M/s Surendra Sanghvi & Others, Indore V. The ITO 2(3), Indore

ITSSA 326/IND/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1172 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 19-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 06-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJIV VARSHNEY
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 132

Judgement Text

M/S SURENDRA SANGHVI ITA NO. 324 TO 329/IND/2013 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 324 TO 329/IND/2013 A.YS.1998-99 TO 2003-04 M/S SURENDRA SANGHVI & OTHERS (DHAR LAND) AOP PAN ADUPS 9246D ::: APPELLANT VS INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(3) INDORE ::: RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI PRAKASH JAIN RESPONDENT BY SHRI RAJIV VARSHNEY DATE OF HEARING 19.10.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19 .10.2015 O R D E R PER SHRI B.C. MEENA, AM THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATE FROM THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, INDORE, D ATED 29.8.2013. M/S SURENDRA SANGHVI ITA NO. 324 TO 329/IND/2013 2 2. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT U/S 132 OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF SURENDRA SANGHVI GROUP O F CASES ON 8.10.2003 TO 2.10.2003. DURING THE COURSE O F SEARCH OPERATION, THE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO DEVELOPMEN T OF LAND AT JIRABAGH COLONY, DHAR, WERE SEIZED. THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 1 53A OF THE ACT WERE COMPLETED IN THE HANDS OF SURENDRA SANGHVI IN THE INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BY THE DCIT ON 31.10.2006. DURING THESE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, DE TAILS OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE LAND AT JIRABAGH COLONY DHAR WERE CALLED FOR. THE LAND WAS DEVELOPED INTO PLOTS, ON THE BASIS OF REPLIES/DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE DCIT 4(1 ) IT IS FOUND THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN PURCHASED AND DEVELOPED BY SURENDRA SANGHVI AND HIS BROTHER PRADEEP SANGHVI AND SHRI BHUPESH SANGHVI. THUS THE PURCHASE, DEVELOPMENT AND SALE OF THE LAND WAS DONE BY AN AOP. NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE AOP CONSISTING OF THESE M/S SURENDRA SANGHVI ITA NO. 324 TO 329/IND/2013 3 THREE PERSONS IN RESPECT OF THIS LAND PURCHASED, DEVE LOPED AND SOLD THE PLOTS. ON THE BASIS OF THIS CONCLUSION AN D INFORMATION RECEIEVED FROM DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(1), INDORE, NOTICES U/S 153C FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE ARS 1998-99 TO 2003-04 WERE ISSUED. THESE NOTICES WERE SERVED ON 28.9.2007. THE ASSESSEE AOP HAS NOT FILED AN Y RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES U/S 153C OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSMENT WERE COMPLETED FOR THESE YEARS AGAINST WHIC H THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL TO THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEALS. HE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON T HE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- A.Y. 1998-99 1. THAT IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) IS BAD IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS . IT IS BASED ON INCORRECT INTERPRETATION OF LAW AND THE FACTS HAVE ALSO BEEN INCORRECTLY CONSTRUED. M/S SURENDRA SANGHVI ITA NO. 324 TO 329/IND/2013 4 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF LD. A.O. FOR COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) /153A READ WITH SECTION 153C PARTICULARLY WHEN NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL , LOOSE PAPER ETC, HAVE BEEN FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION O F LD. A.O. FOR COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144/153C EVEN WHEN THE PROCEEDING U/S 153C IS DROPPED BY THE DCIT 4(1), INDORE . 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE A.OS AC TION FOR MAKING REFERENCE TO THE DVO WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFECTS IN THE DAY TO DAY AND REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS DEFECTS SHOWN IN THE REPORT OF DVO AND SO ALSO THE M/S SURENDRA SANGHVI ITA NO. 324 TO 329/IND/2013 5 MISTAKE OF ADDITION OF RS. 3,00,000/- ON PAGE NO. 5 OF THE REPORT OF DVO AND THE COMMENTS OF THE APPROVED REGISTERED VALUER ON THE REPORT OF DVO FILED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS . 6. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF 20 % FR OM THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE LD.DVO AND THEREBY CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 2,26,667/- AS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,77,124/- MADE BY THE LD.A.O. 7. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION THAT HE IS MAINTAINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY FOLLOWING THE PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD, PARTICULARLY WHEN NEGLIGIBLE AREA IS SOLD AND NEGLIGIBL E WORK OF DEVELOPMENT IS COMPLETED. 8. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ESTIMATING THE PROFIT @ 25 % ON SALES CONSIDERATION RECEIVED AND THEREBY CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 4,09,695/- AS AGAINST OF RS. M/S SURENDRA SANGHVI ITA NO. 324 TO 329/IND/2013 6 16,03,864/- ESTIMATED BY THE LD.A.O BEING PROFIT EARNED ON SALES OF PLOTS SOLD DURING THE YEAR. A.Y. 1999-2000 1. THAT IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) IS BAD IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FAC TS. IT IS BASED ON INCORRECT INTERPRETATION OF LAW AND THE FACTS HAVE ALSO BEEN INCORRECTLY CONSTRUED. 2 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF LD. A.O. FOR COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) /153A READ WITH SECTION 153C PARTICULARLY WHEN NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL , LOOSE PAPER ETC, HAVE BEEN FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF LD. A.O. FOR COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144/153C EVEN WHEN THE PROCEEDING U/S 153C IS DROPPED BY THE DCIT -4(1), INDORE. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AN D IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE A.OS ACTION FOR MAKING REFERENCE TO THE DVO WITHOUT M/S SURENDRA SANGHVI ITA NO. 324 TO 329/IND/2013 7 POINTING OUT ANY DEFECTS IN THE DAY TO DAY AND REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS DEFECTS SHOWN IN THE REPORT OF DVO AND SO ALSO THE MISTAKE OF ADDITION OF RS. 3,00,000/- ON PAGE NO. 5 OF THE REPORT OF DVO AND THE COMMENTS OF THE APPROVED REGISTERED VALUER ON THE REPORT OF DVO FILED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS . 6. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE C ASE THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF 20 % FR OM THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE LD.DVO AND THEREBY CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 2,83,884/- AS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,72,320/- MADE BY THE LD.A.O. 7. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION THAT HE IS MAINTAINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY FOLLOWING THE PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD, PARTICULARLY WHEN NEGLIGIBLE AREA IS SOLD AND NEGLIGIBL E WORK OF DEVELOPMENT IS COMPLETED. M/S SURENDRA SANGHVI ITA NO. 324 TO 329/IND/2013 8 8. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ESTIMATING THE PROFIT @ 25 % ON SALES CONSIDERATION RECEIVED AND THEREBY CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.84,847/- AS AGAINST OF RS. 3,39,390/- ESTIMATED BY THE LD. A.O BEING PROFIT EARNED ON SALES OF PLOTS SOLD DURING THE YEAR. A.Y. 2000-01 1. THAT IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) IS BAD IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FAC TS. IT IS BASED ON INCORRECT INTERPRETATION OF LAW AND THE FACTS HAVE ALSO BEEN INCORRECTLY CONSTRUED. 2 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF LD. A.O. FOR COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) /153A READ WITH SECTION 153C PARTICULARLY WHEN NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL , LOOSE PAPER ETC, HAVE BEEN FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF LD. A.O. FOR COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S M/S SURENDRA SANGHVI ITA NO. 324 TO 329/IND/2013 9 144/153C EVEN WHEN THE PROCEEDING U/S 153C IS DROPPED BY THE DCIT -4(1), INDORE . 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE A.OS ACTION FOR MAKING REFERENCE TO THE DVO WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFECTS IN THE DAY TO DAY AND REGUL AR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS DEFECTS SHOWN IN THE REPORT OF DVO AND SO ALSO THE MISTAKE OF ADDITION OF RS. 3,00,000/- ON PAGE NO. 5 OF THE REPORT OF DVO AND THE COMMENTS OF THE APPROVED REGISTERED VALUER ON THE REPORT OF DVO FILED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS . 6. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CAS E THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF 20 % FR OM THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE LD.DVO AND THEREBY CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 30,209/- AS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS. 50,262/- MADE BY THE LD.A.O. 7. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION THAT HE IS MAINTAINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT M/S SURENDRA SANGHVI ITA NO. 324 TO 329/IND/2013 10 BY FOLLOWING THE PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD, PARTICULARLY WHEN NEGLIGIBLE AREA IS SOLD AND NEGLIGIBL E WORK OF DEVELOPMENT IS COMPLETED. 8. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ESTIMATING THE PROFIT @ 25 % ON SALES CONSIDERATION RECEIVED AND THEREBY CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.42,375/- AS AGAINST OF RS. 1,69,500/- ESTIMATED BY THE LD.A.O BEING PROFIT EARNED ON SALES O F PLOTS SOLD DURING THE YEAR. A.Y. 2001-02 1. THAT IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) IS BAD IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FAC TS. IT IS BASED ON INCORRECT INTERPRETATION OF LAW AND THE FACTS HAVE ALSO BEEN INCORRECTLY CONSTRUED. 2 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF LD. A.O. FOR COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) /153A READ WITH SECTION 153C PARTICULARLY WHEN NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL , LOOSE PAPER ETC, HAVE BEEN FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. M/S SURENDRA SANGHVI ITA NO. 324 TO 329/IND/2013 11 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION O F LD. A.O. FOR COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144/153C EVEN WHEN THE PROCEEDING U/S 153C IS DROPPED BY THE DCIT -4(1), INDORE . 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE A.OS ACTION FOR MAKING REFERENCE TO THE DVO WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFECTS IN THE DAY TO DAY AND REGUL AR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS DEFECTS SHOWN IN THE REPORT OF DVO AND SO ALSO THE MISTAKE OF ADDITION OF RS. 3,00,000/- ON PAGE NO. 5 OF THE REPORT OF DVO AND THE COMMENTS OF THE APPROVED REGISTERED VALUER ON THE REPORT OF DVO FILED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS . 6. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CAS E THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF 20 % FR OM THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE LD.DVO AND THEREBY M/S SURENDRA SANGHVI ITA NO. 324 TO 329/IND/2013 12 CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 2,61,858/- AS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,35,674/- MADE BY THE LD.A.O. 7. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION THAT HE IS MAINTAINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY FOLLOWING THE PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD, PARTICULARLY WHEN NEGLIGIBLE AREA IS SOLD AND NEGLIGIBL E WORK OF DEVELOPMENT IS COMPLETED. 8. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ESTIMATING THE PROFIT @ 25 % ON SALES CONSIDERATION RECEIVED AND THEREBY CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.1,52,750/- AS AGAINST OF RS. 6,11,000/- ESTIMATED BY THE LD.A.O BEING PROFIT EARNED ON SALES O F PLOTS SOLD DURING THE YEAR. A.Y. 2002-03 1. THAT IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) IS BAD IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS. IT IS BASED ON INCORRECT INTERPRETATION OF LAW AND THE FACTS HAVE ALSO BEEN INCORRECTLY CONSTRUED. M/S SURENDRA SANGHVI ITA NO. 324 TO 329/IND/2013 13 2 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF LD. A.O. FOR COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) /153A READ WITH SECTION 153C PARTICULARLY WHEN NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL , LOOSE PAPER ETC, HAVE BEEN FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AN D IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF LD. A.O. FOR COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144/153C EVEN WHEN THE PROCEEDING U/S 153C IS DROPPED BY THE DCI T - 4(1), INDORE . 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AN D IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE A.OS ACTION FOR MAKING REFERENCE TO THE DVO WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFECTS IN THE DAY TO DAY AND REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS DEFECTS SHOWN IN THE REPORT OF DVO AND SO ALSO THE M/S SURENDRA SANGHVI ITA NO. 324 TO 329/IND/2013 14 MISTAKE OF ADDITION OF RS. 3,00,000/- ON PAGE NO. 5 OF THE REPORT OF DVO AND THE COMMENTS OF THE APPROVED REGISTERED VALUER ON THE REPORT OF DVO FILED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS . 6. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CAS E THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF 20 % FR OM THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE LD.DVO AND THEREBY CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 30,209/- AS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS. 50,262/- MADE BY THE LD.A.O. 7. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION THAT HE IS MAINTAINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY FOLLOWING THE PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD, PARTICULARLY WHEN NEGLIGIBLE AREA IS SOLD AND NEGLIGIBL E WORK OF DEVELOPMENT IS COMPLETED. 8. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ESTIMATING THE PROFIT @ 25 % ON SALES CONSIDERATION RECEIVED AND THEREBY CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.1,17,875/- AS AGAINST OF RS. 4,17,500/- M/S SURENDRA SANGHVI ITA NO. 324 TO 329/IND/2013 15 ESTIMATED BY THE LD.A.O BEING PROFIT EARNED ON SALES O F PLOTS SOLD DURING THE YEAR. A.Y. 2003-04 1. THAT IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) IS BAD IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FAC TS. IT IS BASED ON INCORRECT INTERPRETATION OF LAW AND THE FACTS HAVE ALSO BEEN INCORRECTLY CONSTRUED. 2 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF LD. A.O. FOR COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) /153A READ WITH SECTION 153C PARTICULARLY WHEN NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL , LOOSE PAPER ETC, HAVE BEEN FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF LD. A.O. FOR COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144/153C EVEN WHEN THE PROCEEDING U/S 153C IS DROPPED BY THE DCIT -4(1), INDORE . M/S SURENDRA SANGHVI ITA NO. 324 TO 329/IND/2013 16 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE A.OS ACTION FOR MAKING REFERENCE TO THE DVO WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFECTS IN THE DAY TO DAY AND REGUL AR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS DEFECTS SHOWN IN THE REPORT OF DVO AND SO ALSO THE MISTAKE OF ADDITION OF RS. 3,00,000/- ON PAGE NO. 5 OF THE REPORT OF DVO AND THE COMMENTS OF THE APPROVED REGISTERED VALUER ON THE REPORT OF DVO FILED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS . 6. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CAS E THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF 20 % FR OM THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE LD.DVO AND THEREBY CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 27,098/- AS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS. 45,085/- MADE BY THE LD.A.O. M/S SURENDRA SANGHVI ITA NO. 324 TO 329/IND/2013 17 7. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION THAT HE IS MAINTAINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY FOLLOWING THE PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD, PARTICULARLY WHEN NEGLIGIBLE AREA IS SOLD AND NEGLIGIBL E WORK OF DEVELOPMENT IS COMPLETED. 3. NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AN ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL ON THE ISSUE OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 153A READ WITH SECTION 153C OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS THAT THERE BEING NO REQUISITE SATISFACTION AND AS SUCH THERE IS NO LEGAL B ASIS TO ASSUME JURISDICTION U/S 153C OF THE ACT. IT IS AL SO MENTIONED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LIMITATION IN TERMS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE FOLLOW ING CASE LAWS FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- (I) CIT VS S. NELLIAPAN (1967) 66 ITR 722 (SC) (II) NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD VS. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) (III) CIT VS. EICHER MOTORS LTD (2007) 293 ITR 464 (M.P.) M/S SURENDRA SANGHVI ITA NO. 324 TO 329/IND/2013 18 (IV) S. KUMARS TYRE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD VS. CIT (2009) 227 CTR (M.P.) 181 THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BEFORE US ARE AS UNDER :- (I) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD.A.O. ERRED IN ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S 15 3A R.W.S. 153C WITHOUT ANY FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS AND EVEN OTHERWISE , THERE BEING NO REQUISITE SATISFAC TION AND AS SUCH THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS TO ASSUME JURISDICTION U/S 153C. (II) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT IN ACCORDANC E WITH LIMITATION IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 53C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND AS SUCH ASSESSMENT M/S SURENDRA SANGHVI ITA NO. 324 TO 329/IND/2013 19 ORDER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE UNDER THE LAW BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION. 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES AND CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL POSITION OF THE CASE, WE ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO T HE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL INCLUDING THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL DE NOVO, AFTE R PROVIDING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE STAND ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 19 TH OCTOBER, 2015 SD/- SD/- (D.T. GARASIA) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 19 TH OCTOBER, 2015 DN/- M/S SURENDRA SANGHVI ITA NO. 324 TO 329/IND/2013 20