70 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA IN SIX FLOORS OF THE MARK PROJECT AND AS PER GUIDELINE, THE SALES OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ATLEAST FOR A SUM OF RS.16,21 ,48,315/-. HOWEVER, UPTO 31.03.2013, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN SA LES CONSIDERATION IN ITS BOOKS AT RS.14,47,46,500/- ONL Y WHICH, AS PER MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 62 THE ASSESSING OFFICER, MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD UNDERSTATED ITS SALES IN ITS BOOKS BY A SUM OF RS.1 ,74,01,815/-. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO W HY THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.1,74,01,815/- BE NOT ADDED AS UNDISCLOSED EST IMATED SALES CONSIDERATION IN A.Y. 2011-12 TO A.Y. 2013-14. IN R EPLY, THE ASSESSEE FIRM STATED THAT IT HAD RECORDED SALES CONSIDERATIO N AGGREGATING TO A SUM OF RS.17,49,93,500/- IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF THE MARK PROJECT, UPTO 31-03-2013, WHEREAS THE SALES V ALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ST AMP DUTY WAS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.18,08,30,500/- THEREBY GIVING A DI FFERENCE OF RS.58,37,000/-. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD FURNISHED THE ENTIRE DETAILS AS REGARD TO UNIT NO., AREA OF UNIT, NAME, ADDRESS, PAN OF THE BUYER, SALE CONSIDERATION AS PE R BOOKS, VALUATION AS PER STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY AND ALSO FURNISHED ALL THE COPIES OF SALE DEEDS AND THEREFORE, NO ADDITION IN RESPECT OF DIFFERENCE OF RS.58,37,000/- CAN BE MADE. THE ASSES SEE FIRM FURTHER CLAIMED THAT SINCE IT WAS HOLDING THE UNITS IN THE MARK PROJECT IN THE FORM OF STOCK-IN-TRADE AND NOT AS CAPITAL ASSET S, THE PROVISIONS OF S.50C WERE NOT APPLICABLE TO IT. THE ASSESSEE AL SO CLAIMED THAT THE MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 63 PROVISIONS OF S.43CA WHICH ARE APPLICABLE ONLY FROM THE A.Y. 2014- 15, CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE TO ITS CASE FOR THE A .Y. 2013-14. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE EXPLANA TION OF THE ASSESSEE AND STATED THAT THE AMENDMENT BY WAY OF S. 43CA IS CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEN MADE A REFERENCE OF CERTAIN INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE CASES OF GROUP ASSESSEES. F INALLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS SUPPRESSED ITS SALES AND ACCORDINGLY, MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.49,00 0/- IN A.Y. 2011-12, RS.35,17,000/- IN A.Y. 2012-13 AND RS.22,7 1,000/- IN A.Y. 2013-14. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED A PPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE INCRIM INATING DOCUMENTS, AS REFERRED TO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS FOUND AND SEIZED IN THE CASE OF GROUP MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM, WERE NOT HAVING ANY BEARING ON THE PROJECT THE MARK OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT ESTIMATIONS OF THE ADDITIONS ON T HE BASIS OF ASSUMPTION THAT AS THE GROUP MEMBERS WERE INDULGED IN RECEIVING ON-MONEY IN LAND TRANSACTIONS, THERE IS AN UNDERSTA TEMENT OF SALES IN THE PROJECT OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO IS NOT AN ACCEP TABLE, SUSTAINABLE AND JUSTIFIABLE APPROACH. THE LD. CIT(A) RELIED UPO N THE DECISION OF MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 64 HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF K.P. VARGHESE VS. ITO & ANR. (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD TH AT THE ONUS LIES ON THE REVENUE TO ESTABLISH THAT AN ASSESSEE HAS UN DERSTATED THE CONSIDERATION FOR TRANSFER OF AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND UNLESS SUCH ONUS IS DISCHARGED BY THE REVENUE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY PRESUMPTION AS REGARD TO THE UNDERSTATEMENT. THE LD . CIT(A) FURTHER RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MUKESH & KISHOR BAROT CO-OWNERS (20 13) 215 TAXMAN 151, HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. KAN CONSTRUCTION AND COLONIZERS (P) LTD. (2012) 208 TAXMAN 478, THE ITAT, INDORE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. DANI SH HOUSING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. (2013) 22 ITJ 447 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF S.50C WOULD HAVE NO APPLICATION WHERE THE TRANSFER OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IS ON ACCOUNT OF SAL E OF STOCK-IN- TRADE. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE PROVIS IONS OF S.43CA CAN ALSO NOT BE INVOKED IN THIS CASE AS THE SAME HAVE B EEN INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2013 W.E.F. 1-4-2014. THUS, THE LD . CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.22,71,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNDERSTATEMENT OF SALES BY THE A SSESSEE IN ITS THE MARK PROJECT FOR THE A.Y. 2013-14. NOW, AGGRI EVED WITH THE MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 65 ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E THIS TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ADDITION DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT-DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. CI T-DR ALSO FILED A PAPER BOOK WHICH IS CAREFULLY PERUSED AND PLACED ON RECORD. PER CONTRA LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED AND RE LIED ON THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A). 34. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFUL LY PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT- DR, EXCEPT PLACING HIS RELIANCE ON THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, COULD NOT BRING ANY FURTHER MATERIAL ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE FIND THAT EVEN THE ASS ESSING OFFICER, WHILE MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION, HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SUB STANTIATE ANY UNDERSTATEMENT OF SALES BY THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO NO TED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY FURNISHED THE ENTIRE DETAILS IN R ESPECT OF THE SALES MADE BY IT IN RESPECT OF THE PROJECT THE MARK BEF ORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE SALE CONSIDERATION CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED BY THE ASSES SEE AND STATED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEEDS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CO ULD HAVE MADE THE MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 66 NECESSARY ENQUIRIES FROM THE BUYERS OF THE UNITS IN THE PROJECT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT MAKE ANY IND EPENDENT ENQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION TO DISPROVE THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO PROCEED ON PRESUMPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS. WE DERIVE SUPPORT FROM THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF K.P. VARGHESE VS. ITO & ANR. (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE ONUS LIES ON THE REVENUE TO ESTABLISH THAT AN ASSESSEE HAS UNDERSTATED THE CONS IDERATION FOR TRANSFER OF AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND UNLESS SUCH O NUS IS DISCHARGED BY THE REVENUE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY PRES UMPTION AS REGARD TO THE UNDERSTATEMENT. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTED OR DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE FIND THAT THE UNITS IN THE SA ID PROJECT WERE HELD BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM AS ITS STOCK-IN-TRADE AND NOT AS CAPITAL ASSETS AND THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF S.50C WHICH APPLY ONLY IN THE CASE OF CAPITAL ASSETS, CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE T O THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THIS BENCH EARLIER IN THE CA SE OF ACIT VS. DANISH HOUSING COOPERTATIVE SOCIETY LTD. (2013) 22 ITJ 447 (ITAT MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 67 INDORE) HAS ALREADY HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HA S HELD AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AS A TRADING ASSET, THE INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE IS TAXABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME AND THE PROVISIONS OF S. 50C HAVE NO APPLICATION IN SUCH A CASE. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERE D OPINION THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43CA WHICH HAVE BEEN INSERTED IN THE STATUTE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2013 W.E.F. 1-4-2014, WERE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON FOR MAKING ADDITION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSEES INCOME ON THIS COUNT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS.22,71,000/- FOR THE A.Y. 2013-14 IS CONFIRMED. 35. NOW, AS REGARD THE ADDITION OF RS.5,26,74,600/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT FOR PURCHASE OF PLOTS IN PUL AK CITY, THE BRIEFLY STATED FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE RECORDS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED 46 PLOTS (TOTAL AREA 79,721 SQ. FT.) IN PULAK CITY COLONY LOCATED AT RAU PITHAMPUR ROAD. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PURCHASE OF THESE PLOTS IN MARCH 2013 AT A TOTAL SA LE CONSIDERATION OF RS.3,19,78,400/- (EXCLUDING REGISTRY EXPENSES). HOWEVER, IT WAS SEEN FROM THE REGISTRY DOCUMENTS THAT AS PER THE GO VERNMENT MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 68 GUIDELINE VALUE FOR THESE PLOTS WAS RS.8,46,53,000/ -. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS AGAINST THE GUIDELINE VAL UE OF RS.1062/- PER SQ FT., THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PURCHASE OF THES E PLOTS AT RS.401/- PER SQ. FT. ONLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AL SO OBSERVED THAT IN ANOTHER SEARCH GROUP NAMELY JHAVERI GROUP OF INDOR E, EVIDENCES WERE FOUND THAT IN THEIR PROJECT NAMELY SILICON CIT Y LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF THE PULAK CITY, PREVAILING RATE OF PLOT S IN A.Y. 2012-13 WAS RS.750/- PER SQ. FT. AND IN A.Y. 2013-14, IT WA S RS.1100/- PER SQ. FT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPRESSED THE PURCHASE PRICE OF PLOTS IN PULAK CIT Y, INDORE AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.5,26,74,600/- [RS.8,46,53,00 0/- MINUS RS.3,19,78,400/-] IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y. 2013-14 ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PLOTS IN PULAK CITY. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN AP PEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A), AT PARA (5.4) OF THE OR DER, NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION BY RELYING ON T HE OBSERVATION THAT THE ASSESSEE GROUP IS IN CONTINUOUS PROCESS OF EARNING UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND HAS MADE REFERENCE TO SOME E VIDENCES FOUND DURING THE SEARCH REGARDING OTHER ISSUES. AS PER THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN ANOTHER PROJECT MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 69 SILICON CITY OF THE JHAVERI GROUP LOCATED IN THE VI CINITY OF PULAK CITY, THE PREVAILING RATE OF PLOTS WAS RS.750/- PER SQ. F T. IN A.Y. 2012-13 AND RS.1100/- PER SQ. FT. IN A.Y. 2013-14. DURING T HE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCES WERE SUBMITTED UNDER RULE 46A WHICH WERE DULY FORWA RDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR COMMENTS. ACCORDING TO THE LD . CIT(A), THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NEITHER OBJECTED TO THE ADMIS SIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES NOR OFFERED ANY COMMENTS. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER NOTED THAT THE COLONY PULAK CITY WAS BEING DEVELOPED BY SHRI RITESH AJMERA AND DUE TO SOME ENCROACHMENTS, VARIOU S CASES WERE PENDING BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FORUMS IN RESPECT OF TH E SAID COLONY. SUCH FACT IS SEEN FROM THE NEWSPAPER CUTTINGS WHICH HAVE BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO NOTED THAT TH E DETAILS OF OTHER PARTIES WHO HAVE PURCHASED THE PLOTS IN SAME COLONY AT RS.400/- PER SQ. FT. HAVE ALSO BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. THE LD . CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, NO INCRI MINATING DOCUMENT OR MATERIAL WAS FOUND TO SHOW THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNT STATED IN TH E PURCHASE DEEDS FOR THE PLOTS IN PULAK CITY. THE LD. CIT(A) A LSO OBSERVED THAT ESTIMATION OF THE ADDITIONS ON THE BASIS OF THE ASS UMPTION THAT AS MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 70 THE GROUP MEMBERS INDULGE IN RECEIVING ON-MONEY IN LAND TRANSACTIONS, THERE IS UNDISCLOSED CONSIDERATION PA ID FOR PURCHASE OF PLOTS IN PULAK CITY IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE, SUSTAINAB LE AND JUSTIFIED APPROACH. THE LD. CIT(A) RELIED UPON THE DECISION O F HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF K.P. VARGHESE VS. ITO & ANR. (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE ONUS LIES ON THE REVENUE TO ESTABLISH THAT AN ASSESSEE HAS UNDERSTAT ED THE CONSIDERATION FOR TRANSFER OF AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND UNLESS SUCH ONUS IS DISCHARGED BY THE REVENUE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY PRESUMPTION AS REGARD TO THE UNDERSTATEMENT. FINALL Y, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.5,26,74,600/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT FOR PURCHASE OF PLOTS IN PUL AK CITY ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE CONSIDERATION PAID BEING LESS T HAN THE GUIDELINE VALUE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT (A) DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS.5,26,74,600/- MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSEES INCOME. BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AGAIN ST THE ADDITION DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT-DR VEHEMENTL Y ARGUED SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. CIT-DR ALSO FILED A PAPER BOOK WHICH IS CAREFULLY PERUSED AND P LACED ON RECORD. MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 71 PER CONTRA LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED AN D RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A). 36 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES INCLUDING NEWSPAPER C UTTINGS IN SUPPORT OF THE DISPUTED NATURE OF THE COLONY. WE AL SO FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF OTHER PA RTIES WHO HAVE PURCHASED THE PLOTS IN SAME COLONY AT THE SAME RATE OF RS.400/- PER SQ. FT. AT WHICH THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED. HOWEVER, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NEITHER COMMENT NOR CONTROVERT ANY SI NGLE DOCUMENT OR EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANY CORROBOR ATIVE EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID ANY CONSIDERATION OVER AND ABOVE THAT STATED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEEDS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT MADE ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY FROM THE SELLERS OR FROM THE OTHER PARTIES WHO HAVE PURC HASED THE PLOTS IN THE PULAK CITY. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT OR MATERIAL ON R ECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID ANY AMOUNT OVE R AND ABOVE THE MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 72 PURCHASE CONSIDERATION STATED IN THE REGISTERED SAL E DEEDS. WE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE A REFERENCE OF SOME RATES PREVAILING IN SILICON CITY OF JHAVERI GROUP OF INDO RE BUT, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IT CANNOT BE A PARAMETER OR YAR DSTICK FOR DETERMINING THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE PLOTS IN ANOT HER COLONY. THUS, IN OUR VIEW, THE ONUS WAS LYING ON THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID ANY ON-MONEY OVER AND AB OVE THAT STATED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEEDS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FAILED TO DISCHARGE SUCH ONUS AND MADE THE ADDITION MERELY ON PRESUMPTION AND ASSUMPTION. WE FURTHER FIND SUFFICIENT MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTIONS OF PURC HASES WERE CARRIED OUT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-13 RELEV ANT TO A.Y. 2013- 14 AND FOR SUCH YEAR, THE PROVISIONS OF S.56(2)(VII ) WERE NOT MADE APPLICABLE. IT IS WORTH NOTABLE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF S.56(2)(VII) HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED IN THE STATUTE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2013 W.E.F. 1.4.2014 ONLY AND SUCH PROVISIONS ARE NOT RETROSPEC TIVE IN THE NATURE AND FURTHERMORE, THESE PROVISIONS ARE APPLIC ABLE ONLY TO THE INDIVIDUAL AND HUF AND NOT TO A PARTNERSHIP FIRM. I N SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, MERELY ON THE PRESUMPTION BASIS, ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE GUIDELINE VALUE AND APPARENT CONSIDERATION PAID BY AN ASSESSEE MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 73 FOR PURCHASE OF AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY CANNOT BE DEE MED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. UNDISPUTEDLY, IN THE PRESENT CASE, NO POSITIVE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS PARTED WITH ANY CONSIDERATION OVER AND ABOVE TH AT SHOWN IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEEDS. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE AR E OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DEL ETED THE ADDITION OF RS.5,26,74,600/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER I N THE ASSESSEES INCOME ON THE ALLEGATION OF PAYMENT OF ON-MONEY BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETI NG THE AFORESAID ADDITION OF RS.5,26,74,600/- IS CONFIRMED. 37. NOW, AS REGARD THE ADDITION OF RS.3,81,11,476/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE IN SUN CITY PR OJECT, THE BRIEFLY STATED FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE RECORDS ARE THA T DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, AT THE RESIDENTIAL PR EMISES OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM, CERTAIN DOCUMENTS PE RTAINING TO DEVELOPMENT OF SUN CITY PROJECT AT RAU, INDORE, M ENTIONED AS PAGE NO. 11 TO 21 OF LPS-2 WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A SSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE TRANSACTIONS MENTIONED IN THES E PAPERS. MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 74 HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT THESE PAPERS DO NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE A SSESSEE FIRM STATED THAT THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED AND EXE CUTED BY M/S. MEDICAPS I.T. PARK PVT. LTD. AND ALL THE DETAILS RE GARDING THE SAME SHOULD BE CALLED FROM THE SAME ONLY. ACCORDING TO T HE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS IN FACT, DEVELOPER O F THE SUN CITY PROJECT. THE SAME CAN BE SEEN FROM THE FACT THAT IT HAD GIVEN AN ADVANCE OF RS.4CR. TO M/S. MEDICAPS I.T. PARK PVT. LTD. IN THE A.Y. 2012-13 AS PROJECT ADVANCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER N OTED THAT THIS MEANS, THE ASSESSEE WAS HANDED OVER THE LAND BY THE LAND OWNER I.E. M/S. MEDICAPS I.T. PARK PVT. LTD. AND AS A CAU TION MONEY TOWARDS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT, THE AMOUNT OF RS.4 CR. WAS ADVANCED TO THE SAID COMPANY. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT HAS BEEN EXTRACTED FROM THE INTERNET AND FACEBOOK PAGE OF TH E ASSESSEE FIRM THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN FACT THE DEVELOPER OF THE S UN CITY PROJECT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS ENGAGED IN DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUN CITY PROJECT AT RAU AND HAD ALSO INCURRED THE TOTAL COST OF RS.3,81,11,476/- ON THE PROJECT D EVELOPMENT AS EVIDENT FROM PAGE NOS. 12 TO 23 OF LPS-2 FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE PARTNERS OF ASSESSEE FI RM. THE ASSESSING MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 75 OFFICER NOTED THAT FROM THE VERIFICATION OF BOOKS A ND BANK STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM AS WELL AS ITS PART NERS, THE EXPENDITURE TO THE TUNE OF RS.3,81,11,476/- AS MENT IONED IN THE THREE RA BILLS (LPS-2) IS NOT FOUND RECORDED. THE A SSESSING OFFICER FURTHER STATED THAT THE VERACITY OF THE BILLS CANNO T BE DOUBTED AS THE SAME ARE DULY ACKNOWLEDGED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER T REATED THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,81,11,476/- AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITU RE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUN CITY PROJECT. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER FURTHER STATED THAT AS THE TIME PERIOD OF THE SAME IS NOT C LEARLY AVAILABLE AND THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO NOT FORTHCOMING WITH FULL FACTS, IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE INCURRED THES E EXPENSES AFTER PAYMENT OF PROJECT ADVANCE TO THE LAND OWNER OF THE PROJECT. SINCE THE SAID ADVANCE WAS MADE IN A.Y. 2012-13, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER PRESUMED THAT THE EXPENDITURE MIGHT HAVE BE EN INCURRED IN A.Y. 2013-14. FINALLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A N ADDITION OF RS.3,81,11,476/- IN THE ASSESSEES INCOME FOR THE A .Y. 2013-14 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF SU N CITY PROJECT AT RAU. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APP EAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A), AT PARA (6.3) OF THE OR DER, NOTED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.3,81,11,476/- HAS BEEN MADE BY ADDIN G MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 76 RS.2,75,39,046/- MENTIONED AT LOOSE PAGE NO. 16 AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,05,72,430/- MENTIONED AT PAGE NO. 21. THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE PAGE NO. 21 IS AN ABSTRACT SHEET OF THE PR OPOSED ESTIMATE. THE LD. CIT(A) STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S GIVEN NO BASIS FOR ADDING THE PROPOSED ESTIMATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ENTRIES AT PA GE NO. 16 INCLUDE PREVIOUS BILL AMOUNT OF RS.1,94,12,306.50/- (ALSO M ENTIONED AT PAGE NO. 22) AND AMOUNT OF RUNNING BILL NO. 2 AT RS.81,2 6,739.57/- TOTALING TO RS.2,75,39,046.07/-. THE LD. CIT(A), AT PARA (6.4) OF HER ORDER, FURTHER STATED THAT ANY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMEN T, BEING BINDING ON BOTH THE PARTIES REQUIRES REGISTRATION W ITH THE SUB- REGISTRAR OF PROPERTIES. THE LD. CIT(A) STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE GATHERED THE INFORMATION EITHER FROM M/S. MEDICAPS I.T. PARK PVT. LTD. OR THE SUB-REGISTRAR O F THE PROPERTIES BUT HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS A DEVELOPER OR SUN CITY, RAU. THE LD. CIT( A), AT PARA (6.5) NOTED THAT THE PERUSAL OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS SHOW S THAT THEY ARE UNDATED, PAGE NO. 16 & 17 ONLY ARE SIGNED BY ONE SH RI ASHISH PACHORI. HOWEVER, AS PER THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THE RELATIONSHIP / CONNECTION OF MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 77 SHRI ASHISH PACHORI WITH THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER STATED THAT THE SAID ADDITION OF RS.3,81,11,476/- H AS ONLY BEEN MADE ON PRESUMPTIONS WITHOUT BRINGING ANY CORROBORA TIVE EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SUPPORT THE STAND TAKEN THAT THE SAID EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THE LD. CIT(A) RELIED UPON CERTAIN DECISIONS OF THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES ON TH E RATIO THAT THE SEIZED PAPERS HAVING NOT CORROBORATED BY ANY INDEPE NDENT EVIDENCE ARE DUMB DOCUMENTS WHICH CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A RELIABLE DOCUMENT OR ACCEPTABLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE. FINALLY, THE LD. CIT(A) MADE A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SI MPLY PROCEEDED TO MAKE ADDITIONS ON THE BASIS OF THE DOCUMENTS SEI ZED WITHOUT BRINGING ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT RS.3,8 1,11,476/- WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT OF SUN CITY, RAU WHICH IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE, SUSTAINABLE AND JUSTIFI ED APPROACH. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDI TION OF RS.3,81,11,476/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN T HE ASSESSEES INCOME. BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A ), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ADDITION DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 78 38. THE CIT-DR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED SUPPORTING THE ORD ER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. DR ALSO FILED A PAPER BO OK WHICH IS CAREFULLY PERUSED AND PLACED ON RECORD. PER CONTRA LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED AND RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A). 39. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFUL LY PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY PE RUSED THE VARIOUS LOOSE PAPERS SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES O F THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM WHICH HAVE BEEN RELIED UPON BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. WE FIND T HAT SUCH LOOSE PAPERS ARE IN RESPECT OF ONE PROJECT SITE TITLED AS 'SUN CITY', RAU. HOWEVER, AT THE SAME TIME, WE APPRECIATE THAT THESE LOOSE PAPERS DO NOT ANYWHERE CONTAIN NAME OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM OR A NY OF ITS PARTNERS. IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM THAT SUCH LOOSE PAPERS HAVE NOT BEEN PREPARED BY, OR ON THE INSTRUC TIONS OF, THE ASSESSEE FIRM. WE ALSO FIND THAT ON THESE LOOSE PAP ERS, NO DATE OR PERIOD HAS BEEN MENTIONED. WE FURTHER FIND THAT SOM E OF THE LOOSE PAPERS MERELY CONTAIN SOME MEASUREMENT NOTINGS WITH OUT ANY REFERENCE OF ANY AMOUNT. WE FIND THAT THE LOOSE PAP ER PAGE NO. 21 CONTAINS THE CAPTION ESTIMATE FOR SOME WORK TO BE DONE FOR AN MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 79 ESTIMATED COST OF RS.1,05,72,430/-. WE ALSO FIND TH AT AT COMPUTERIZED SHEETS INVENTORIZED AS PAGE NO.22 TO 2 3, SOME COST OF WORK AT RS.1,94,12,306.50P HAS BEEN STATED. FURTHER , AT PAGE NO.16 AND 17 COST OF WORK HAS BEEN MENTIONED AT RS.81,26, 739.57P. AT PAGE NO.16, THE SUM TOTAL OF THESE TWO COSTS HAVE B EEN MENTIONED AT RS.2,75,39,046.07P. ON A CAREFUL AND CONJOINT READI NG OF ALL THE SUBJECT LOOSE PAPERS, WE FIND THAT THE SUBJECT LOOS E PAPERS DO NOT CONVEY ANY MEANING AND THESE LOOSE PAPERS, HAVING N O SIGNATURE, NO DATE AND NO PERIODICITY, CAN AT THE BEST BE REGARDE D AS DUMB DOCUMENTS AND THE SAME CANNOT BE USED AS AN EVIDENC E AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, EXCEP T RELYING UPON THE SUBJECT LOOSE PAPERS, HAVE NOT BROUGHT ANY SINGLE C ORROBORATIVE MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT TH E ASSESSEE FIRM HAS ACTUALLY INCURRED ANY SUCH DEVELOPMENT EXPENDIT URE IN RESPECT OF SUN CITY PROJECT AT RAU. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FAC T THAT THE 'SUN CITY' PROJECT AT RAU DOES NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSE E FIRM. WE FIND THAT SUCH PROJECT IS SITUATED AT LAND OWNED BY ONE DIFFERENT COMPANY NAMELY, M/S. MEDICAPS IT PARK PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 20/1, PUSHPARATAN PARADISE, 9/5, PALASIA, INDORE . THUS, THE OWNERSHIP OF THE ENTIRE PROJECT IS THAT OF THE ABOV E NAMED COMPANY MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 80 ONLY AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT HAVING ANY OWNERSHIP R IGHTS IN SUCH PROJECT. BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE FIRM CLAIMED THAT THE ABOVE NAMED COMPANY HAD APPROACHED THE ASSESSEE FIRM FOR MARKET ING ITS PROPOSED 'SUN CITY' PROJECT AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE, T HE COMPANY HAD APPOINTED THE ASSESSEE AS ONE OF THE AGENTS. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER CLAIMED THAT IN SUCH PROJECT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE BULK BOOKING BY GIVING AN ADVANCE OF RS.4,00,00,000/- THROUGH ACCOU NT PAYEE CHEQUE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12 WHICH HAS DULY BEEN ENTERED INTO THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE AS SESSEE FIRM. THE ASSESSEE FIRM FURTHER STATED THAT A COPY OF THE RES OLUTION TO THIS EFFECT PASSED IN THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECT ORS OF M/S. MEDICAPS IT PARK PVT. LTD., ON 01-09-2011, WHICH WA S ALSO FURNISHED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE FIRM FURTHER CLAIMED THAT THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE RELATING TO THE DEVELOP MENT OF THE SAID 'SUN CITY' PROJECT HAD BEEN INCURRED BY THE ABOVE N AMED COMPANY ONLY AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED ANY SINGLE P ENNY IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH PROJECT. AS REGARD THE ABSTRAC TS OF THE WEBSITES REPRODUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FIRM SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS MAKING ITS EFFO RTS TO MARKET THE PROJECT ALONG WITH MEDICAPS I.T. PARK PVT. LTD. ONL Y. THE ASSESSEE MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 81 FIRM FURTHER CLAIMED THAT IT WAS NOT HAVING ANY VES TED INTEREST IN THE SAID PROJECT EITHER AS OWNER OR DEVELOPER AND DURIN G THE COURSE OF ENTIRE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, NOT A SINGLE AGREEMENT O R TITLE DEED OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE TO THIS EFFECT WAS FOUND BY THE SEARCH PARTY. 40. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS HAVING FULL DETAILS OF THE OWNER OF THE PROJECT, I.E. MEDICAPS IT PARK PVT. LT D. BUT, DESPITE HAVING THE INFORMATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID N OT MAKE ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY FROM THE COMPANY TO UNEARTH THE REAL TRUTH AND MERELY RELIED UPON THE UNCORROBORATED LOOSE SHE ETS RECOVERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FROM THE PREMISES OF TH E ASSESSEE FIRM. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BRO UGHT ON RECORD ANY COGENT MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD INCURRED ANY UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RE LEVANT TO A.Y. 2013-14 ONLY. WE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER H IMSELF, AT PARA (15.9) OF HIS ORDER, HAS STATED THAT THE PERIOD OF THE PAYMENT IS NOT CLEARLY AVAILABLE AND THEREFORE, MERELY ON PRESUMPT ION THE AO FORMED AN OPINION THAT THE EXPENDITURE MIGHT HAVE B EEN INCURRED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 82 CONSIDERATION AND MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. WE FI ND SUPPORT FROM THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF DHAKESHWARI COTTON MILLS LTD. VS. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) THAT ANY SUSPICION HOWSOEVER STRONG IT MAY BE, CANNOT BE COME A BASIS OF ANY ADDITION. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE MERELY O N THE BASIS OF UNCORROBORATED, UNDATED, UNSIGNED SEIZED LOOSE PAPE RS, IN ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE T HE CONTENTS OF SUCH LOOSE PAPERS. IN OUR OPINION, THESE DOCUMENTS ARE MERELY DUMB DOCUMENTS WHICH CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS A PIECE O F EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE DECISIONS OF THE VARIOUS AUTHORI TIES RELIED UPON. THUS, WE UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DEL ETING THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS.3,81,11,476/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSEES INCOME MERELY ON GUESS WORK WITHOUT BRIN GING ANY COGENT AND CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE ON RE CORD. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUE FOR TH E A.Y. 2013-14 IS DISMISSED. 41 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR THE A.Y. 2013-14 IS DISMISSED. MOHANLAL CHUGH & OTHERS 83 42. FINALLY, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE A RE DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED AS PER RULE 34 OF I.T.A.T., RU LES 1963 ON 23 .08.2021. SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) SD/- (MANISH BORAD) VICE - PRESIDENT A CCOUNTANT MEMBER INDORE; DATED : 23/08/2021 !VYAS! COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/GUA RD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INDORE