The DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad V. Ankit Sureshbhai Shah, Surat

ITSSA 343/AHD/2018

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by the Revenue against different assessees related to the assessment years 2012-13 to 2015-16. The core issue in these appeals was the alleged unaccounted investments and receipts linked to real estate projects managed by M/s Shah Hiralal Buildcon LLP and M/s Greenfield Reality Pvt Ltd. The AO had made protective additions in the hands of the assessees based on documents seized during a search operation, which indicated unaccounted cash payments for land purchases and unaccounted receipts from these projects. However, the CIT(A) deleted these additions, leading to the Revenue's appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s decision was well-supported by the analysis of the seized documents and the legal principles governing protective assessments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 135822 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 23-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 28-11-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Lalji Haridas vs. ITO reported in [1961] 43 ITR 387, ITO ward 10(1) Ahmedabad vs. Ketan B Thakkar HUF reported in [2015] 61 taxmann.com 18
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRIKAMLESHMAKWANA
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIWRITTENSUBMISSION

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण , अहमदाबादनयायपीी INTHEINCOMETAXAPPELLATETRIBUNAL, ‘’C’’BENCH,AHMEDABAD BEFORESHRIWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER And SHRIT.RSENTHILKUMAR,JUDICIALMEMBER Sl. No(s) IT(SS)ANo(s)Asset. Year(s) Appeal(s)by Appellantvs.Respondent AppellantRespondent 1-4IT(SS)ANos.343to 345/Ahd/2018 & IT(SS)A No.349/Ahd/2018 2012-13 to 2014-15 & 2015-16 D.C.I.T., CentralCircle- 1(2), Ahmedabad. AnkitSureshbhai Shah, 201,2 nd Floor, AmizaraBuilding,Nr. SuratTennisClub, Athwalines, Surat-395007. PAN:BLHPS5604R 5-6IT(SS)ANo.358& 346/Ahd/2018 2012-13 & 2015-16 D.C.I.T., Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad. DarshitJayeshbhai Shah, 18,Ganeshkrupa Road, Opp.GailTower, Adajan, Surat-395009. PAN:BQWPS0285G 7.IT(SS)A No.356/Ahd/2018 2012-13D.C.I.T., Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad. BhaveshbhaiLaljibhai Pansuriya, A-101,Pallavi Appartment,Opp. LaxmiDiamond, A.K.Road, Surat-395008. PAN:AMUPP7809G 8-10.IT(SS)Nos.350,351& 352/Ahd/2018 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 D.C.I.T., CentralCircle- 1(2), Ahmedabad. Nitinbhaikalubhai Desai, 96,Shantivan2, Dharnath,Co.op.Ho. Soc.,B/hNirmal Nagar,KamrejRoad, Sarthana, Surat-394185. PAN:AJGPD4814L IT(SS)Anos.343/Ahd/2018with9others Asstt.Years2012-13&others 2 Revenueby:ShriKamleshMakwana,CIT.D.R Assesseeby:ShriWrittenSubmission सुनवाईकीतारीख /DateofHearing:24/07/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/DateofPronouncement:27/09/2023 आदेश /ORDER PERBENCH: ThecaptionedtenappealshavebeenfiledattheinstanceoftheRevenue againsttherespectiveordersoftheLearnedCommissionerofIncomeTax (Appeals),Ahmedabadarisinginthematterofassessmentorderspassedunders. 143(3)r.w.s.153A(1)(b)oftheIncomeTaxAct,1961(here-in-afterreferredtoas "theAct")relevanttotheAssessmentYearsasmentionedinthecausetitle. First,wetakeupIT(SS)ANos.343to345&349/Ahd/2018bythe revenueincaseoftheassesseenamelyShriAnkitSureshbhaiShahforA.Ys 2012-13to2015-16. 3.Allthecaptionedappealsfor4differentassessmentyearsinvolve interconnectedissueofunaccountedinvestmentsandunaccountedreceiptsfrom theimpugnedinvestments.Since,commonissuesareinvolved,inallthe captioned4appeals,wedecidedtocluballtheseappealsforadjudicationpurpose. 4.Thenecessaryfactsasculledoutfromtheorderoftheauthoritiesbelow arethattheassesseeinthepresentcaseisanindividualandallegedbelongingto theBarter/accommodationentryprovidergroup.Therewasasearchandseizure operationundersection132oftheActattheBartergroupdated4-12-2014.The (Applicant)(Respondent) IT(SS)Anos.343/Ahd/2018with9others Asstt.Years2012-13&others 3 Bartnergroup,inter-alia,consistedofthepartieswhowerealsosubjecttosearch undersection132oftheAct,thedetailsofsuchpartiesarelistedasunder: 1.ShriAnkitSureshbhaiShah(presentassessee) 2.ShriAshitHaribhaiVohra 3.M/sShahHiralalBuildconLLP 4.M/sGreenfieldRealityPvtLtd 4.1InthecourseofsearchoperationatthepremisesofShriAshitHaribhai Vora,certaindocumentswerefoundrelatingtotherealestateproject(Shiv SomeshawarProjectatAlthan-Surat)ofM/sShahHiralalBuildconLLPandreal estateproject(ShivKartikEnclaveatVesu-Surat)ofM/sGreenfieldRealityPrivate Ltd.(hereafterGRPL).Allegedly,thesedocumentswerecontainingthe informationaboutthelandcostoftherespectiveprojectandsourcesofsuchcost/ investmentintheland. 4.2ThedocumentsrelatingtoM/sShahHiralalBuildconLLPmarkedasPage-1 ofannexure-A3,wascontaininginformationaboutthelandcostoftheAlthan Projectat₹21,93,86,000/-onlywhereasinthebooksofaccounts,thelandcost wasrecordedatof₹5,49,78,000/-onlypaidthroughthebankingchannel, leadingtothedifferenceof₹16.44croreswhichwaspaidincashwithout recordingthesameinthebooksofaccounts.Thefactofhavingmadethe paymentoflandcostincashtothetuneof₹16.44croreswasalsoadmittedby theM/sShahHiralalBuildconLLP.TheAOfromthesameseizeddocumentfurther foundthattherewascashreceiptof₹23,18,38,000/-from4differentpersons namelyR.K.,G.,JayeshandNitinbhai.ThenotingGagainstwhichanamountof₹ 4,01,00,000/-waswrittenwasdecodedasShriGautambhaiwhoistheuncleof theassessee.Accordingly,itwasallegedthattheamounttothetuneof₹ 4,01,00,000/-onlywerepaidbyShriGautambhaionbehalfoftheassesseeas initialinvestmentintheprojectofM/sShahHiralalBuildconLLP.Theshareof assesseeininitialinvestmentintheimpugnedprojectcomesat17.30%. IT(SS)Anos.343/Ahd/2018with9others Asstt.Years2012-13&others 4 4.3Likewise,thedocumentsrelatingtoGRPL,markedaspage-5ofAnnexure- A3,wascontaininginformationaboutthelandcostofShivkartikvesuprojectat₹ 42.68croresonly.However,inthebooksofaccounts,thesamewasrecodedat₹ 19,93,39,650/only.Thus,itwaspointedoutthattheremainingamountwaspaid incashwithoutrecordingthesameinthebooksofaccounts.Thefactofhaving madetheinvestmentinthelandincashwasalsoadmitted.TheAOfromthe sameseizeddocumentfurtherfoundthatthecontributionofcashforRs. 40,57,39,000/-weremadebyvariouspartiesbeingR,G,JandNi.Again,the word“G”wasdecodedasShriGautambhaiandamountwrittenagainst“G”was for₹10croresonly.Thus,theAOwasoftheviewthatsuchacontributionhas beenmadebyShriGautambhaionbehalfoftheassesseebeinguncleofthe assesseetowardinitialinvestmentintheimpugnedproject.Thesharesofinitial investmentintheimpugnedprojectcomes@24.64%. 4.4Thus,theAOallegedthattheassesseehasmadeunaccountedinvestment incashforRs.14,01,00,000/-(4.01crore+10crore)intheprojectofM/sShah HiralalBuildconLLPandintheprojectofGRPL. 4.5Further,theAOfromthesubmissionmadebyM/sShahHiralalBuildcon LLPandGRPLintheirrespectivecasesnoticedthatboththeconcernshave admittedunaccountedcashreceiptagainstbookingofflats/shop/showroom aggregatingtoRs.44.08Croreand64.4croresrespectivelyindifferent assessmentyears.Accordingly,theAOconcludedthatsincetheassesseemade initialcontributionintheprojectsdiscussedaboveat@17.3%and24.64% respectivelythenassesseealsomusthavereceivedproportionateshareoutofthe unaccountedreceiptsagainstsaleofflats/shop/showroom.Accordingly,theAO workedoutshareoftheassesseeinsuchunaccountedcashreceiptsinprojectof M/sShahHiralalBuildconLLPandGRPLatRs.7,62,58,400/-andRs. 16,36,09,600/-respectively.Thus,thetotalunaccountedreceiptsfordifferent assessmentyearsstartingfromAY2013-14andsubsequentyearsisofRs. 23,98,68,000/-only. IT(SS)Anos.343/Ahd/2018with9others Asstt.Years2012-13&others 5 4.6Accordingly,theAOsoughtanexplanationandclarificationfromthe assesseevidenoticedated06-12-2016.Theassesseeinresponsetosuchnotice videletterdated20-12-2016submittedthattheseizeddocumentcontainsthe informationaboutthebookingamountreceivedincash(unaccounted)againstthe projectswhichwasutilizedformakingthepaymentagainstthelandcostbythe partiesnamelyM/sShahHiralalBuildconLLPandGRPL.Thenamesappearingin theseizeddocumentfoundfromthepremisesofShriAshitHaribhaiVohrawereof thepartiesthroughwhomthebookingamountswerecollected.Itwasalso submittedbytheassesseethatonanalyzingtheseizeddocumentitis decipherablethathowmuchbookingamountswerecollectedthroughdifferent partiesandoutofwhichhowmuchamountwasutilizedagainstthecostofland. 4.7Withregardtotheunaccountedreceipts,theassesseesubmittedthatboth theconcernsi.eM/sShahHiralalBuildconLLPandGRPLhaveofferedtax@8% ongrossreceiptwhichincludesbothaccountedandunaccountedreceipts. Unaccountedcashreceiptsagainstbookingofflatsbelongtothoseconcernonly onwhichtheyhaveofferedreasonableprofitembeddedinthosereceipt. 4.8Theassesseeinadditiontotheabovefurthercontendedthatheisnot havinganyconnectionwiththepartynamelyM/sShahHiralalBuildconLLPeither inthecapacityofpartneroranyothercapacity.Therefore,thequestionofmaking anycapitalcontributionagainstthepurchaseoflanddoesnotarise. 4.9However,theAOdisagreedwiththecontentionoftheassesseeonthe reasoningthatseizedpapersreferredinaboveparagraphswerecontainingthe informationaboutthepurchaseoflandbythosepartiesnamelyM/sShahHiralal BuildconLLPandGRPLwhereon-moneyincashwaspaid.Thesamedocument alsocontainsthereceiptofcashfromdifferentpersonswhichwasultimately utilizedformakingcashpaymentagainstpurchaseofland.Thecashtowardsthe purchaseoflandwaspaidduringtheperiodFebruary2011toMay2012i.e. IT(SS)Anos.343/Ahd/2018with9others Asstt.Years2012-13&others 6 duringF.Y.2010-11and2011-12whereasbookingamountsagainstthoseprojects werefirstreceivedduringtheF.Y2012-13and2013-14.Therefore,assessee contentionthatcashpaymentagainstthepurchaseoflandwereoutofboking amountcollectedisvouge.Assuch,itisnotfeasiblebythepartiesnamelyM/s ShahHiralalBuildconLLPandGRPLtohaveacceptedanybookingamountagainst bookinginimpugnedprojectatthetimeofpurchaseofland.Thus,theAOheld thatthesourceofcashpaymentagainstthepurchaseoflandrepresentsthe investmentmadebytheassesseeandotherpersonasinitialcontributioninlieuof profitsharingwhichisalsomentionedintheseizeddocument. 4.10TheAOfurtherfoundthatthenameoftheassesseeintheseized documentwasnotappearingforhavingmadeinvestmentinthelandpurchased byM/sShahHiralalBuildconLLPandGRPL.Assuch,thenameofShri Gautambhaiappearedthereinwhohasmadethepaymentonbehalfofthe assesseeforRs.14.01croresoutofwhichRs.10.96croremadeintheyearunder considerationandremaining3.05croresintheimmediatesubsequentyeari.e.A.Y. 2013-14.Accordingly,theAOmadethesubstantiveadditionofRs.10.96and3.05 croreinthehandofShriGautambhaiandprotectiveadditioninthehandsofthe assesseeinrespectiveassessmentyearsi.e.2012-13and2013-14. 4.11Likewise,theAOrejectedtheexplanationoftheassesseethatthe unaccountedreceiptagainstbookingofflatshasbeentaxedinthehandof respectiveconcernandthereforethesameisnottaxableinthehandofthe assessee.TheAOheldthatassesseeandfirm/companyaredifferentpersonsin eyesoflaws.Theassesseewhomadeinitialcontributionreceivedsharein bookingamountinlieuofcontributionisliabletotaxseparately.TheAOfound thattotalshareofunaccountedreceiptintheprojectofboththeconcernsstand atRs.23,98,68,000/-andoutofthesameanamountofRs.14.01crorespayback ofinitialcontribution.Thus,theremainingamountofRs.9,97,68,000/-isliableto betaxasunaccountedreceiptstartingfromA.Y.2014-15.Thus,theAOworked outtheunaccountedreceiptamountliabletobeaddedforA.Y.2014-15and IT(SS)Anos.343/Ahd/2018with9others Asstt.Years2012-13&others 7 2015-16atRs.1,30,52,104/-and7,87,15,895/-respectively.However,theAOat timeofmakingfinaladditionnotethatintheseizeddocumentthenameofShri Gautambhaiwasmentionedascontributor,thereforethesubstantiveadditionwas madeinhisnamewhereasprotectiveadditionmadeinthehandsoftheassessee. 5.TheaggrievedassesseepreferredanappealbeforethelearnedCIT(A)and onceagaincontendedthatthecashpaidagainstthepurchaseoflandforproject weresourcedfrombookingamountcollectedincash.Thenameoftheperson againstwhichthecashreceiptrecordedrepresentsthebookingamountcollected throughthatperson.Thus,theassesseerequestedtheld.CIT-Atodeletethe additionmadebyAO. 6.ThelearnedCIT(A)afteranalyzingthefindingofassessmentorder, materialfoundduringthesearchandsurveyaswellassubmissionoftheassessee madecertainobservation,illustratedasunder: (i)UndisputedlycashwaspaidagainstthepurchaseoflandbyM/sShah HiralalBuildconLLPandGRPLfortheirrespectiveprojects. (ii)Duringthesearch,therewereseveralloosepapersordocumentsfound andseizedfromthepremisesofShriSanketVohrainrelationto projectsofM/sShahHiralalBuildconLLPandGRPLwhichwere containingtheinformationaboutconstructionexpenses,landcostand bookingamountetc.Itisthetritelawthattheseizeddocumentsshould bereadintotalityandharmoniouslytoreachatthecorrectconclusion. Incontrast,theAOonlychosepartofthedocumentstodrawinference againsttheassesseewhichisnotcorrect. (iii)Someofthedocumentsfoundandseizedinrelationtoboththeprojects aredatedandsomearenot,howeverthesedocumentscanbe summarizedinchronologicalorderbasedondateandtypeof transactionandtheirvaluenotedonthosepapers.Onanalyzingseized documentsinchronologicalorderinthecaseoftheprojectsofM/sShah HiralalBuildconLLP,itcanbeseenthatprojectwasstartedbefore1 st IT(SS)Anos.343/Ahd/2018with9others Asstt.Years2012-13&others 8 October2011andbookingamountswerestartedtoreceivebeforethat day.ThelandfortheprojectofM/sShahHiralalBuildconLLPwas registeredvidedeeddated14-03-2012.Thus,theobservationoftheAO thatnopossibilityofbookingamountatthetimeofpurchaseoflandis wrong. (iv)Likewise,analysisofseizeddocumentsinrelationtotheprojectofGRPL inchronologicalorder,itcanbeseenthatbookingamountwerestarted toreceivebefore09-04-2012whichbeforetheregistrationofland purchased. (v)TherelevantseizedpageusedbytheAOagainsttheassesseealso containstheinformationaboutthebookingreceivedbytheconcerns namelyM/sShahHiralalBuildconandGreenFieldRealtyLimited.But thesamehasnotbeenproperlyanalyzedbytheAO. (vi)M/sShahHiralalBuildconisanLLPwhichconsistof4partnernamely AnusthanBuildconPvtLtd(68%),AsitHarobhaiVohra(2%),Nitinbhai KalubhaiDesai(15%)andBhavesLaljibhaiParsuniya(15%).Noneof thepartnersnameexceptNitinbhaiKalubhaiDesaimatchedwiththe abbreviationusedinimpugnedseizedpaper.Further,thepercentage notedagainsttheirnamealsodonotmatchwithprofitsharingratio. Similarfactswerealsoobservedbasedonseizedpapersinrelationto theprojectofGRPL. (vii)Theseizedmaterialsnowherecontainthenameoftheassessee.Thus, theAOwronglyanalyzedtheseizedmaterial. 6.1Thus,theleanedCIT(A)basedonaboveobservationheldthatcash paymentsagainstthepurchasesoflandforprojectweremadefromthe unaccountedbookingamounts.TheAOworkedouttheamountofunaccounted investmentandunaccountedreceiptfordifferentassessmentyearsinthehandof theassesseeonhypotheticalbasis.Therecannotbeanyadditioninthehandof theassesseeevenonprotectivebasisinthegivenfactsandcircumstances.In viewoftheabove,theld.CIT-AdeletedtheadditionmadebytheAO. IT(SS)Anos.343/Ahd/2018with9others Asstt.Years2012-13&others 9 7.BeingaggrievedbytheorderofthelearnedCIT(A),theRevenueisin appealbeforeus. 8.ThelearnedDRbeforeusreiteratedthefindingsoftheAOcontainedinthe assessmentorder. 9.Ontheotherhand,theassesseefiledthewrittensubmission,paperbooks andvehementlysupportedtheorderoftheld.CIT-A. 10.Wehaveheardtheld.DRandperusedthematerialsavailableonrecord. Admittedly,inthecaseonhand,theAOmadeprotectiveadditioninthehandsof theassesseeindifferentassessmentyearsonaccountofallegedinitial unaccountedinvestmentsandunaccountedreceiptintheprojectsofconcerns namelyM/sShahHiralalBuildconLLPandGRPL.Theconceptofprotective assessmentisnotdefinedintheprovisionsoftheAct.However,thesamehas beenusedbytherevenueauthorityasaprecautionarytoolwherethereissome incomeaccruedorarise,buttheAOisnotsurewhoisliabletopaytaxonsuch income,theAOmayproceedtoassesssuchincomeonprotectiveandsubstantive basis.TheHon’bleSupremecourtinthecaseofLaljiHaridasvs.ITOreportedin [1961]43ITR387hasdefinedtheconceptofprotectiveassessmentasunder: Incaseswhereitappearstotheincome-taxauthoritiesthatcertainincomehasbeen receivedduringtherelevantassessmentyearbutitisnotclearwhohasreceivedthat incomeandprimafacieitappearsthattheincomemayhavebeenreceivedeitherbyAor Borbybothtogether,itwouldbeopentotherelevantincome-taxauthoritiesto determinethesaidquestionbytakingappropriateproceedingsbothagainstAandB. 10.1Theobjectiveoftheprotectiveassessmentisthatincasesubstantive assessmentmadeinthehandofotherpersonnotsustainedthentaxshallbe collectedfromthepersoninwhosehandprotectiveassessmenthasbeenmade. However,theconceptofprotectiveorsubstantiveassessmentonlybeapplied whereitisestablishedbeyonddoubtthatsomeincomehasbeenaccruedor ariseninaparticularassessmentyearbutthereissomeuncertaintyaboutthe IT(SS)Anos.343/Ahd/2018with9others Asstt.Years2012-13&others 10 personwhoisliabletotax.Inotherwordthisconceptcannotbeappliedincases whereitcannotbeestablishedbeyonddoubtthattheincomehasaccruedor arises.Inholdingso,wedrawsupportandguidancefromtheorderofcoordinate benchofthistribunalincaseofITOward10(1)Ahmedabadvs.KetanBThakkar HUFreportedin[2015]61taxmann.com18whereinitwasheldasunder: Theprotectiveassessmentofanincomecanbemadewhere,intheopinionofthe AssessingOfficer,anincomehasdefinitelyariseninaparticularassessmentyearbutthere isanydoubtabouttheentityinwhoseincomeistobebroughttotax.Inthelightofthis legalposition,whencourtreverttothefactsofthepresentcase,thecourtfindthateven incomehavingarisenisnotfreefromdoubtsincetheAssessingOfficerhimselfisnotsure abouttheembezzlementhavingactuallytakenplace.Inthecourseofassessmentof'V',it isanadmittedpositionthattheAssessingOfficerhasdisallowedtheembezzlementloss andisinappealagainstsuchadisallowance.Whenthefactofembezzlementisnot acceptedbytheAssessingOfficer,therecannotbeanyoccasiontomakesubstantive assessmentandprotectiveassessmentinrespectofsuchanembezzlementincome.The questionofprotectiveassessmentofsuchanincomeinthehandsoftheassessee,on protectivebasis,couldhaveariseninasituationinwhich,forexample,theAssessing Officerwastocometoaconclusionthatembezzlementinhastakenplacebuthewasnot sureastowhohasdonetheembezzlement.Ofcourse,eventhisproceedsonthe assumptionthatanamountembezzledbytheassesseeformhisemployer,evenifthatbe so,wouldconstitutehisincomenotwithstandingthefactthat,insuchasituation,thefact ofunlawfulgainsarecoupledwithcorrespondingobligationtoreturnthesametoits rightfulowner.[Para12] 10.2Comingtothefactsofthecasetohand,basedoncertainpapersfound fromthepremisesofthirdpartynamelyShriAhitVohra,containingthe informationaboutcashpaidagainstthelandpurchasedfortheproposedreal estatedevelopmentprojectofM/sShahHiralalBuildconandGRPL,concludedthat theassesseemadeunaccountedinvestmentandreceivedshareinunaccounted bookingreceiptintheratioofinitialcontributioninsubsequentyears.However, thenameoftheassesseewasnotappearinginimpugnedseizedmaterialbased onwhichtheAOproceededtomakeprotectiveadditioninthehandsofthe assesseeandsubstantiveadditioninthehandofonShriGautambhai.Fromthe assessmentorder,wenotethattheAOonlyreferredonepaperforeachproject, containingtheinformationaboutlandcostonrightsideandonleftsideofsame page,nameof4personinabbreviatedformwaswrittenalongwithcertain amount.TheAOdecodedoneoftheabbreviation“G”asGautambhai”and concludedthathehasmadeinitialcontributiononbehalfoftheassesseeinthe IT(SS)Anos.343/Ahd/2018with9others Asstt.Years2012-13&others 11 proposedprojects.TherewasnoreasoningorbasisassignedbyAOforhis conclusion.Ontheotherhand,thelearnedCIT(A)foundthattherewereseveral papersinrelationtotheprojectsfoundduringthesearchatthepremisesofShri AshitVohra.ThelearnedCIT(A)onanalysisofeachandeveryseizedpaperin chronologicalorderfoundthattheprojectswerestartedandbookingamountwas receivedbytheboththeconcernevenbeforetheregistrationofpurchasedeedof land.Theld.CIT(A)alsofoundthatthecashpaymentagainstthelandpurchase weremadefromthebookingamountreceivedovertheperiod.Thenamesnoted ontheseizedpaperrepresentthepersonthroughwhomthebookingamounts werecollected.ThefindingofthelearnedCIT(A)hasnotbeencontrovertedby thelearnedDRbasedonanysubstantivematerials.Thus,fromthefindingofthe learnedCIT(A)itisemergedthattheconcernnamelyM/sShahHiralalBuildcon andGRLPstartedtheirrespectiverealestateprojectinwhichtheycollected unaccountedbookingamountswhichwasutilizedforunaccountedpayment againstpurchaseoflandandotherunaccountedexpenditure.Thus,weareofthe opinionthatwhatevertheunaccountedreceiptsarisefromtheseizedmaterials weretaxableinthehandsofthoseconcernsandthoseconcernsindeedhave offeredincomebyincludingtheunaccountedbookingreceiptintheirturnover. TheAOhaswronglyanalyzedtheseizedmaterialsandaccordinglyreachedtothe wrongconclusionthattheassesseehasmadeinvestmentincashintheprojects andsubsequentlyreceivedsharesinbookingamountinproportionofinitial contribution.Accordingly,weareoftheviewthatnoadditioninthehandofthe assesseeisrequiredtobemadeunderthegivenfactsandcircumstances. Therefore,wedonotfindanyreasontointerfereinthefindingofthelearned CIT(A).Hencethegroundofappealraisedbytherevenueforall4appealsare herebydismissed. 10.3Intheresult,allthe4appealsfiledbytheRevenueareherebydismissed. IT(SS)Anos.343/Ahd/2018with9others Asstt.Years2012-13&others 12 ComingtoIT(SS)ANos.358&346/AHD/2018,appealsbytheRevenue incaseoftheassesseenamelyShriDarshitJayeshbhaiShahforAY 2012-13and2015-16. 11.Attheoutset,wenotethattheissueraisedbytheRevenueinthe captionedappealsareidenticaltotheissueraisedbytherevenueincaseofthe assesseenamelyShriAnkitSurehsbhaiShahbearingIT(SS)ANos.343to345& 349/Ahd/2018correspondingtoA.Ys.2012-13to2015-16.Therefore,finding givenIT(SS)ANos.343to345&349/Ahd/2018shallalsobeapplicabletothe issuesraisedbytherevenueinthecaseofpresentassesseefortheAY2012-13& 2015-16.TheissueraisedbytherevenueinthecaseofShriAnkitSureshbhai Shahhasbeendealtwithbyusvideparagraphnos.10to10.3ofthisorder whereinwehavedecidedtheissueagainsttherevenue.Forthedetailed discussion,pleaserefertotheaforementionedparagraphsofthisorder.Boththe learnedDRandthelearnedARbeforeusalsoagreedthatwhateverwillbethe findingsinthecaseassesseeShriAnkitSureshbhaiShahforassessmentyear 2012-13to2015-16shallalsobeappliedfortheappealfiledinthecasepresent assessee.Hence,thegroundsofappealsfiledbytherevenuearehereby dismissed. 11.1Intheresult,thecaptionedappealsoftherevenueareherebydismissed. ComingtoIT(SS)ANo.356/AHD/2018,anappealbytheRevenuein caseoftheassesseenamelyShriBhaveshbhaiLaljibhaiPansuriyafor A.Y.2012-13 12.TheonlyissueraisedbytherevenueisthatthelearnedCIT(A)erredin deletingtheprotectiveadditionmadebytheAOforRs.2,64,65,700/-onaccount ofunaccountedinvestment. IT(SS)Anos.343/Ahd/2018with9others Asstt.Years2012-13&others 13 13.Fromtheperusaloftheassessmentorder,wefindthefactstotheextent thattherewasapieceofpapermarkedaspage-1ofAnnexure-A3inrelationto realestateprojectofM/sShahHiralalBuildconLLPfoundfromthepremisesof ShriAshitVohrawereidenticaltofactsoftheissueraisedbytheRevenueinthe caseofassesseenamelyShriAnkitSureshbhaiShahinIT(SS)ANo.343to345& 349/Ahd/2018fortheAYs2012-13to2015-16.Fromtheimpugnedpage,it emergesthatM/sShahHiralalBuildconLLPhasmadeunaccountedcashpayment forRs.16.44croresagainstthepurchaseoflandfortheproject,andthisfactwas alsoacceptedbythesaidLLP.However,theAOconcludedthatthepresent assessee,beingapartnerinthesaidfirmfor15%musthavecontributedtothe impugnedunaccountedcashpaymentforpurchaseoflandandaccordingly workedhisshareofunaccountedinvestmentatRs.2.46crores.Similarly,theAO fromseizedpaperbearingpage1ofannexureA-3asmentionedabovenotes therewascashcontributionbydifferentpersonforRs.23,18,38,000/-outof which21.94crorewasutilizedagainstpurchaseoflandcost.Thus,theAO concludedthatbalanceamountof1,24,38,000/-musthavebeenincurredbythe saidLLPinconnectionofprojectwhichisunaccountedandtheassesseebeing partnermusthavecontributedinsuchunaccountedexpensestotheextentofRs. 18,65,700/-(15%).TheAOfinallyconcludedthattheseamountswerepaidbythe LLP.Hence,thesameisrequiredtobeassessedsubstantiallyinthehandsofLLP andprotectivelyinthehandoftheassesseebeingpartner.Thus,theAOmade protectiveadditionofRs.2,64,65,700/-inthehandoftheassessee.Onappealby theassessee,thelearnedCIT(A)waspleasedtodeletetheadditionmadebythe AOonprotectivebasis.Therevenueisnowbeforeus. 14.Wehaveheardtheld.DRandperusedthematerialavailableonrecord.At theoutset,wenotethatintheappealfiledbytheRevenueinthecaseofassessee namelyShriAnkitSureshbhaiShahbearingIT(SS)ANo.343to345& 349/Ahd/2018,wehaveconfirmedthefindingofthelearnedCIT(A)thatthecash paymentagainstpurchaseoflandbytheM/sShahHiralalBuildconLLPhasbeen madeoutofbookingamountofflats/shopetc.intheimpugnedprojectand IT(SS)Anos.343/Ahd/2018with9others Asstt.Years2012-13&others 14 amountwrittenagainstthenameofcertainindividualarerepresentingbooking amountreceivedthroughthoseindividuals.TheLLPM/sShahHiralalBuildconhas alreadyofferedtaxonbookingamount.Therefore,inourconsideredopinion,no additionisrequiredtobemadeinthehandoftheassesseeonprotectivebasis. Thus,wedonotfindanyreasontointerfereinthefindingofthelearnedCIT(A). Hence,thegroundofappealraisedbytherevenueisherebydismissed. 14.1Intheresult,appealoftherevenueisherebydismissed. ComingtoIT(SS)ANO.350to352/AHD/2018,appealsbytheRevenue inthecaseoftheassesseenamelyShriNitinbhaiKalubhaiDesaiforAY 2012-13,2014-15&2015-16 15.TheissuesraisedbytheRevenueinallthe3captionedappealsare interconnected.Therefore,wecluballtheappealsfiledbytheRevenueforthe sakeofbrevityandconvenience. 16.ThenecessaryfactsarethatduringthesearchatpremisesofShriAshit Vohra(partoftheassesseegroup)severalloosepapersinrelationtorealestate projectundertakenbyM/sShahHiralalBuildconLLP(SHBL)andM/sGreenfield RealityPrivateLimited(hereafterGRPL)werefound.Fromtheseizedpaper, markedaspage-1ofannexureA-3(relatedtoSHBL)andpage5ofannexureA-3 (relatedtoGRPL),theAOnotedthatboththeconcernpaidonmoneyagainstthe purchaseofland.Fromthesamepages,itwasalsonotedbytheAOthatcash contributionwasmadebycertainindividualswhichwereultimatelyutilizedfor makingon-moneypaymentsforlandpurchase.Assuch,basedonimpugned pagesitwasnotedbytheAOthattheassesseemadeaninitialcashcontribution ofRs.9,75,39,000/-andRs.9.84croresintheprojectofSHBLandGRPL respectively.Thus,theassesseemadeunaccountedinvestedinboththeprojects tothetuneofRs.19,59,39,000/-andaddedthesametototalincomeofthe assesseeforA.Y.2012-13. IT(SS)Anos.343/Ahd/2018with9others Asstt.Years2012-13&others 15 17.TheAOalsonotedthatbothHSBLandGRPLhaveadmittedhavingreceived unaccountedbookingamountforRs.44.08croresandRs.66.4croresindifferent assessmentyears.Accordingly,theAOconcludedthattheassesseebeingthe initialcontributorintheprojectoftheSHBLandGRPLmusthavereceivedhis shareinunaccountedreceiptintheproportionofcontributions.Thus,theAO workedouttheamountofunaccountedreceiptoftheassesseeatRs. 34,67,01,120/-intheprojectofSHBLandGRPL.TheAOaftergivingthe adjustmentofinitialcontribution(asinvestmentreceivedback)madenetaddition onaccountofunaccountedreceiptforRs.3,19,91,636/-andRs.11,87,70,782/-in theA.Y.2014-15and2015-16. 18.Onappealbytheassessee,thelearnedCIT(A)waspleasedtodeletethe additionmadebytheAOindifferentassessmentyears.NowtheRevenueisin appealbeforeus. 19.Wehaveheardtheld.DRandperusedthematerialsavailableonrecord. Fromtheprecedingdiscussion,wenotethatthefactsinvolveincaseofthe presentrespondentassesseeandfactinthecaseoftheappealsfiledbythe RevenueinIT(SS)ANo.343to345&349/Ahd/2018incaseoftheassesseeShri AnkitSureshbhaiShahareidenticalexceptadifferencei.e.incaseofShriAnkit SureshbhaiShahadditionwasmadeonprotectivebasis. 19.1Attheoutset,wenotethatintheappealsfiledbytheRevenueinthecase ofassesseenamelyAnkitSureshbhaiShahbearingIT(SS)ANo.343to345& 349/Ahd/2018,wehaveconfirmedthefindingofthelearnedCIT(A)thatthecash paymentagainstpurchaseoflandbytheSHBLandGRPLhasbeenmadeoutof bookingamountofflats/shopetc.intheimpugnedprojects.Assuch,theamount writtenagainstthenameofcertainindividualarerepresentingbookingamount receivedthroughthoseindividuals.TheLLPSHBLandthecompanyGRPLhave alreadyofferedtaxonbookingamount.Therefore,inourconsideredopinion,no IT(SS)Anos.343/Ahd/2018with9others Asstt.Years2012-13&others 16 additionisrequiredtobemadeinthehandsoftheassessee.Thus,wedonotfind anyreasontointerfereinthefindingofthelearnedCIT(A).Hencethegroundof appealraisedbytherevenueisherebydismissed. 19.2Intheresultallthreecaptionedappealsfiledbytherevenuearehereby dismissed. 20.Inthecombinedresult,allthe10appealsfiledbytheRevenuearehereby dismissed. OrderpronouncedintheCourton27/09/2023atAhmedabad. Sd/-Sd/- (T.RSENTHILKUMAR)(WASEEMAHMED) JUDICIALMEMBERACCOUNTANTMEMBER (TrueCopy) Ahmedabad;Dated27/09/2023 Manish