Shri Rameshbhai Jivraj Desai, Mehsana V. The DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

ITSSA 233/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4743 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 25-03-2020
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 27-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVATIA
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Principle of natural justice; Cost of acquisition; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 274; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH (VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE: SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEM BER RAMESHBHAI JIVRAJ DESAI, PROP. M/S. RAM DEVELOPER, 5, ASHOKNAGAR SOCIETY, RADHANPURA ROAD, MEHSANA PAN: AAWPD3249A (APPELLANT) VS THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), AHMEDABAD (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: SHRI O.P. SHARMA, CIT-D.R. ASSESSEE BY: SHRI S.N. DIVATIA, A.R . DATE OF HEARING : 30-09-2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01-10-202 0 /ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2011-12, ARISES FRO M ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-7, AHMEDABAD DATED 23-12-2016, IN PROCEEDIN GS UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL:- 1.1 THE ORDER PASSED U/S.250 ON 27.01.2017 FO R A.Y.2011-12 BY CIT(A)-7, ABAD UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF PROCEEDINGS U/S.153A OF THE ACT AS WELL AS ALLEGED IT(SS) A NO. 233/AHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 I.T(SS).A NO. 233/AHD/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE NO SHRI RAMESHBHAI JIVRAJ DESAI VS. DCIT 2 SUPPRESSED PURCHASE PRICE OF RS. 1,41,12,238/- IN R ESPECT OF LANDS AT VILLAGE: MAKARBA IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 1.2 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND OR ON FACTS IN NOT CONSIDERING FULLY AND PROPERLY THE SUBMISSIONS MADE AND EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT WITH REGARD TO THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS . 2.1 THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW A ND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE VALIDITY OF PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS NOTICE U/S.153A DATED 19.11.2013 FOR A.Y.2011- 12, THOUGH THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENTS WERE NOT FULFI LLED. THEREFORE, THE NOTICE AS WELL AS PROCEEDINGS U/S.153A(1) WERE WHOLLY ILLEGAL AND UNLAWFUL IN VIEW OF NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH FOR THIS YEAR. 2.2 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD.CLT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS NOTICE U/S.153A DATED 19.11.2013 FOR A.Y.2011-12. 3.1 THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW A ND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION AS ALLEGED SUPPRESSED PURCHASE PRICE OF RS . 1,41,12,238/- IN RESPECT OF LANDS AT VILLAGE: MAKARBA. 3.2 THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AN D ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS IN RESPEC T OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF LAND. 3.3 THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AN D ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS SUPPRESSED PURCHASE PRICE OF RS. 1,41,12,238/- IN RESPECT OF LANDS AT VILLAGE: MAKARBA. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,41,12,238/- AND VALIDITY U/S.153A(1) UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) MAY KINDL Y BE DELETED. 3. THERE WAS DELAY IN FILING OF THIS APPEAL BY 545 DAYS. THE APPEAL WAS REQUIRED TO BE FILED ON OR BEFORE 28-02-2017 HOWEVE R THE SAME HAS BEEN FILED ON 27.02.2018. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLAT E PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL HAS CONTENDED THAT THE DELAY WAS TA KEN PLACE FOR SUFFICIENT CAUSE BECAUSE THE JIVRAJ MASTER GROUP APPEALS INVOL VING 52 MATTERS WERE DISPOSED OFF BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE GROUP HAD FILED A SECOND APPEAL IN ALL THE CASES WHERE THE ADDITIONS WERE CONFIRMED. IN RESPECT OF ISSUE RELATING TO ADDITION TOWARDS SUPPRESSED PURCHASE PRICE OF RS. 1 ,41,12,238/- IN RESPECT OF THREE CO-OWNERS NAMELY SH. RAMESH, RAJESH AND RA JNI DESAI LAND AT VILLAGE MAKARBA THE GROUP HAS FILED SECOND APPEAL T IMELY IN THE CASE OF TWO CO-OWNERS NAMELY SHRI RAJESHBHAI DESAI AND SHRI RAJ NIBHAI DESAI, I.T(SS).A NO. 233/AHD/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE NO SHRI RAMESHBHAI JIVRAJ DESAI VS. DCIT 3 HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF ASSESSEE SHRI RAMESHBHAI JIV RAJ DESAI BECAUSE OF PRESSURE OF WORK INVOLVING A NUMBER OF ISSUES AND C ASES IN THE APPEAL INADVERTENTLY THIS APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED IN TIM E. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS REQUESTED FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING INSTA NT APPEAL LOOKING TO THE GENUINE CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVING A NUMBER OF ISSUES AND CASES IN THE APPEAL AS ELABORATED IN THE AFFIDAVIT OF ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND GONE THROUGH TH E AFFIDAVITS OF THE ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS STATED THAT ABO UT 90 OR MORE ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE FINALIZED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN T HE MASTER GROUP INVOLVING SEARCH AND SEIZURE ASSESSMENT COMPRISING A HUGE WOR K OF ANALYZING THE MATERIAL , COMPILATION OF DATA COORDINATING WITH TA X CONSULTANT AND REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THERE WERE AROUND 70 APPEALS OF THE GROUP FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE COMPILATION WORK OF FURTHER FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE ITAT BY WAY OF COMPILING THE CONCERNED ORDERS, APPEAL ME MOS ETC. WERE LOOKED AFTER BY THE ACCOUNTANT ONLY. THE ACCOUNTANT HAD C OMPLETED DILIGENTLY AND TIMELY THE SAID APPELLATE WORK AND FILED THE APPEAL S TIMELY IN THE APPROPRIATE CASES. HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF HEAVY WORKLOAD/HUGE NUM BER OF GROUP CASES INVOLVED, APPEAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE INADVE RTENTLY COULD NOT BE FILED BECAUSE OF THE GENUINE AND BONAFIDE REASONS AS BRIE FLY STATED ABOVE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT APPE ARS THAT BECAUSE OF VOLUME OF HUGE WORKLOAD NUMBER OF CASES, NUMBER OF ISSUES AND COMPILATION DATA THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE APPEAL ONLY ONE ISSUE ON THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,41,12,238/- ON THE PURCHASE OF LAND AT VILLAGE MA KARVA, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE APPEAL ON THE SIMILAR ISSUE IN THE CASE OF OTHER TWO CO- I.T(SS).A NO. 233/AHD/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE NO SHRI RAMESHBHAI JIVRAJ DESAI VS. DCIT 4 OWNERS VIZ SH. RAJNI DESAI AND SH. RAJESH DESAI. I T IS UNDISPUTED FACT AS ELABORATED ABOVE THAT THERE WAS HUGE VOLUME OF WORK IN RESPECT OF COMPILATION OF ISSUES IN THE APPELLATE ORDERS, APPE AL MEMOS ETC, CARRIED OUT BY THE ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE. BECAUSE OF HEAV Y PRESSURE OF WORK, THERE WAS DELAY OCCURRED IN FILING APPEAL ONLY IN ONE CAS E OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, WE CONSIDER THAT THE DELAY HAS BEEN CAUS ED DUE TO GENUINE AND BONAFIDE REASONS ACCORDINGLY WE CONDONE THE DELAY I N FILING THE INSTANT APPEAL. 5. THE FACT IN BRIEF IS THAT SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACT ION U/S. 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED IN THE GROUP CASES OF MASTER GROUP ON 3 RD JAN, 2013. TWO SEARCH WARRANTS OF AUTHORIZATION U/S. 132 OF THE AC T WERE ISSUED JOINTLY IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND VARIOUS PARTIES AT 5 &6 AS HOKNAGAR SOCIETY RADHANPURA ROAD, MEHSANA AND 38 NIRANT PARK-1 THAL TEJ, AHMEDABAD. FROM THE PREMISES THE FOLLOWINGS THINGS WERE INVE NTORISED AS PER PANCHNAMA DATED 4 TH JAN, 2013. ANNEXURE-JF GOLD JEWELLERY WEIGHING 252.200 GMS WORTH OF RS.6,8 0,760/-, SILVER BARS & COINS WEIGHING 19.995 KGS WORTH OF RS.L 1,39 ,7 15/- WERE FOUND ANNEXURE-A ONE LOOSE PAPER FILE WAS FOUND AND SEIZED ANNEXURE-C CASH RS.L 1,49,000/- FOUND OUT OF WHICH CASH RS.10, 00,000/- WAS SEIZED. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OF FICER WHILE ANALYZING THE IMPOUNDED MATERIAL CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE A-6, A SET OF DRAFT COPY OF SALE DEED BETWEEN SHRI LAXMANJI, PUNJAJI THAKOR, SHRI BHAGWATJI THAKOR AND SHRI VIKRAMJI PUNJAJI THAKOR ( BEING VENDORS) A ND SHRI RAMESHBHAI J. I.T(SS).A NO. 233/AHD/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE NO SHRI RAMESHBHAI JIVRAJ DESAI VS. DCIT 5 DESAI AND RAJESH J. DESAI AND SHRI RAJNI J. DESAI ( BEING PURCHASERS) IN RESPECT OF MAKARVA VILLAGE LAND BEARING 415/3, 416/ 1, 416/2 ADMEASURING 3237.50 SQ. MTR. FOR RS. 1,55,41,000/- WAS NOTICED . THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT AS PER VERSION OF THE COPY OF DRAFT SAL E A TOTAL 3237.50 SQ. MT LAND WAS AGREED TO BE SOLD FOR RS. 1,55,41,000/- AND WIT H THIS THE RATE OF LAND PER SQ. MTR COME TO RS. 4800/-. HOWEVER, THE VENDOR MA DHUBEN PUNJAJI THAKOR HAD SOLD THE LAND TO MASTER FAMILY THROUGH SHRI SH ABBIR V. KURESHI FOR RS. 11,00,000/- AND THE RATE OF LAND SOLD COMES TO RS. 274 PER SQ. MT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER STATED THAT IN ORDER TO S AVE STAMP DUTY AND TO SUPRESS THE PURCHASE COST THE SALE DEED WAS NOT EXE CUTED @ RS. 4800 PER SQ. MT AND THE SAME WAS EXECUTED @ RS. 274 PER SQ. MT B Y MAKING PURCHASES THROUGH SHRI SABBIR V. KURESHI. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS FURTHER VERIFIED FROM THE SUB-REGISTER OFFICE THAT ASSESSEE HAD ALSO PURCHASED LAND BY EXECUTING BANAKHAT FROM SANJAY J. PATEL AND OTHER S @ 1600 PER SQ. MT, ,HOWEVER, AS PER THE DRAFT SALE DEED THE RATE OF SU CH LAND COME TO RS. 4800 PER SQ. MT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPUTED THE SUPPRESSION IN PURCHASE OF LAND AT MAKARBA BEARING SURVEY NO. 415/3, 416/1, 416/2, 417, 515,516 AND 592/2 SUMMARIZED AS UNDER: - SR. VENDOR TOTAL ACTUAL RATE RATE OF LAND DIFFERENCE DIFFERENCE IN NO AREA OF LAND SOLD OF LAND PER SQUARE METER PER SQUARE METER AS PER SALE DEED/ BANAKHAT AMOUNT (RS/ SQ.MTR) ( SQ.MTR) { RS. /SQ.MTR) (RS./ SQ.MTR) ( RS.) 1 MADHUBEN 4013.16 4800 274 4526 18163562 PUNJAJITHAKOR I.T(SS).A NO. 233/AHD/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE NO SHRI RAMESHBHAI JIVRAJ DESAI VS. DCIT 6 2 SANJAY P. PATEL & OTHERS 4316.65 4800 1600 3200 13813280 3 --DO- ' I 3237.46 4800 1600 J 3200 10359872 TOTAL 42336714 6. ON QUERY, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THEY WERE RUNNING BUSINESS IN THE NAME OF R.J. BUILDCOM LTD. FOR PROPERTY DEVELOP MENT & REAL ESTATE. THE R.J. D. BUILDCOM LTD HAD PURCHASED LAND OF SAB BIRBEN KURESHI BEARING NO. 417/515/516/415/3,417, 515, 516, 515/3, 416/1, 416/2, ON 4 TH JUNE, 2010 FOR RS. 11,00,0000/- @ 274 PER SQ. MT. THE ASSESSE E EXPLAINED THAT DUE TO FAMILY DISPUTE THE IMPUGNED INHERITED LAND WAS INHE RITED TO MANY FAMILIES CONSISTING OF MANY MEMBERS. NEGOTIATION WITH SUCH PERSONS WAS REGULARLY MADE BY THIS GROUP DUE TO FAMILY DISPUTES CERTAIN P ERSONS HAVE SOLD THEIR LAND AND CERTAIN HAVE NOT SOLD THEIR LAND. DRAFT D OCUMENTS WERE PREPARED BUT NO DOCUMENTS WERE EXECUTED NO PAYMENT IN CASH O R THROUGH BANK WAS MADE TO ANY OF THE PERSONS HENCE DETAILS SHOWN IN T HE DRAFT DOCUMENT BEARS NO VALUE AS NO PAYMENT OR FINANCIAL TRANSACTION HAV E TAKEN PLACE ON THE BASIS OF SUCH DRAFT DEED. THEREFORE NO INFERENCE CAN BE T AKEN THAT THERE WAS PURCHASE OF LAND FOR RS. 1,55,41,000/- AND FOR VALU ING THE TRANSACTION AT RS. 4,23,36,714//-. ALL THESE DOCUMENTS WERE DRAFT AND ROUGH DOCUMENTS AGAINST WHICH NO TRANSACTION WAS TAKEN PLACE AND NO SALE DE ED WAS EXECUTED AND HENCE IT BEARS NO FINANCIAL VALUE. HOWEVER, THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND STATED THAT AS PER DRAFT SALE DEED THE RATE OF PURCHASED LAND COMES AT RS. 4800/- PER SQ. MT AS AGAINST RATE OF LAND SHOWN IN THE BANAKHAT THEREFORE THE DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT WAS COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNDER:- I.T(SS).A NO. 233/AHD/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE NO SHRI RAMESHBHAI JIVRAJ DESAI VS. DCIT 7 SR. VENDOR TOTAL ACTUAL RATE RATE OF LAND DIFFERENCE DIFFERENCE NO AREA OF LAND PER PER SQUARE IN AMOUNT OF LAND SOLD SQUARE METER METER AS PER SALE DEED/ BANAKHAI ( SA.MTR) (RS./SQ.MTR) (RS/SQ.MTR) (RS./SQ.MTR) ( RS.) 1 MADHUBEN 4013.16 4800 274 4526 18163562 PUNJAJI THAKOR 2 SANJAY P. 4316.65 4800 1600 3200 13813280 PATEL & OTHERS 3 -DO- 3237.46 4800 1600 3200 10359872 TOTAL 42336714 ACCORDINGLY, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 4,23,36,114/- WAS TR EATED AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE FORM OF SUPPRESSION OF PURCHASES AND THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSIDERED AS 1/3,THEREFORE, ADDITION OF RS. 1,14,12,238/- WAS MADE IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE L D. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HOL DING THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ACTUAL RATE OF LAND AND THE RATE AS PER SALE DEED WAS RIGHTLY TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFOR E US, THE LD. COUNSEL HAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE ISSUE CONTESTED IN THE APPEAL IS COVERED IN I.T(SS).A NO. 233/AHD/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE NO SHRI RAMESHBHAI JIVRAJ DESAI VS. DCIT 8 FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINA TE BENCH OF THE ITAT ON THE SIMILAR ISSUE AND IDENTICAL FACTS ADJUDICATED I N THE CASE OF OTHER TWO CO- OWNERS. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IS FAI R ENOUGH TO AGREE THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE ON SIMILAR FACTS IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT VIDE ABOVE CITED ORDERS ADJUDICAT ED IN THE CASE OF THE TWO OTHER CO-OWNERS. 9. HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT IN TH E CASE OF OTHER TWO CO- OWNERS I.E. SMT. RAJNI DESAI AND SHRI RAJESH DESAI VIDE IT(SS)A NO. 104 & 106/AHD/2017 AND 110 TO 112/AHD/2017 WHEREIN THE CO -ORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONS OF REMAINING 2/3 PART OF UNDISPUTED INVES TMENT. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 23. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE AO DURIN G THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS NOT VERIFIED THE VERACITY OF THE IMPUGNED DRAFT DEED FROM THE PARTIE S NAMELY LAXMANJIPUNAJITHAKOR, BHAGVATIJIPUNAJITHAKOR AND VIKRAMJI. PUNAJITHAKOR B UT USED DIE SAME FOR THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. AS SUCH, WE ARE OF TH E VIEW THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE DEED CANNOT BE RELIED UPON BY THE AO UNTIL AND UNLESS THE SAME IS VERIFIED FROM THE PARTIES INVOLVED THEREIN. IN THIS RESPECT, WE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE MATTER OF CIT, C-1-VS-VATIKA LANDBASE PVT. LTD REPO RTED IN 67 TAXMANN.COM 372. IN THAT MATTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT MAKE ANY ENQUIRY FROM THE EMPLOYEE OR FROM BUYERS OF FLATS IN RESPECT OF ACTUAL PRICE PAID BY THEM. IN THAT CIRCU MSTANCES OF DIE CASE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF UNSIGNED AND UNDATED SE IZED DOCUMENT HAS BEEN HELD TO BE UNSUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW. THUS, THE PROPOSIT ION MADE BY THE REVENUE TOWARDS MAKING ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF THE FIGURES MENTIONED ON T HE SAID DRAFT DEED, THUS, CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE VALID EVIDENCE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ENQUIRY MAD E BY THE AUTHORITIES WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE DONE FROM THE PARTIES INVOLVED. 24. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE NOT CONVINCED WITH THE FINDING OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THUS DIE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 37. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARRIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THIS REGARD, WE NOTE THAT THERE WAS NO M ATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH THE REVENUE SUGGESTING THAT THERE WAS ANY PAYMENT OF CASH MADE BY DIE ASSE SSEE TO THE CONCERNED PARTIES AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE AO DUR ING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS NOT VERIFIED THE IMPUGNED DRAFT DEED FROM THE PARTIES NAMELY LAX MANJI SON, BHAGVATIJI AND VIKRAMJI. AS SUCH THE LAND IN DISPUTE WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE F ROM THE OTHER PARTIES NAMELY SHRI SANJAY LAYNTILALPATCL, DHIRAJBHAIBHARATKUMAR PATEL AND URM IJBHAIGANDHIBHAI PARE.. THUS IN OUR I.T(SS).A NO. 233/AHD/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE NO SHRI RAMESHBHAI JIVRAJ DESAI VS. DCIT 9 CONSIDERED VIEW THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION BASED ON SUCH DRAFT DEED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. IN V IE - .V OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE NOT CONVINCED WITH THE FINDING OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ACCORDINGLY, WE S ET ASIDE THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO THE ADDITION MADE BY HIM. HENCE TH E GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 10. WE CONSIDER THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE ON SIMILAR FAC TS HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT AS SUPRA IN TH E CASES OF CO-OWNERS AND THE REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL TO CON TROVERT THESE UNDISPUTED FACTS. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IS DELETED AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FINDING OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01-10-2020 SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 01/10/2020 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / , I.T(SS).A NO. 233/AHD/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE NO SHRI RAMESHBHAI JIVRAJ DESAI VS. DCIT 10 STRENGTHENED PREPARATION & DELIVERY OF ORDERS IN TH E ITAT 1) DATE OF DICTATION 30/09/2020 2) DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER & OTHER MEMBER 30/09/2020 3) DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR . P.S./ P.S. XX /09 /20 20 4) DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT XX/09/2020 5) DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S./P.S. 01/10/2020 6) DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 01/10/2020 7) DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES THE HEAD CLERK 8) DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REG ISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 9) DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER A.K