DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad V. Greenfield Reality Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

ITSSA 322/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4303 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Ahmedabad
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 02-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIRENDRA OJHA
• Assessee Lawyers: FILING ALL THESE DETAILS. AFTER
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Opportunity of being heard; Question of law; Cost of acquisition; Block assessment; Onus to prove; Revised return; Documents seized
• Section: 68; 132; 144; 44AD; 143(3); 153A; 201; 274; 64; 13; 22; 153C; 20

Judgement Text

, - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ IT(SS)A NO. 289, 290, 291 AND 292/AHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 TO 2015-16 GREENFIELD REALITY P.LTD. G-2, ADITYA PARMESHWAR STREET VILE PARLE, MUMBAI PAN : AACCG 8342 E VS ACIT, CENT.CIR.1(2) AHMEDABAD. ./ IT(SS)A NO.320, 321 AND 322 /AHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13, 2014-15 AND 2015-16 AND ./ IT(SS)A NO.329/AHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 DCIT, CENT.CIR.1(2) AHMEDABAD. VS GREENFIELD REALITY P.LTD. G-2, ADITYA PARMESHWAR STREET VILE PARLE, MUMBAI PAN : AACCG 8342 E / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR WITH SHRI PARIN SHAH, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI VIRENDRA OJHA, CIT-DR / DATE OF HEARING : 19/02/2020 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21/02/2020 O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT: THE LD.CIT(A)-11, AHMEDABAD HAS DECIDED FOUR APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 14.8.2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 201 2-13 TO 2015-16. IT(SS)A NO.289 /AHD/2018 (7 OTHERS) GREENFIELD REALITY P.LD. VS. DCIT - 2 - THESE ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN FOUR ASSESSMENT YE ARS ARE BEING CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS BY THE REVENU E. SINCE ISSUES ARE COMMON IN ALL THESE EIGHT APPEALS, THEREFORE, WE HE ARD THEM TOGETHER AND DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO DISPOSE OF THEM BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD WOULD INDICATE THAT EXCE PT VARIATION IN QUANTUM, THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS AS WELL AS ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(A) ARE VERBATIM SAME. THEREFORE, FOR THE FACILITY OF REFE RENCE WE ARE REFERRING FACTS FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AS WELL AS A SSESSMENT YEAR 2015- 16, BECAUSE ASSTT.YEAR 2012-13 IS THE FIRST ASSESSM ENT YEAR IN THIS GROUP, AND ASSTT.YEAR 2015-16 IS THE LAST ASSESSMENT YEAR. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR PERMIS SION TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL GROUNDS. THIS APPLICATION WAS ALLOWED V IDE ORDER DATED 8.1.2020. THE GROUNDS WERE TAKEN UP ON RECORD FOR ADJUDICATION. ORDER DATED 8.1.2020 READS AS UNDER: 08.01.2020 PRESENT : SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR, AR SHRI SUBHASH BAINS, CIT-DR PRESENT SIX CROSS APPEALS FOR THE ASSTT.YEARS 2012- 13 TO 2015-16 CAME UP FOR HEARING. IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2012-13, TH E ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION IN IT(SS)A.NO.289/AHD./2018 FO R PERMISSION TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL. IT HAS SOUG HT TO RAISE THE FOLLOWING TWO GROUNDS: 1. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN FRAMING ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 153A IGNORING FACT THAT MATERIAL RELIED ON MAKING ADDITION IS FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF THIRD PERSON AND ADDITION WAS MADE WITHOUT RECORDING SATISFACTION IN CASE OF THIRD PERSON AND ALSO IN CA SE OF THE APPELLANT AND ACCORDINGLY ASSESSMENT IS REQUIRE D TO BE QUASHED. IT BE SO HELD NOW. 2. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN FRAMING ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL FOUN D IT(SS)A NO.289 /AHD/2018 (7 OTHERS) GREENFIELD REALITY P.LD. VS. DCIT - 3 - FROM THE PREMISES OF THIRD PERSON AND ADDITION WAS MADE ON THAT BASIS IGNORING FACT THAT AMENDED PROVISION IS BROUGHT IN STATUTE FROM 01/06/2015 AND APPLICABLE PROSPECTIVELY. IT BE SO HELD NOW. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE STRENGTH OF HONBLE SUPREME COURTS DECISION IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL TH ERMAL POWER, 229 ITR 383 CONTENDED THAT BOTH THESE ISSUES ARE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES. THEY GO TO ROOT OF THE DISP UTE, AND GO TO AFFECT TAXABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THES E GROUNDS REQUIRED TO BE ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR WAS UNABLE TO CONTROVE RT THIS CONTENTION OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HE S UBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO FINDING QUA THIS ASPECT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER NOR RELEVANT FACTS ARE AVAILABLE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT PAPER BOOK IN THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED TWO DAYS BACK , AND THEREFORE, REVENUE WANTS MORE TIME TO GO THROUGH TH E RECORD. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT BOTH THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE LEGAL GROUNDS, AND THEREFORE, CONSIDERING JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE NTPC (SUPRA) WE ALLOW THI S APPLICATION AND ADMIT BOTH THE GROUNDS FOR CONSIDER ATION ON MERIT. SINCE PAPER BOOKS WERE NOT FILED SEVEN DAYS IN ADVANCE, AND THE LD.DR MADE PRAYER FOR ADJOURNMENT, WE ADJOU RN THE HEARING TO 22 ND JANUARY, 2020. MEANWHILE, IF DEPARTMENT FEELS NECESSITY OF ANY INFORMATION ON THESE ADDITIONAL GR OUNDS OF APPEAL THAT MAY BE SOUGHT. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT THESE ARE EARLY HEARING APPEALS AND NO FURTHER OPPO RTUNITY WILL BE GRANTED TO EITHER PARTY. COPY OF THIS ORDER BE SUPPLIED TO BOTH THE PARTIES. SD/- SD/- (AM) (JM) WSA RJY 4. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS THESE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS IN ALL THESE ASS ESSMENT YEARS. THEREFORE, THEY ARE REJECTED. 5. FIRST COMMON ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE EIGHT A PPEALS RELATES TO DETERMINATION OF INCOME REQUIRED TO BE ADDED OUT OF ON-MONEY RECEIVED IT(SS)A NO.289 /AHD/2018 (7 OTHERS) GREENFIELD REALITY P.LD. VS. DCIT - 4 - BY THE ASSESSEE ON ITS REAL-ESTATE PROJECTS QUA WHICH INCRIMINATING MATERIALS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED DURING SEARCH PROCE EDINGS. 6. BEFORE ADVERTING TO THE CONTROVERSY, WE FIND THA T BEFORE THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS PLEADING THEREIN THE BACKGROUND OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY, AND HOW SEARCH HAS BEEN CONDUCTED UPON ITS BUSINESS PREMISES AS WELL A S RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE DIRECTORS. IT HAS ALSO HIGHLIGHTE D MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH WAS SEIZED BY THE DEPART MENT, AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF INFERENCE FROM THESE MATERIALS DRAWN BY THE AO AS WELL AS REPLY BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO UNDE RSTAND THE BACKGROUND IN MORE SCIENTIFIC WAY, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO T AKE NOTE OF THESE FACTS FROM THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE FILED BEFORE T HE LD.CIT(A) WHICH IS COMMON IN ALL THESE FOUR ASSESSMENT YEARS. THEREFO RE, THESE FACTS ARE BEING TAKEN FROM THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE ASSTT. YEAR 2012-13. IT READS AS UNDER: 1. BACKGROUND OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY :- THE APPELLANT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS. THE APPELLANT COMPANY WAS INCORPORATED ON 21.12.2006 AND IS ENGAGED IN REAL ESTATE BUSINESS. THE APPELLANT COMPANY SUBMITS THAT INITIALLY THE SAID COMPANY WAS OWNED B Y OTHER THIRD PARTY GROUP AND THE NAME OF SHAREHOLDERS AND SHAREHOLDING IS AS UNDER:- SR. NO. NAME OF SHAREHOLDER NO. OF SHARES SHAREHOLDING (IN %) 1 DEEPAKBHAI N. SHAH 1450 14.50 2 MUKESHBHAI K. SHAH 1450 14.50 3 SANJAYBHAI R. SHAH HUF 500 5.00 4 HINABEN P. SHAH 300 3.00 IT(SS)A NO.289 /AHD/2018 (7 OTHERS) GREENFIELD REALITY P.LD. VS. DCIT - 5 - 5 NIRAV R. SHAH 150 1.50 6 RITABEN V. SHAH 2850 28.50 7 SHAILESHBHAI J. JOGANI 2900 29.00 8 NIKITABEN P. MORKHIYA 400 4.00 TOTAL 1000 100 THE APPELLANT COMPANY SUBMITS THAT THE SHARES OF SA ID COMPANY WAS PURCHASED BY ANUSHTHAN BUILDCON PVT. LTD. IN PIECEMEAL FROM F.Y. 2011-12 TO F.Y. 2013-14. THUS, ANUSHTHAN BUILDCON PVT. LTD. IS 91.12 % HOLDING COMPANY OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. THE DIRECTORS OF THE APPELLA NT COMPANY ARE AS UNDER:- LIST OF DIRECTORS OF GREENFIELD REALITY PVT. LTD. I S AS UNDER:- SR. NO. NAME OF DIRECTOR 1 MR. ASHITHARIBHAIVORA 2 MR. SANKETJITENDRABHAI SHAH 3 MR. ANKITSURESHBHAI SHAH 4 MR. DARSHITJAYESHBHAI SHAH 5 MR.BHAVESHBHAILALJIBHAIPANSURIYA 6 MR. NITINBHAIKALUBHAI DESAI 7 MR. KARAN PANKAJBHAI SHAH THE SHAREHOLDERS AND DIRECTORS OF ANUSHTHAN BUILDCON PVT. LTD. IS AS UNDER:- LIST OF DIRECTORS OF ANUSHTHAN BUILDCON PVT. LTD. IS AS UNDER:- SR. NO. NAME OF DIRECTOR 1 MR. ASHITHARIBHAIVORA '2 MR. SANKETJITENDRABHAI SHAH IT(SS)A NO.289 /AHD/2018 (7 OTHERS) GREENFIELD REALITY P.LD. VS. DCIT - 6 - 3 MR. ANKITSURESHBHAI SHAH 4 MR. DARSHITJAYESHBHAI SHAH LIST OF SHAREHOLDERS OF ANUSHTHAN BUILDCON PVT. LTD. IS AS UNDER:- SR. NO. NAME OF SHAREHOLDER NO. OF SHARES SHAREHOLDING (IN %) 1 ATUI HIRALAL SHAH 5000 50.00 - 2 ANIL HIRALAL SHAH 700 3 ANKITSURESHBHAI SHAH 3800 38.00 4 DARSHITJAYESHBHAI SHAH 500 5.00 TOTAL 100 THE PROJECT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL CUM COMMERCIAL BUILDING WAS LAUNCHED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY IN THE F.Y. 2011- 12 AND SINCE THE PROJECT WAS LAUNCHED AND ANNOUNCED, THE APPELLANT COMPANY S TARTED RECEIVING THE BOOKING AMOUNTS FROM THE PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS. THE PROJECT NAMED AS 'SHIV KARTIK' PROJECT COMPRISES OF 2 RESIDENTIAL TOWERS I .E. BUILDING A AND BUILDING B, EACH HAVING 10 FLOORS HAVING TOTAL 4 UNITS OF RESID ENTIAL FLATS PER FLOOR I.E. TOTAL 80 UNITS IN BOTH THE BUILDINGS. THE PROJECT ALSO HA S COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION HAVING GROUND FLOOR (47 SHOPS), UPPER FLOOR (35 SHO PS), MEZZANINE FLOOR (35 SHOPS), FIRST FLOOR (9 SHOWROOM) AND SECOND FLOOR (9 SHOWROOM). THE TOTAL AREA CONSTRUCTED IS 2,63,048 SQ. FT. ON THE TOTAL AREA O F LAND OF 8220 SQ. YARDS. THE APPELLANT COMPANY SUBMITS THAT THE ENTIRE PROJECT W AS BOOKED IN THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14. THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT WAS CONCLUDED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDING ON 31.03.201 6 AND SOME OF THE AGREEMENTS FOR SALE ARE YET TO BE REGISTERED. SEARCH U/S. 132 A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S. 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON 04.12.2014 ON ATUI HIRALAL SHAH GROUP AND THE APPELLANT COMPANY WAS ALSO COVERED SINCE SHRIATUI HIRALAL SHAH IS 50% SHAREHOLDER IN ANUSHTHAN BUILDCON PVT. LTD., 100% OWNER OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. THE SEARCH ACT ION WAS CONDUCTED AT SURAT AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE APPELLANT COM PANY AS WELL AS AT AHMEDABAD IN THE RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS PREMISES O F SHRI ATUI HIRALAL SHAH. IT(SS)A NO.289 /AHD/2018 (7 OTHERS) GREENFIELD REALITY P.LD. VS. DCIT - 7 - THE SEARCH WAS FINALLY CONCLUDED ON 05.12.2014. SEA RCH ACTION WAS ALSO SIMULTANEOUSLY CONDUCTED AT OTHER RESIDENTIAL PREMI SES OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTI ON, LOOSE PAPERS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. THE APPELLANT COMPANY SUBMITS THAT ANUSHTHAN BUILDCO N PVT. LTD. IS ALSO HAVING MAJORITY OF CONTROLLING INTEREST IN ANOTHER PROJECT UNDERTAKEN BY OTHER GROUP ENTITY I.E. SHAH HIRALAL BUILDCON LLP. THE AP PELLANT COMPANY SUBMITS THAT THE PROJECT IN THIS ENTITY IS ALSO RESIDENTIAL CUM COMMERCIAL PROJECT AND THIS PROJECT WAS ALSO LAUNCHED SIMULTANEOUSLY ALONG WITH THE PROJECT LAUNCHED IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. FURTHER, THE BOOKING RECEIPT AND OTHER PROJECT RELATED EXPENSES IN RESPECT OF THIS PROJECT WERE ALSO DONE SIMULTANEOUSLY AS IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. THE LOOSE PAPERS FOUND AND SEIZED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION RELATE TO BOTH THE PROJ ECTS. 3. DETAILED DISCUSSION ON THE SEIZE MATERIAL / EXPL ANATION FOR SEIZED PAPERS THE APPELLANT COMPANY SUBMITS THAT IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION, LOOSE PAPERS PAGES NO. 1 TO 5 OF ANNEXURE A-3 & PAGE NO. 36, 37, 38, 39, 43, 44, 46, 47 OF ANNEXURE A-L AND PAGES 10 TO 12 OF ANNEXURE A-1 0 WERE SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI ASHIT HIRABHAI VORA, ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. THE APPELLANT COMPANY SUBMITS THAT AS PER PAGES 2 & 5 OF ANNEXURE A-3, THE PURCHASE COST OF THE LAND IS NOTED AT RS.42,68,00,0 00/- (TOTAL LAND 8220 SQ. YARDS). FURTHER, ON PAGE NO. 5 OF SEIZED ANNEXUR E A3, THE DETAILS OF AMOUNTS COLLECTED BY THE GROUP MEMBERS TOWARDS BOOK ING RECEIPTS AS WELL AS THE BOOKING DETAILS OF THE 14 UNITS HAVE BE EN MENTIONED AND NOTED AND ALSO ON THE SAME PAGE THE LAND COST OF RS . 42,68,00,00/- IS ' ALSO MENTIONED AND THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IS STATED A T RS. 48,65,76,625/- . THE APPELLANT COMPANY SUBMITS THAT THE PAYMENT FO R LAND IN CASH OF RS. 22.75 CRORES IS MADE OUT OF THE BOOKING AMOUNT FOR THE PROJECT RECEIVED IN CASH. THE APPELLANT COMPANY SUBMITS THAT THE SEIZED PAPER S ALSO GIVE DETAILS OF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF ON MONEY RECEIVED TOWARDS BOOKI NG OF THE UNITS IN THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT UNDERTAKEN BY THE APPELLAN T COMPANY AS ALSO BY THE GROUP CONCERN SHAH HIRLAL BUILDCON LLP. FURTHER THE APPLELLANT WOULD ALSO LIKE TO STATE THAT THE SEIZED PAPERS CON TAINS THE DETAILS OF THE UNACCOUNTED BOOKING RECEIPTS AS WELL AS THE DETAILS OF THE UNACCOUNTED PAYMENTS FOR THE LAND AS WELL THE EXPENSES WHICH HA VE BEEN INCURRED. IN FURTHERANCE TO THE SAME THE APPELLANT COMPANY WO ULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THAT THERE ARE OTHER PAGES OF SEIZED ANNEXURE AL, A3 & AID W HICH ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED FOR GETTING THE PERFECT, TRUE AND FAIR FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED A.O. HAS NOT IT(SS)A NO.289 /AHD/2018 (7 OTHERS) GREENFIELD REALITY P.LD. VS. DCIT - 8 - CONSIDERED THE SAME FOR THE REASONS UNKNOWN TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY. THE APPELLANT WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT THE LD. A.O. HAS ONLY RELIED UPON THE PAGES WHICH ARE FAVOURABLE TO THE REVENUE BUT H AS NOT CONSIDERED THE PAGES WHEREIN THE DETAILS OF THE EXPENSES WHICH HAVE BEEN INCURRED HAVE BEEN MENTIONED. THE COPY OF THE SAID PAGES OF SEIZED ANNEXURE AL AND A3 ARE ENCLOSED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE NO. 53 4 TO 543, TO HIGHLIGHT AND UNDERSTAND THE MODUS OPERAND! AND FAC TS OF THE CASE. THE APPELLANT WOULD LIKE TO DRAW YOUR HONOUR'S ATTE NTION TO THE PAGE'S OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL WHICH HAVE BEEN NEGLECTED BY THE A.O . FOR FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS ARBITRARILY AND MAKING HIGH PITCHE D ADDITIONS IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY: - SEIZED ANNEXURE AL PAGE NO 36 DETAILS OF VARIOUS EXPENSES INCURRED ON BUILDING AN D DEVELOPING OF SHIV KARTIK ENCLAVE SCHEME AT VESU TILL 02/11/2012 AND THE AMOU NT RECEIVED FOR THE BOOKING HAS BEEN MENTIONED. THE APPELLANT WOULD LIK E TO STATE THE EXPENSES REGARDING THE REGISTRATION, SALARY , LEGAL, COMMISS ION ETC HAVE BEEN CLEARLY MENTIONED AND THE SAME JUSTIFIES THAT AGAINST THE U ACCOUNTED BOOKING RECEIPTS THERE WERE UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES WHICH HAVE BEEN CLE ARLY MENTIONED IN THE SEIZE MATERIAL WHICH ALSO HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE A.O. PAGE NO.38 DETAILS OF BOOKING RECEIPT IN CASH AND EXPENSES FRO M THE SAME FOR BUILDING AND DEVELOPING FOR SHIV KARTIK ENCLAVE SCHEME AT VESU T ILL 31/03/2013 HAVE BEEN MENTIONED. ON VERIFICATION OF THE PAGE THE APPELLANT COMPANY W OULD LIKE TO STATE THAT THE DETAILS OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED AGAINST THE BOOKINGS AS WELL AS THE DETAILS OF THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN MENTIONED WHICH CLEARLY R EFLECT THE FACT THAT THE A.O. HAS ARBITRARILY ONLY CONSIDERED THE UNACCOU NTED RECEIPT FOR FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS WHICH IS UNJUSTIFIED A ND BAD IN LAW. PAGE NO.43 DETAILS OF BOOKING RECEIPTS IN CASH AND VARIOUS EXP ENSES INCURRED ON BUILDING AND DEVELOPING SHIV KARTIK ENCLAVE SCHEME AT VESU T ILL 18/04/2012. THE APPELLANT WOULD LIKE TO STATE THE EXPENSES REGA RDING THE REGISTRATION, SALARY , LEGAL, COMMISSION ETC HAVE BEEN CLEARLY MENTIONED AND THE SAME JUSTIFIES THAT AGAINST THE UACCOUNTED BOOKING RECE IPTS THERE WERE UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES WHICH HAVE BEEN CLEARLY M ENTIONED IN THE SEIZE MATERIAL WHICH ALSO HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE A.O . IT(SS)A NO.289 /AHD/2018 (7 OTHERS) GREENFIELD REALITY P.LD. VS. DCIT - 9 - PAGE NO.46 DETAILS OF VARIOUS EXPENSES INCURRED ON BUILDING AN D DEVELOPING SHIV KARTIK ENCLAVE SCHEME AT VESU TILL 17/05/2012. THE APPELLANT WOULD LIKE TO STATE THE EXPENSES REGA RDING THE REGISTRATION, SALARY , LEGAL, COMMISSION ETC HAVE BEEN CLEARLY MENTIONED AND THE SAME JUSTIFIES THAT AGAINST THE UACCOUNTED BOOKING RECEI PTS THERE WERE UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES WHICH HAVE BEEN CLEARLY MENTIO NED IN THE SEIZE MATERIAL WHICH ALSO HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE A.O . SEIZE ANNEXURE A3 PAGE NO.03 WORKING OF 14 UNITS SOLD OF SHIV KARTIK ENCLAVE DEV ELOPED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY WHICH DETAIL WORKING OF FLAT WISE AREA,RATE AND TOTAL FLAT SALES VALUE (ACCOUNTED AND UNACCOUNTED). THE APPELLANT WOU LD LIKE TO STATE THAT THE PAGE NO, 3 IS IMPORTANT AS THE DETAILS OF THE BOOKING COLLECTION HAS BEEN DULY REFLECTED ON PAGE NO. 5 WHICH HAS BEE N RELIED UPON BY THE A.O. HENCE IN A NUT SHELL FROM THE DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE SEIZED PAGES WE CAN DRAW A CONCLUSION THAT THERE WERE DETAILS OF UNNACC OUNTED RECEIPTS FOUND AS WELL AS THE UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES HAVE BEEN FOUND IN THE SEIZE MATERIAL AND HENCE THE A.O. HAS TO TAKE INTO CONSIDE RATION THE SEIZE MATERIAL IN ITS TOTALITY AND CANNOT APPLY THE PICK AND CHOOSE THEORY, WHICH IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED AND BAD IN LAW IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF INDORE MALWA U NITED MILLS LTD. VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (1966) 60 ITR 41 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT ' IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITIES TO PICK AND CHOOSE SOME OF THE PART OF THE RECORDS BEFORE THEM WHICH WERE M ORE FAVOURABLE TO THEM REVENUE. BEING TRIBUNALS OF FACT, IT WAS THEIR DUTY TO CONSIDER THE CONTENTS OF THE RECORDS BEFORE THEM IN TOTO'. 7. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LD.REPRESENTATIVES, WE HA VE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD. AS OBSERVED EARLIER, FINDINGS OF THE A O QUA MAIN ISSUE IS COMMON IN ALL THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS EXCEPT VARIATI ON IN THE QUANTUM. WE TAKE NOTE OF THESE FINDINGS FROM THE ASSTT.YEAR 2012-13, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 9. RECEIPTS OF UNACCOUNTED CASH AS ON-MONEY IT(SS)A NO.289 /AHD/2018 (7 OTHERS) GREENFIELD REALITY P.LD. VS. DCIT - 10 - IN SUBMISSIONS FILED VIDE LETTER DATED 26.10.2016 R ECEIVED ON 27.10.2016, ASSESSEE FIRM HAD SUBMITTED AND ACCEPTED TO HAVE RECEIVED CA SH OF RS. 66,40,00,0007-BEING ON- MONEY FROM SALE OF PROPERTY OF VESU PROJECT AND OFF ERED 8% PROFIT ON THE TOTAL ACCOUNTED AND UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT. IT STATED THAT O UT OF THIS ON-MONEY, CASH EXPENSES HAD BEEN INCURRED OF RS. 22 CRORES TO PURCHASE THE SHARES BY EXISTING SHARE-HOLDERS & RS. 5.97 CRORES INCURRED AFTER PURCHASE OF LAND (AS IN PRECEDING PARAS) & THAT IT HAS OFFERED 8% OF PROFIT ON TOTAL RECEIPTS INCLUDING CA SH RECEIPTS. IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED IN PRECEDING PARAS THAT CAS H OF RS. 22 CRORES ON PURCHASE OF SHARES WAS NOT OUT OF ON-MONEY RECEIVED FROM CUSTOM ERS BUT CONTRIBUTIONS FROM VARIOUS PERSONS. FURTHER, IT HAS ALSO BEEN ESTABLIS HED IN PRECEDING PARAS THAT CASH EXPENSES OF RS. 5.97 CRORES (SUBSEQUENT TO PURCHASE OF LAND) ALSO WERE NOT EXPLAINED & SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCES. ALSO, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVIDE PROPER EVIDENC E TO CONVEY THE BASIS FOR ESTIMATING PROFIT AT 8% ON TOTAL RECEIPT OF VESU PROJECT. IN A NY CASE, UNTIL & UNLESS ASSESSEE PROVIDES DETAILS (PAN, NAME, ADDRESS ETC.) WITH CON FIRMATIONS FROM PARTIES TO WHOM PAYMENTS/EXPENSES HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF THIS UNACCO UNTED MONEY, NO BENEFIT OF DEDUCTIONS CAN BE ALLOWED TO ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE CASH BOOK OF THE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, EVEN IF THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE FOR EXPENSES IS CONSIDERED, THE SAME IS NO T ALLOWABLE AS PER SECTION 40A OF THE IT ACT. 9.1 IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND SUB MISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED CASH OF RS. 66,40,00,0007- O N SALE OF PROPERTY OF VESU PROJECT. ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED FLAT/SHOP WISE DETAILS OF CA SH RECEIPT, CASH FLOW AND COPY OF CASH VOUCHER ONLY ON 27.02.2017 WHICH IS AFTER 80 D AYS OF ISSUANCE OF FINAL SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. THIS PROVES THAT SUCH DETAILS WERE PR EPARED IN HASTE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM AND WITHOUT ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. ALSO FR OM THE SUBMISSION DATED 27.02.2017, FOLLOWING FACT EMERGES: ASSESSEE SHOWS BOOKING OF 15 CRORE IN FY 2011- 12, HOWEVER, ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE LAND IN MARCH-2012, HENCE AS PER ASSE SSEE'S CLAIM, IT HAD RECEIVED ADVANCE EVEN BEFORE INVESTMENT IN LAND FIT PURCHASE OF SHARES. THIS GOES AGAINST PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES. ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM OF RECEIPT OF ON-MONEY DURING FY 2011-12 BY NOT SUBMITTING ANY DOCUMENT AS TO WHE N SHARES WERE NOT EVEN PURCHASED AND PROJECT WAS NOT STARTED, HOW & ON WHA T BASIS THE BUYERS HAD GIVEN HUGE CASH ADVANCES. ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH CONFIRMATIONS OF SUCH PERSONS WHO HAD GIVEN HUGE ADVANCE TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS DISCUSSED ABOVE, I T IS TO BE CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS.66,40,00,000/- FROM SALE OF PROPERTY OF SHIV KARTIK PROJECT WHICH ARE ALSO NOT REFLECTED IN ASSESSEE'S BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND T HE SAME REPRESENTS ASSESSEE'S UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT AND THEREFORE TOTAL RECEIPT OF RS. 66,40,00,000/- REQUIRES TO BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS CAS H RECEIPT OF RS. 66,40,00,000/- IT(SS)A NO.289 /AHD/2018 (7 OTHERS) GREENFIELD REALITY P.LD. VS. DCIT - 11 - REMAINS UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASS ESSEE IN DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEAR AS GIVEN BELOW. THE BASIS OF THIS BIFURCATION IS TH AT ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THE RECEIPT OF ADVANCES FROM CUSTOMERS ONLY IN FY 2013-14 ONWARDS & HENCE CASH COMPONENT IS ALSO TO BE TAXED IN FY 2013-14 ONWARDS ONLY IN PROP ORTION TO THE BOOKING/ADVANCES RECEIPTS SHOWN IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. F.Y. 2012 - 13 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 RECEIPT SHOWN BY GREENFIELD REALITY PVT LTD IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS NIL 2,93,65,5007 - 5,10,76,700 PROPORTIONATE CASH RECEIPT BY ASSESSEE FROM SHIV KARTIK PROJECT NIL 24,23,93,8187 - 42,16,06,1827 - IN FACT, FOLLOWING PARA SHOWS THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEE N CHANGING ITS STANCE FREQUENTLY IN SO FAR AS DETAILS OF ON-MONEY ARE CONCERNED. 9.2 AS SHOWN ABOVE, IN OCTOBER 2016, ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT IT HAD RECEIVED CASH ON- MONEY OF RS. 66.4 CRORES. IN SUBMISSIONS FILED ON 2 7/02/2017, ASSESSEE STATED THAT YEAR-WISE CASH RECEIPT IS TOTALING RS. 58,76,00,000 /-FROM AY 2012-13 TO 2015-16 AS UNDER: AY 2012 - 13 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 2015 - 16 2016 - 17 AMOUNT OF ON - MONEY 15,25,00,000 2,50,07,000 11,55,00,000 7,02,75,000 22,43,18,000 ASSESSEE STATED THAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EARLIER FIG URE OF RS. 66.4 CRORES & NEW FIGURE OF RS. 58.76 CRORES ARISE SINCE THE EARLIER FIGURE INCLUDED CHEQUE RECEIPTS ALSO. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY RECONCILIATION OF THE SAME. THE ABOVE SHOWS THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CHANGING ITS STAND CONTINUOUSLY. EVEN AS PER THIS NEW STAND OF ASSESSEE, THE UNACCOU NTED RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2012-13 COMES TO RS. 15,25,00,000/- WHICH IS N OT SHOWN BY ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ALSO NOT OFFERED IN RETURN OF INCOM E. ALSO, THE SAME IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED WITH ANY SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT NO PROJECT WAS INITIATED DURING AY 2012-13 AND ASSESSEE HAD ITSELF SHOWN BOOKING FROM AY 2014-15 ONWARDS AS TABULATED ABOVE. SINCE ASSESSEE HAD ITSELF CLAIMED TOTAL ON-MONEY RE CEIPT OF RS. 15,25,00,000/-DURING AY 2012-13 AND SUBSTANTIVE ADDITIONS FOR RECEIPT OF ON-MONEY HAS BEEN MADE IN AY 2014-15 TO 2015-16, PROTECTIVE ADDITION OF RS. 15,2 5,00,000/- IS MADE ON THIS GROUND AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY FROM UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT AS DI SCUSSED IN PRECEDING PARA. IT(SS)A NO.289 /AHD/2018 (7 OTHERS) GREENFIELD REALITY P.LD. VS. DCIT - 12 - I AM SATISFIED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PART ICULARS OF ITS' INCOME AND ALSO FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME BY N OT RECORDING ABOVE DISCUSSED CASH TRANSACTION AND THEREFORE, THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR I NITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S.271 R.W.S. 274 ARE SEPARATELY INITIA TED FOR LEVY OF U/S. 271(1)(C). PURSUANT TO THE ABOVE AND SUBJECT TO THE DETAILS MA DE AVAILABLE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS COMPUTED AS UNDER: INCOME AS PER RETURN FILED U/S 153A NIL ADD: UNEXPLAINED EXPENSES AS DISCUSSED IN PARA 8 RS. 2,92,76,625/ - ADD: UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT AS DISCUSSED IN PARA 9 (PROTECTIVE ADDITION) RS. 15,25,00,000/ - ASSESSED INCOME RS.18,17,76,625/ - 11. THIS ORDER IS PASSED AFTER OBTAINING APPROVAL O F JCIT.CR-1, AHMEDABAD. THE APPROVAL WAS COMMUNICATED VIDE LETTER NO.JOINT.CIT. CR-1/APPROVAL 153D/2016-17 DATED 01.03.2017. 12. ASSESSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 153A(1)(B) OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. CHARGE INTEREST U/S. 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D OF THE ACT, A S APPLICABLE. GIVE CREDIT FOR PRE- PAID TAXES AFTER DUE VERIFICATION. ISSUE NOTICE U/S .271 R.W.S. 274 FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. ISSUE DEMAND NOTICE/CHAL LAN/RO AS APPLICABLE. SD/- (DR. K. K. RUPAVATIYA) ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), AHMEDABAD 8. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS IN PRINCIPLE CONFIR MED THAT TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.58.76 CRORES WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSES SEE IN THE SHAPE OF ON-MONEY FOR SALE OF FLATS AND SHOPS IN VESU PROJE CT. ELEMENT OF INCOME EMBEDDED IN THESE RECEIPTS DESERVES TO BE AS SESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF GROSS AMOUNT WORKED O UT BY THE AO. THE LD.CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OF FERED PROFIT ELEMENT IN THESE RECEIPTS AT 8% WHEREAS THE AO HAS ASSESSED THE GROSS RECEIPTS. THE LD.CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO ADOPT 20% OF THESE GROSS ON-MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS BOOKING OF THE FLA TS/SHOPS IN VESU IT(SS)A NO.289 /AHD/2018 (7 OTHERS) GREENFIELD REALITY P.LD. VS. DCIT - 13 - PROJECT. THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2012- 13 READS AS UNDER: DECISION 5. SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND THE ASSESSMENT O RDER HAS BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE APPELLANT FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2012-13 ON 29.09.2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. NIL. ON 4.12.2014, THE APPELLANT'S BUSINESS PREMISES WAS CO VERED UNDER SEARCH ACTION U/S. 132 OF THE ACT ALONGWITH 'ACCOMMODATION ENTRY' PROVIDER GROUP OF AHMEDABAD'. AT THE PREMISES OF ONE OF THE GROUP PERSO N OF 'ACCOMMODATION ENTRY' PROVIDER GROUP OF AHMEDABAD', NAMELY SHRI ASIT VORA AT 5-B, VASUPUJYA SOCIETY, PALDI, AHMEDABAD, PAPERS ANNEXURI SED AS PAGE NO.1 & 5 OF ANN-3 & PAGE NO. 36, 37, 38, 39, 43, 44, 46, 47 OF AN NEXURE A-1 AND PAGES 10 TO 12 OF ANNEXURE A-10 WERE FOUND & SEIZED. IN THE A BOVE MENTIONED PAGES, DETAILS OF 'VESU' PROJECT ARE MENTIONED. THIS PROJE CT HAS BEEN UNDER TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT, THEREFORE, PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153A OF T HE ACT WERE INITIATED BY ISSUING NOTICE DATED 22.07.2015, WHICH WAS DULY SER VED UPON THE APPELLANT. VIDE LETTER DATED 26.10.2016, THE APPELLANT STATED THAT RETURN FILED ON 29.09.2012 MAY BE CONSIDERED AS RETURN FILED IN RES PONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 153C OF THE ACT. THE NOTICE U/S.143(2) DATED 26.10.20 16 WAS ISSUED & SERVED UPON THE APPELLANT. MEANWHILE THE APPELLANT FILED A PPEAL BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, MUMBAI VIDE APPLICATION DATED 20.12.201 6 FOR AY 2012-13 TO 2015-16. BUT THE SAME WAS REJECTED BY THE SETTLEMEN T COMMISSION VIDE ORDER DATED 02.01.2017. HENCE FRESH OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS PROVIDED BY THE AO TO THE APPELLANT AND ASSESSMENT WAS FINALIZED VID E ORDER DATED 01.03.2017. THE APPELLANT IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ADDITIONS MA DE IN THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER. 6. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ADDITI ONS OF RS.2,92,76,625/- MADE BY THE AO AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CA SH BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE PROJECT. THE AO STATED THAT AS PER THE SEIZED PAPERS , THE APPELLANT HAD INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF RS.5,97,76,625/- IN CASH, OUT OF WHI CH RS.2,92,76,625/- PERTAINS TO THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PR ODUCE THE CASH BOOK TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM THAT THESE ARE SHOWN IN REGU LAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED FLAT/SHOP WISE CASH RECEIPT, CA SH FLOW & COPY OF CASH VOUCHERS ON 27.2.2017 WHICH IS 80 DAYS AFTER THE SH OW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED IN THIS REGARD. THE AO STATED THAT THESE VOUCHERS ARE F OR THE DATES BEFORE THE DATE OF PURCHASE OF LAND I.E. DATE OF REGISTRATION OF SA LE DEED. THE AO STATED THAT MOST OF THE VOUCHERS ARE WITHOUT TIN, FEW VOUCHERS DO NOT CONTAIN NAME OF THE SUPPLIER, SOME PAGES ARE SIMPLE CALCULATION. ALL THESE FACTS PROVE THAT THE VOUCHERS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT ARE NOT RELIABLE , HENCE, REJECTED BY THE AO. THE AO VERIFIED FROM THE ITD DATA, THAT NONE OF THE SUPPLIER IS REGISTERED WITH (EXCEPT ONE OUT OF 29) SALES TAX DEPARTMENT OR INCOM E-TAX DEPARTMENT. WITH IT(SS)A NO.289 /AHD/2018 (7 OTHERS) GREENFIELD REALITY P.LD. VS. DCIT - 14 - THESE REASONS, THE AO MADE THE ADDITIONS OF RS.2,92 ,76,625/- PERTAINING TO THIS YEAR. THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT FIGURES OF RS.5, 97,76,625/- TAKEN BY THE AO FROM PAGE NO.5 OF ANNEXURE-3 AND CONSIDERING THE SA ME AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. THIS FIGURE IS BALANCE FIGURE, WHICH HAS BEEN OBTAINED AFTER REDUCING FROM THE TOTAL RECEIPTS FIG URES OF RS.48,65,76,625/- BY LAND AMOUNT OF RS.42,68,00,000/-. DIFFERENCE OF THE SE TWO FIGURES RS.5,97,76,625/-. IT IS NOWHERE MENTIONED THAT IT I S EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CASH. THUS, AO'S CONCLUSION THAT IT IS UNEXPLAINED CASH IS NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT. THE APPELLANT FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE AO S FINDING ABOUT NOT REGISTERING THE SUPPLIER WITH SALES TAX IS ALSO PAR TLY INCORRECT. AS THESE EXPENDITURE WERE INCURRED OUT OF BOOKS, THUS, ALL T HE SUPPLIER MAY NOT BE HAVING TIN ETC. ON GOING THROUGH THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT, IT IS FOUND THAT IT IS CONTRADICTORY. ONE SIDE THE APPELLANT CO NTENDED THAT THIS FIGURE OF RS.5,97,76,625/- NOT REPRESENTS EXPENDITURE IN CASH WHICH REMAINS UNEXPLAINED, OTHER SIDE THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THA T AS THESE EXPENDITURE WERE UNACCOUNTED, THEREFORE, ALL THE SUPPLIERS DID NOT H AVE TIN ETC. THIS SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT SURE ABOUT THE ARGUMENTS TO BE TAKEN TO JUSTIFY THE UNACCOUNTED EXPENDITURE. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APP ELLANT ARE CONTRADICTORY, MISLEADING, THEREFORE, ARE NOT RELIABLE, HENCE REJE CTED. HOWEVER, IF THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME FROM THIS PROJECT IS TO BE DETER MINED ON THE BASIS OF ALL UNACCOUNTED CASH RECEIPTS AND ALL THE EXPENDITURE' INCLUDING THE UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CASH HAS BEEN TAKEN CARE OF WHILE DETERMINING THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME FROM THIS PROJECT, AS MENTIONED IN PARA 7, NO SEPARATE ADDITION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT. TH US THIS ADDITION IS DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 7. THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ADDIT IONS OF RS.15.25 CORE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS MADE BY THE AO CONSIDERING THE RECE IPTS AS UNACCOUNTED FOR THIS YEAR. THE AO STATED THAT OUT OF TOTAL CASH AMOU NT OF RS.66.40 CRORE RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT ON BOOKING/SALE OF UNITS OF THE PROJECT, RS.15.25 OR. HAS BEEN ESTIMATED FOR THIS YEAR ON THIS PROPORTION ATE BASIS OF AMOUNT SHOWN IN REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE RECEIPTS OF RS.15.25 CRORE REMAIN UNACCOUNTED IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT, THUS, IT WAS ADDED O N PROTECTIVE BASIS TILL THE APPELLANT PROVIDES DETAILS (PAN, NAME, ADDRESS ETC) W ITH CONFIRMATION FROM THE PARTIES TO WHOM PAYMENT/EXPENSES HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF THIS UNACCOUNTED MONEY, NO BENEFIT OF THE DEDUCTION CAN BE ALLOWED. THE AO REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT SHOWING 8% INCOME ON THE TOTAL RECEIP TS. THE AO FURTHER STATED THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, EVEN IF THE CL AIM OF THE APPELLANT FOR EXPENSES IS CONSIDERED, THE SAME IS NOT ALLOWABLE U /S. 40A OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.15.25 CRORE FOR THIS YEAR O N PROTECTIVE BASIS. THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT THE RECEIPT OF CASH AMOUNT OF RS.66.40 CRORE WAS REDUCED TO RS.58.76 CR. BECAUSE THERE IS DUPLICATIO N OF RS.7.64 CRORE ON LAND AMOUNT AND THE SAME WAS REDUCED FROM THE TOTAL RECE IPTS MENTIONED ON THE PAGE. RS.7.64 CRORE WAS WRONGLY MENTIONED ON RECEIP T SIDE, WHICH IS CLEAR FROM THE SEIZED DOCUMENT. IT(SS)A NO.289 /AHD/2018 (7 OTHERS) GREENFIELD REALITY P.LD. VS. DCIT - 15 - 7.1 REGARDING THE FINDINGS OF THE AO THAT EXPENDITUR E IN CASH NOT ALLOWABLE TILL THE APPELLANT SUBMIT DETAILS OF NAME, PAN, ADD RESS ETC OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM SUCH PAYMENTS ARE MADE IS NOT JUSTIFIED AS THE SE ARE UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS AS WRITTEN ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND ADM ITTED BY THE APPELLANT ON HIGHER SIDE THAN THE AMOUNT WRITTEN ON SEIZED DOCUM ENTS. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT REQUESTED THAT PROTECTIVE ADDITION OF RS. 15.25 CRORE MAY BE DELETED. THE APPELLANT ALSO CONTENDED THAT PAYMENT WERE TOTA LLY OUT OF BOOKS. THE APPELLANT CITED SEVERAL CASE LAWS IN SUPPORT OF THI S CONTENTION. 7.2 FACTS OF THE CASE, ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMISS IONS OF THE APPELLANT THOROUGHLY CONSIDERED. THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ON PROTECTIVE BASIS CONSIDERING THE TOTAL RECEIPTS IN THE YEAR IS NOT F OUND JUSTIFIED AS THESE RECEIPTS ARE IN CASH AND OUT OF REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. AD DITIONS SHOULD BE MADE ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT DUR ING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN ON MONEY REC EIPT OF RS. 15.25 CRORE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHICH IS PARTLY SUPPO RTED BY THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. THE AO HAS CONSIDERED EXPENDITURE INCURRE D FOR THE PROJECT UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE ABOVE PARA DURING THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION, WHICH PROVE THAT WORK ON THE PROJECT HAS BEEN STARTED DUR ING THIS YEAR. THE APPELLANT IS ALSO SHOWING BOOKING RECEIPTS OF RS.15.25 CRORES FOR THIS YEAR. AS THE APPELLANT IS SHOWING BOOKING IN YEAR BEFORE THE YEA R CONSIDERED BY THE AO, HENCE, IT IS PRO-REVENUE, THUS THERE IS NO REASON F OR NOT ACCEPTING THE SAME. THERE IS NO BASIS FOR NON-BELIEVING THE APPELLANT'S BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS TO THIS EXTENT. THEREFORE, ON MONEY RECEIPTS OF RS.15.25 CR ORES IS CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION. BUT ADDITIONS CANNOT BE MADE CONSIDERING THE TOTAL ON MONEY RECEIPT AS I NCOME OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE YEAR. THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS PROVED THAT THE APPE LLANT HAD PAID RS. 42.68 CRORE IN CASH FOR PURCHASE OF LAND, WHICH ALSO REMA IN UNACCOUNTED. THUS, RECEIPTS OF ON MONEY AND PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF LA ND IN CASH, BOTH REMAIN OUT OF THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IT IS LEGALLY SET TLED PRINCIPLE THAT THE REAL INCOME SHOULD BE TAXED AND NOT THE NOTIONAL INCOME. IT HAS BEEN HELD IN SEVERAL JUDGEMENTS DELIVERED BY THE HIGHER JUDICIAL AUTHORI TIES THAT SOME PERCENTAGE SHOULD BE TAKEN AS INCOME FROM THE TOTAL ON MONEY R ECEIPTS. IT HAS BEEN HELD REASONABLE TO CONSIDER INCOME FROM 12.5% TO 20% OF THE TOTAL ON MONEY RECEIPT AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. THE BASIS FOR TAKING PE RCENTAGE AS INCOME OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO INCUR EXPE NDITURE IN PURCHASING LAND & FOR OTHER ITEMS, WHICH ALSO REMAIN OUT OF BOOKS. KE EPING IN VIEW THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN TOTALITY, IT IS REASONABLE TO CONSIDER 20% OF THE TOTAL ON MONEY RECEIPTS AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION. THE APPELLANT ITSELF HAS SHOWN 8% OF TOTAL ON MONEY RECEIPTS, AS INCOME, WHICH IS TOO LOW. 8% IS CONSIDERING REASONABLE IN CASE OF CIVIL CONTRACTOR BUT THE APPELLANT IS BUILDER/DEVELOPER, HENCE, 8% INCOME RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT IS INADEQUATE. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER 20% OF RS.15.25 CRORE (TOTAL ON MONEY RECEIPTS) AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION. THIS COMES TO IT(SS)A NO.289 /AHD/2018 (7 OTHERS) GREENFIELD REALITY P.LD. VS. DCIT - 16 - RS.3,05,00,000/- (20% OF RS.15.25 CRORE). THUS, ADDI TIONS OF RS. 3,05,00,000/- ARE CONFIRMED ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 9. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE IMPUGNING ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN BIFURCATION OF ON-MONEY RECEIVED BY IT IN EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR. S UCH BIFURCATION HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE AO WHILE TAKING COGNIZANCE O F THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION IN PARA-9.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN CASH RECEIPT TOTALING TO RS.58.7 6 CRORES AS UNDER: AY 2012 - 13 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 2015 - 16 2016 - 17 AMOUNT OF ON - MONEY 15,25,00,000 2,50,07,000 11,55,00,000 7,02,75,000 22,43,18,000 10. ACCORDING TO HIM, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RS.66.40 CRORES AND RS.58.76 CRORES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE EARLIER FIGURE, THE ASSESSEE HAS INCLUDED CHEQUE RECEIPTS ALSO. THE EX ACT FIGURE IS RS.58.76 CRORES. HE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED INC OME AT 8% OF THE ALLEGED ON-MONEY RECEIVED BY IT IN CASH IN THESE DI FFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE SHORT QUESTION FOR ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS, WHETHER PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN THIS RECEIPT IS TO BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE OR GROSS ON-MONEY RECEIPTS IS TO BE ADDED ? IN CASE IT IS TO BE ADDED AS ELEMENT OF PROFIT THEN, A T WHAT PERCENTAGE SUCH PROFIT IS TO BE WORKED OUT I.E. 8% OFFERED BY THE A SSESSEE OR 20% ESTIMATED BY THE REVENUE. 11. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THA T THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL IS IMPUGNING ESTIMATION OF THIS PROFIT AT 20 % AT THE END OF THE LD.CIT(A). ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, IT SHOULD BE 8% ONLY WHEREAS THE IT(SS)A NO.289 /AHD/2018 (7 OTHERS) GREENFIELD REALITY P.LD. VS. DCIT - 17 - REVENUE IS IMPUGNING ESTIMATION OF PROFIT AT 20%. ACCORDING TO IT, THE GROSS RECEIPTS AS ADDED BY THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE BEE N UPHELD BY THE LD.CIT(A). THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE APPRAIS ED US THE POSITION OF LAW ON THIS POINT AND EMPHASIZED THAT ONLY ELEMENT OF PROFIT IS TO BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. FOR BUTTRES SING HIS CONTENTION, HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, A HMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF KISHOR MOHANLAL TELWALA, 64 TTJ 543 = 10 7 TAXMAN 86 (AHD). HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS CASE A SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 6.10.1995. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH A PIECE OF PAPER WAS FOUND EXHIBITING THE FACT THAT IN THE PRO JECT, HARE KRISHNA APARTMENT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ON-MONEY ON SA LE OF FLATS. THE ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION WAS RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL WHEREBY IT WAS CONTENDED THAT ONLY ELEMENT OF PROFIT IN THE ALLEGE D ON-MONEY IS TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE TOOK US THR OUGH PARAGRAPH 4.1 WHERE THIS PLEADING WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL. THEREAFTER, HE TOOK US THROUGH PARAGRAPH 6 OF THE T RIBUNALS ORDER WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS ACCEPTED THE ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OUT OF SUCH ON-MONEY AT 8%. THE TRIBUNAL TOOK GUIDANCE IN SECT ION 44AD WHEREBY IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT IN CASE OF CIVIL CONTRACT OR, IF THE GROSS RECEIPTS ARE LESS THAN RS.40 LAKHS, THEN INCOME OF SUCH ASSE SSEE SHOULD BE TAKEN AT 8%. SINCE THIS WAS THE RATE PROVIDED BY THE LE GISLATURE FOR SMALL ASSESSEES THE TRIBUNAL TOOK GUIDANCE FROM THIS FOR ESTIMATING THE INCOME. THIS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL TRAVELLED UPTO THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN TAX APPEAL NO.411 OF 1999, AND THE HONBLE COURT HAS FRAMED TWO QUESTIONS, OUT OF WHICH QUESTION NO.2 IS RELEV ANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONTROVERSY IN OUR HAND. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE QUESTION (2), WHICH READS AS UNDER: IT(SS)A NO.289 /AHD/2018 (7 OTHERS) GREENFIELD REALITY P.LD. VS. DCIT - 18 - WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE ITAT HAVING HELD THAT ONLY THE PROFIT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME HAS TO BE TAXED IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT WAS JUSTIFIED IN ADMITTING THE C LAIM OF EXPENDITURE ON THE BASIS OF ORAL EVIDENCES THOUGH THE DEPARTME NT HAD CLEARLY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE UNDISCLOSED RECEI PT IN THE FORM OF ON- MONEY ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL FOUND AND SEIZED DUR ING THE COURSE OF SEARCH? 12. HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS UPHELD FINDING OF THE TR IBUNAL. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TOOK US THROUGH THE FIN DING OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT RECORDED IN PARA-10 OF THE JUDGMENT, WHI CH READS AS UNDER: 10. EVEN SO FAR AS THE SECOND QUESTION IS CONCERNE D, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAID QUESTION ALSO DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY QU ESTION OF LAW ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF FACT THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS RIGHTLY CO NSIDERED THAT IN ABSENCE OF ANY FINANCIAL RECORD OR ACCOUNTS BEING MA INTAINED BY THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE, THE PROFIT EARNED BY THE RESPO NDENT ASSESSEE FOR THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT WAS PRESUMED TO BE MORE THAN 8% A S PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 44AD OF THE ACT. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH LE ARNED ADVOCATE, SHRI NAIK THAT AS NO ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED OR NOTHING TO SUBSTANTIATE THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE HAD BEEN SHOWN, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT RECEI VED BY THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE SHOULD BE TREATED AS INCOME. WE DO NOT THI NK THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT TH E RESPONDENT ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE SPENT REASONABLE AMOUNT FOR THE PURPO SE OF RECEIVING THE GROSS RECEIPT. IF THE LEGAL PROVISIONS PROVIDE T HAT IN ABSENCE OF ACCOUNTS, THE PERSON SHOULD BE PRESUMED TO HAVE EARNED 8% PRO FIT IF HE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION, WE DO NOT THINK THA T THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL COULD BE TREATED AS PERVERSE. IN ANY C ASE, WE DO NOT THINK IT NECESSARY TO CALL FOR STATEMENT OF CASE FROM THE T RIBUNAL FOR OUR CONSIDERATION. 13. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER TOOK US THROUGH THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF DCIT VS. PANNA CORPORATION, TAX APPEAL NO.323 OF 2000. HE P LACED ON RECORD COPY OF THIS JUDGMENT. HE TOOK US THROUGH THE FOLL OWING QUESTION OF LAW. HONBLE HIGH COURT AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDE RATION ITS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF KOSHOR MOHANLAL TELWALA (SUPRA) UPHELD ORDER OF THE ITAT, IT(SS)A NO.289 /AHD/2018 (7 OTHERS) GREENFIELD REALITY P.LD. VS. DCIT - 19 - AND HELD THAT ELEMENT OF PROFIT IS TO BE IDENTIFIED IN ON-MONEY RECEIPTS. WE HAVE BEEN TAKEN THROUGH THE FOLLOWING FINDING OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT: 14. WE MAY RECALL THAT THE TRIBUNAL, IN THE IMPUGN ED JUDGEMENT, RELIED ON ITS PREVIOUS JUDGEMENT IN CASE OF KISHOR MOHANLA L TELWALA. THE SAID JUDGEMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS APPARENTLY CARRIED IN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE. THE HIGH COURT BY A SPEAKING ORDER DATED 2 4.4.2000, DISMISSED THE APPEAL HOLDING THAT NO QUESTION OF LAW WAS INVO LVED. SIGNIFICANTLY, IN CASE OR KISHOR MOHANLAL TELWALA, THE ASSESSEE WAS E NGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION. IN HIS CASE, UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT OF RS.1.47 CRORES WAS DETECTED. IN THIS BACKGROUND, THE DIVISI ON BENCH CONFIRMED THE VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL AND DID NOT ACCEPT THE CON TENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT AS NO ACCOUNTS HAD BEEN MAINTAINED TO SUBSTANT IATE THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT RECEIVE D BY THE RESPONDENT SHOULD BE TREATED AS INCOME. THE COURT CONCLUDED TH AT THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONSIDERING THAT THE RESPONDENT - ASSE SSEE OUGHT TO HAVE SPENT REASONABLE AMOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING SUCH GROSS RECEIPT. 15. IT CAN, THUS, BE SEEN THAT CONSISTENTLY, THIS C OURT AND SOME OTHER COURTS HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLE THAT EVEN UPON DETECTION OF ON MONEY RECEIPT OR UNACCOUNTED CASH RECEIPT, WHAT CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX IS THE PROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS AND NOT THE EN TIRE RECEIPTS THEMSELVES. IF THAT BE THE LEGAL POSITION, WHAT SHO ULD BE ESTIMATED AS A REASONABLE PROFIT OUT OF SUCH RECEIPTS, MUST BEAR A N ELEMENT OF ESTIMATION. 16. IN VIEW OF THE LEGAL POSITION THAT NOT THE ENTI RE RECEIPTS, BUT THE PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX, IN OUR VIEW, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE DECISION OF THE T RIBUNAL ACCEPTING SUCH ELEMENT OF PROFIT AT RS.26 LAKHS OUT OF TOTAL UNDIS CLOSED RECEIPT OF RS.62 LAKHS. IN OTHER WORDS, WE ACCEPT THE LEGAL PROPOSIT ION, THE TRIBUNAL ACCEPTING RS.26 LAKHS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PROFIT OUT OF TOTAL UNDISCLOSED RECEIPT OF RS.62 LAKHS, WOULD NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY QUESTION OF LAW. 14. ON THE STRENGTH OF THESE DECISIONS, HE SUBMITTE D THAT THE INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AT 8% OF THE ALLEGED GROSS RECEIPTS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ASSESSED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THES E ASSESSMENT YEARS. IT(SS)A NO.289 /AHD/2018 (7 OTHERS) GREENFIELD REALITY P.LD. VS. DCIT - 20 - 15. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.CIT-DR RELIED UPON TH E ASSESSMENT ORDERS. HE TOOK US THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AN D APPRAISED WITH THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SE ARCH. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID RS.22,74,60,000/- IN CASH FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. IF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE ESTIMATED AT 8% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS WITH I.E. 8% OF 66.40 CRORES, THEN WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF CASH FOR PURCHASE OF THE LAND IN THIS PROJECT ? THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE BEEN DEBITED THE EXPENDITURE IN THE REGULAR BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE, BENEFIT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE AL LOWED TO THE ASSESSEE FROM THESE GROSS RECEIPTS, AND CORRESPONDING ELEMEN T OF INCOME IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE IDENTIFIED, RATHER GROSS RECEIPTS IS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE CORRESPONDING EXPENDITURE QUA THIS ON-MONEY HAS BEEN ALREADY DEBITED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HE EMPHASISED THAT IF THE SEARCH WAS NOT CARRIED UPON THE ASSESSEE, THIS FACT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN UNEARTHED. 16. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND G ONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. ON AN ANALYSIS OF THE RECORD, IT WOULD REVEAL THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH NOT ONLY DETAILS OF ON -MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON BOOKING OF FLATS AND SHOPS IN VESU PROJECT WAS FOUND, BUT DETAILS OF CERTAIN EXPENDITURE, WHICH ARE NOT R ECORDED IN THE BOOKS WERE ALSO FOUND. THIS INCLUDED CASH PAYMENT FOR PU RCHASE OF LAND. THEREFORE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY OBSERVED THAT THE GROSS ON-MONEY NOTICED ON THE SEIZED PAPER CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE ARE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES WHICH WER E NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS. THOSE EXPENDITURE MUST HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THIS ON-MONEY. THEREFORE, AFTER GOING THROUGH THE WELL REASONED OR DER OF THE LD.CIT(A), IT(SS)A NO.289 /AHD/2018 (7 OTHERS) GREENFIELD REALITY P.LD. VS. DCIT - 21 - AND IN THE LIGHT OF JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PANNA CORPORATION (SUPRA) AS WELL AS KOSHOR MOHANLAL TELWALA (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ONLY ELEMENT OF IN COME EMBEDDED IN THE ON-MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR BOOKING OF FL ATS/SHOPS IN VESU PROJECT IS REQUIRED TO BE ASSESSED IN ITS HAND IN ALL THESE YEARS. 17. NEXT QUESTION AROSE, WHAT IS THE ELEMENT OF INC OME INVOLVED IN THIS ON-MONEY. ON ONE HAND, THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWIN G INCOME AT 8%, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.CIT(A) IS ESTIMATING IT AT 2 0%. IT IS PERTINENT TO OBSERVE THAT SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT PROV IDES DISCRETION IN THE AO TO PASS BEST JUDGMENT WHEN AN ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE HIM, AND TO SUBMIT REQUISITE DETAILS. IN OTHER WORDS, I T PROVIDES POWER IN THE AO TO ESTIMATE AN INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO TAKE NOTE THE RELEVANT PART OF THIS SECTION. IT RE ADS AS UNDER: 18. FOR EXERCISING THE BEST JUDGMENT, SECTION 144 O F THE INCOME TAX ACT PROVIDE THE GUIDANCE TO THE LD.AO. THIS SECTIO N READS AS UNDER: 144. [(1)] IF ANY PERSON (A) FAILS TO MAKE THE RETURN REQUIRED [UNDER SUB-S ECTION (1) OF SECTION 139] AND HAS NOT MADE A RETURN OR A REVISED RETURN UNDER SUB-SECTION (4) OR SUB-SECTION (5) OF THAT SECTION, OR (B) FAILS TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE TERMS OF A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 [OR FAILS TO COMPLY WITH A DIRE CTION ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2A) OF THAT SECTION], OR (C) HAVING MADE A RETURN, FAILS TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE TERMS OF A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 143, THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER, AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL RELEVANT MATERIAL WHICH THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER HAS GATHERED, [SHAL L, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, MAKE THE AS SESSMENT] OF THE TOTAL INCOME OR LOSS TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT AND DETE RMINE THE SUM PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE [* * *] ON THE BASIS OF SUCH ASSES SMENT : IT(SS)A NO.289 /AHD/2018 (7 OTHERS) GREENFIELD REALITY P.LD. VS. DCIT - 22 - [PROVIDED THAT SUCH OPPORTUNITY SHALL BE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY SERVING A NOTICE CALLING UPON THE ASSESSEE TO SH OW CAUSE, ON A DATE AND TIME TO BE SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE, WHY THE ASS ESSMENT SHOULD NOT BE COMPLETED TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT : PROVIDED FURTHER THAT IT SHALL NOT BE NECESSARY TO GIVE SUCH OPPORTUNITY IN A CASE WHERE A NOTICE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECT ION 142 HAS BEEN ISSUED PRIOR TO THE MAKING OF AN ASSESSMENT UNDER T HIS SECTION.] [(2) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION AS THEY STOOD I MMEDIATELY BEFORE THEIR AMENDMENT BY THE DIRECT TAX LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1 987 (4 OF 1988), SHALL APPLY TO AND IN RELATION TO ANY ASSESSMENT FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1988, OR ANY EA RLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR AND REFERENCES IN THIS SECTION TO THE OTHER PROVISI ONS OF THIS ACT SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS REFERENCES TO THOSE PROVISIONS AS FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE AND APPLICABLE TO THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR.] 19. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THAT SECTION 144 W OULD SUGGEST THAT IN ORDER TO ESTIMATE INCOME, LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO EXERCISE HIS DISCRETION WHICH SHOULD BE IN CONSONANCE WITH BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT. WE ARE CONSCIOUS OF THE FACT THAT IN VARIOUS AUTHORITA TIVE PRONOUNCEMENTS, IT HAS BEEN PROPOUNDED THAT IN MAKING A BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST NOT ACT DISHONESTLY OR VINDI CTIVELY OR CAPRICIOUSLY. HE MUST MAKE, WHAT HE HONESTLY BELIEV E TO BE A FAIR ESTIMATE OF THE PROPER FIGURE OF ASSESSMENT AND FOR THIS PURPOSE HE MUST BE ABLE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, LOCAL KNOWLEDGE , REPUTATION OF THE ASSESSEE ABOUT HIS BUSINESS, THE PREVIOUS HISTORY O F THE ASSESSEE OR THE SIMILARLY SITUATED ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT T O MENTION THAT JUDGMENT IS A FACULTY TO DECIDE MATTER WITH WISDOM, TRULY AN D LEGALLY. JUDGMENT DOES NOT DEPEND UPON THE ARBITRARY, CAPRICE OF AN A DJUDICATOR, BUT ON SETTLED AND INVARIABLY PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE. THUS, IN A BEST JUDGMENT, EVEN IF, THERE IS AN ELEMENT OF GUESS WORK, IT SHOU LD NOT BE A WILD ONE, IT(SS)A NO.289 /AHD/2018 (7 OTHERS) GREENFIELD REALITY P.LD. VS. DCIT - 23 - BUT SHALL HAVE REASONABLE NEXUS TO THE AVAILABLE MA TERIAL AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH ASSESSEE. 20. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, WE HAVE CONFRONTE D THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THE BASIS FOR ESTIMATING I NCOME AT 8%. SIMILARLY, WE HAVE CONFRONTED THE LD.CIT-DR AS TO H OW THE FIGURE OF 20% SHOULD BE TAKEN UP. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS PAGE NOS.50-51 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN TH E ASSESSEE HAS KEPT THE DETAILS OF RECEIPTS RECEIVED THROUGH ACCOUNT PA YEE CHEQUE AS WELL AS RECEIVED CASH IN THE BOOKING OF FLATS AS WELL AS SH OPS. IN THE CASE OF KOSHOR MOHANLAL TELWALA (SUPRA) THE TRIBUNAL HAS OB SERVED THAT 8% PROFIT OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE ALLEGED GROSS RECEIPTS OF ON-MONEY RECEIVED IN CASH IS FAIR AND REASONABLE. THIS FIGU RE WAS CONSTRUED AS FAIR AND REASONABLE BY TAKING GUIDANCE FROM SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT, WHEREIN IT WAS PROVIDED BY THE LEGISLATURE THAT IN CASE AN ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN CIVIL CONSTRUCTION, AND IF GROSS RECEIPT S REMAINS UNDER A PARTICULAR SLAB, THEN SUCH ASSESSEE NEEDS NOT TO MA INTAIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, AND ITS PROFIT CAN BE ASSUMED AT 8%. THO UGH THIS SPECIAL PROVISION IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE, BE CAUSE GROSS RECEIPTS EXCEEDED THE TURNOVER PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 44AD, BUT AGAIN WE ARE REQUIRED TO FIND OUT A REASONABLE PERCENTAGE OF INC OME WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN ALLEGED AS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF SUCH GROSS RECEIPTS. THIS FORMATION OF OPINION AT THE END OF THE TRIBUNA L MET THE APPROVAL OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KOSHOR MO HANLAL TELWALA (SUPRA). AS AGAINST THIS, THE AO HAS NOT COLLECTED ANY DATA EITHER FROM OTHER ASSESSEES WHO ARE ENGAGED IN THIS LINE OF BUS INESS, AND WHO HAVE DEVELOPED IDENTICAL PROJECTS. WE HAVE PERUSED THE FINDING OF THE IT(SS)A NO.289 /AHD/2018 (7 OTHERS) GREENFIELD REALITY P.LD. VS. DCIT - 24 - LD.CIT(A) ALSO, BUT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOT MENT IONED ANY ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCES FOR HARBOURING A BELIEF THAT 20% COUL D HAVE BEEN EARNED FROM THIS ACTIVITY. THUS AFTER TAKING GUIDANCE FROM THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KOSHOR MO HANLAL TELWALA (SUPRA), WE DEEM IT PROPER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RI GHTLY DISCLOSED THE PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN THE GROSS PROFIT AT 8%. ACCORDINGLY, WE ALLOW THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND HOLD THAT PROFIT WHICH HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO BE ADOPTED BY THE LD.CIT (A) AT 20% OF THE ALLEGED TURNOVER SHOULD BE TAKEN AT 8%. THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE COMPUTED THEREAFTER. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NO.2 AND 3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE ASSTT.YEARS 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 201 4-15, AND GROUND NOS.1 TO 3 IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2015-16RIASED BY THE R EVENUE ARE REJECTED. 21. NOW WE TAKE GROUND NO.1 OF REVENUES APPEAL IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2012-13 AND 2014-15. IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL, REV ENUE HAS PLEADED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.2,92,76,625/- AND RS.3,05,00,000/- IN THE ASSTT.YEARS 2012-13 AND RS.13-14. WHILE DEALING WITH THE FIRST ISSUE, WE HAVE EXTRACTED COM PLETE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2012-13 IN PARA-6 OF TH E IMPUGNED ORDER WHERE THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE. 22. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COU RSE OF SEARCH CERTAIN LOOSE PAPERS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. ACCORDING TO T HE AO A PERUSAL OF THOSE LOOSE PAPERS WOULD INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF RS.5,97,76,625/- IN CASH. OUT OF TH E ABOVE EXPENDITURE RS.2,92,76,625/- WERE ALLEGED TO BE FOUND INCURRED FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2012-13. THE REMAINING AMOUNTS WERE FOUND TO BE IN CURRED FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2013-14. THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION ON AC COUNT OF IT(SS)A NO.289 /AHD/2018 (7 OTHERS) GREENFIELD REALITY P.LD. VS. DCIT - 25 - UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. IN OTHER WORDS, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF EXPENDITUR E. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED SUCH ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS BEING ESTIMATED AT A PARTICULAR PERCENT AGE OF PROFIT. IN SUCH SCENARIO, SEPARATE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAIN ED EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE MADE. 23. THE LD.DR WHILE IMPUGNING THE ORDER OF THE LD.C IT(A) CONTENDED THAT HE HAS NOT RECORDED ANY CATEGORICAL FINDING AS TO HOW SUCH EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE DELETED. HE TOOK US THROUGH ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND CONTENDED THAT OBSERVATION OF THE CIT (A) IS CONTRADICTORY AND WITHOUT ANY COHERENCE. ON OTHER HAND, THE LD.C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(A). 24. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE T HROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CERTAIN MATERIAL/LOOSE PAPERS WERE FOUND EXHIBITING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED CASH, OVER AND ABOVE, THE AMO UNTS STATED IN THE BOOKING REGISTER. THIS CASH WAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS. IT HAS BEEN TREATED AS ON-MONEY FOR SALE OF FLATS/SHOPS. SIMULTANEOUSLY CERTAIN LOOSE PAPERS WERE FOUND DISCLOSING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENDITURE WERE INCURRED IN CASH AND ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS. THE LD.CIT(A) MADE AN ANALYSIS OF THIS, AND THEN HELD THAT THE MOMENT ASSESSEES INCOME IS BEING ASSESSED AT 8% OF THE GROSS ON-MONEY, THEN TH E REMAINING AMOUNT 92% COULD TAKE CARE OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. IT CAN BE EXPLAINED BY A SIMPLE, VIZ. AN ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS.100/- IN CASH FOR SALE OF FLAT. OUT OF THAT, ELEMENT OF INCOME EMBEDDED IN THIS RS. 100/-HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY US AT RS.8/-. REMAINING RS.92/- MUST HAVE BEEN IT(SS)A NO.289 /AHD/2018 (7 OTHERS) GREENFIELD REALITY P.LD. VS. DCIT - 26 - INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR DEVELOPING THAT FLAT. THUS, IN OTHER WORDS, THE EXPENDITURE WHOSE DETAILS WERE FOUND BEING INCU RRED IN CASH COULD BE CONSTRUED AS COMING OUT OF THESE RS.92/-. THUS, THERE CANNOT BE ANY SEPARATE ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. 25. GROUND NO.4 IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2014-15 AND ASSTT .YEAR 2015-16. IN THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE I S THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.26,49,500/ - AND RS.16,81,600/- ADDED BY THE AO WITH AID OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT. 26. BRIEF FACTS WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS.2 6,49,500/- IS CONCERNED, THE AO HAS TREATED THIS AMOUNT AS UNEXPL AINED CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THESE ARE NOT LOANS RATHER THESE ARE BOOKING AMOUNT AND THE ASSES SEE HAS PRODUCED NECESSARY DETAILS VIZ. PAN, ADDRESSES ETC. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER GOING THROUGH THE DETAILS DELETED THE ADDITION BY RECORDI NG THE FOLLOWING FINDING IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2014-15. THE FACTS IN TH E ASSTT.YEAR 2015-16 ARE IDENTICAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALLEGED THAT THESE ARE BOOKING AMOUNT OF RS.16,81,600/-. THE AO HAS TREATED IT HAS UNEXPLAI NED CASH CREDIT. 27. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.REPRESENTATIVES, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RE CORDED A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED CONFIRMATION FROM EACH P ERSON FROM WHOM BOOKING AMOUNT WAS TAKEN WHICH ALSO CONTAINED PAN, ADDRESSES ET. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THESE AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND THE DETAILS OF THEIR RETURNS WERE ALSO FILED. THE LD.CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT INITIAL BURDEN UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IT(SS)A NO.289 /AHD/2018 (7 OTHERS) GREENFIELD REALITY P.LD. VS. DCIT - 27 - WAS DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE BY FILING ALL THESE DETAILS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. THE RELEVANT PART OF HIS O RDER READS AS UNDER: 7. THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ADDI TIONS OF RS.26,49,500/- MADE BY THE AO CONSIDERING LOAN AS U NEXPLAINED CREDIT U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. DURING THE YEAR, THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN LOAN OF RS. 26,49,500/- FROM VARIOUS PARTIES. THE AO HELD THAT THE LENDER ENTITIES & INDIVIDUAL NEITHER HAD ANY IDENTITY NOR CREDITWORTH INESS AND THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT GENUINE. THEREFORE, MADE THE A DDITIONS. THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT THIS AMOUNT IS NOT LOAN PA RTIES THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED TOWARDS BOOKING COLLECTION. DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, CONFIRMATIONS, WITH DETAILS OF NAME,- PAN, ADDRESS, WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO IN THE SUBMIS SION DATED 22.10.2017 FILED ON 24.10.2017. ON GOING THROUGH TH E FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS FOUND THAT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE AO IN RESPECT OF THE UNSECURED LOANS OF RS. 26,49,500/- FROM VARIOUS P ARTIES WHICH ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT IS BOOKING COLLECTION FROM THE MEM BERS ON THE BASIS OF THE REGULAR TRADE PRACTICE PREVAILING IN THE MARKET THE RE ARE INVESTORS THOSE WHO INVEST IN THE NEW REAL ESTATE PROPERTY BUT THEY ARE NOT THE ULTIMATE BUYERS, HOWEVER, THEY INVEST IN THE PROPERTY AT THE INITIAL STAGE I.E. AT THE TIME OF LAUNCHING OF THE SCHEME TO GET THE BENEFITS OF LOW RATE AND WHEN THE PROPERTY IS FULLY MARKETED AND IS IN FULL SWING AND THE PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED THEY SELL THEM IN THE MARKET TO THE REAL BUYERS AND EARN THE DIFFERENCE. FURTHER THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO SUBMITT ED THE CONFIRMATIONS, WITH DETAILS OF NAME, PAN, ADDRESS BEFORE THE AO IN THE SUBMISSION DATED 22.10.2017 FILED ON 24.10.2017 AND ALSO STATE D THAT THE ENTIRE FUNDS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AN D THE DETAILS OF THE INCOME TAX RETURNS HAVE BEEN MOSTLY FILED BY THE PA RTIES. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO STATED THE FACT THAT AS THE AMOUNT ARE BOO KING ADVANCES NO INTEREST HAS ALSO BEEN PAID. THE A.O. IS HIS ASSESS MENT ORDER HAS ONLY NOT ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION STATING THAT BOOKING ADVANC ES HAVE BEEN SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD OF ' OTHER LIABILITIES' AND AS I NTEREST HAS NOT BEEN PAID ON SUCH AMOUNTS IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS UNEXP LAINED CREDITS. LOOKING TO THE DISCUSSION ABOVE, ONCE THE APPELLANT HAS ESTABLISHED THAT HE HAS TAKEN MONEY BY WAY OF ACCOUNTS PAYEE CHEQUES FROM THE LENDERS WHO ARE ALL INCOME TAX ASSESSEES WHOSE PAN HAVE BEE N DISCLOSED, THE INITIAL BURDEN UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT WAS DISC HARGED. IT FURTHER APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO PRODUCED CONFIRM ATION LETTERS GIVEN BY THOSE LENDERS. IT HAS BEEN HELD IN SEVERAL JUDGMENT S DELIVERED BY JURISDICTIONAL GUJARAT HIGH COURT AS WELL AS OTHER HIGHER JUDICIAL IT(SS)A NO.289 /AHD/2018 (7 OTHERS) GREENFIELD REALITY P.LD. VS. DCIT - 28 - AUTHORITIES THAT NO ADDITION U/S. 68 ARE SUSTAINAB LE, IF AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED THROUGH REGULAR BANKING CHANNEL. THEREFORE , THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ARE NOT FOUND JUSTIFIED, HENCE, THESE ARE DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 28. IN VIEW OF ABOVE WELL-REASONED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN HIS ORDER ON THIS ISS UE. IT IS CONFIRMED AND THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEALS OF REVENUE ARE REJECTED. 29. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PART LY ALLOWED; WHEREAS THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DEVOID OF ANY MERIT, HENCE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST FEBRUARY, 2020. SD/- (WASEEM AHMED) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) VICE-PRESIDENT