ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad V. Shri Karsangiri Buddhgiri Goswami, Banaskantha

ITSSA 347/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6219 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 30-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: A L THAKKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Capital asset; Source of fund; Additional evidence; Retraction; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 69A; 13; 68; 69; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE: SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEM BER THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) VS SHRI KARSANGIRI BUDDHGIRI GOSWAMI, C/O DIAMOND PETROLEUM, NR. RTO CHECK POST, SANCHOR HIGHWAY, THARAD, BANASKANTHA, GUJARAT-385565 PAN: AEGPG9802G (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: SHRI O.P. SHARMA, CIT-D.R. ASSESSEE BY: SHRI A.L. THAKKAR, A.R . DATE OF HEARING : 30-03-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12-04-20 21 /ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2012-13, ARISES FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-12, AHMEDABAD DATED 14-09-2018, IN PROCEEDI NGS UNDER SECTION 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. IT(SS)A NO. 347/AHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 I.T(SS).A NO. 347/AHD/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE NO. ACIT VS. SHRI KARSANGIRI BUDDHGIRI GOSWAMI 2 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPE AL:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,52,93 ,962/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PROTECTIVE BASIS U/S.69AOFTHE ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,00,00 0/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 4. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 3. THE FACT IN BRIEF IS THAT ASSESSMENT U/S. 153A R .W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS FINALIZED ON 29 TH FEB, 2016 AND TOTAL INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS. 3,59,30,822/- AFTER MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 3,52,93, 962/- ON PROTECTIVE BASIS U/S. 69 OF THE ACT AND OTHER ADDITION OF RS. 4 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. FURTHER FACTS OF THE CASE ARE DISCUSSED WHILE ADJUDICATING TWO GROUNDS O F APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS FOLLOWS:- GROUND NO. 1( ADDITION OF RS. 3,52,93,962/- ON PROT ECTIVE BASIS U/S. 69A OF THE ACT) 4. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE RESIDENT OF S HRI SOHIT MEHTA ON 19 TH JULY, 2013 SIGNED A BANAKHAT DATED 28 TH MARCH, 2012 WAS FOUND AND SEIZED. THE BANAKHAT WAS SIGNED BETWEEN SHRI MEHULBHAI LAV JIBHAI MEHTA (BUYER OF MEHTA GROUP) AND SHRI MANSUKHLAL AMRUTLAL MODI, GOSWAMI KARSANGIRI BUDHIGIRI AND SMT. PATEL ATITHIBEN NAVINCHANDRA (SE LLER) OF LAND AD- MEARSURING 46378 SQ. MT. AT VILLAGE CHADOTAR, SUB-D ISTRICT PALANPUR, BANASKANTA. THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE LAND WAS FIXED AT RS. 23,29,36,385/- AGAINST WHICH PAYMENT OF RS. 5,82,34 ,906/- WAS MADE BY THE I.T(SS).A NO. 347/AHD/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE NO. ACIT VS. SHRI KARSANGIRI BUDDHGIRI GOSWAMI 3 BUYER SHRI MEHUL L. MEHTA. THE CONSEQUENT SEARCH A CTION U/S. 132 OF THE ACT WAS ALSO CARRIED AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE TWO ORIGINAL OWNERS OF LAND VIZ. SHRI KARSANGIRI BUDHGIRI GOSWAMI (ASSESSE E AND SMT. ATITHIBEN DEEP SHAH (CO-OWNER AND SELLER). WHILE THE ASSESSE E HAD ADMITTED THE RECEIPT OF AMOUNT OF RS. 5,82,34,906/- AND SMT. ATI THBEN HAD ADMITTED RECEIPT OF ADDITIONAL RS. 3 CRORE OVER AND ABOVE TH E RECEIPT OF RS. 5,82,34,906/- IN CONNECTION WITH TRANSFER OF SAID L AND. HOWEVER, NEITHER SHRI KARSHANGIRI BUDHGIRI GOSWAMI (ASSESSEE) NOR SM T. ATITHIBEN PATEL HAD DECLARED THE SHARE OF RECEIPT IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACC OUNT AND IN THEIR RETURNS OF INCOME. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID DEED FOR SALE OF LAND WAS NOT COMPLETED A ND THE AMOUNT ALREADY RECEIVED HAD BEEN RETURNED BACK AND HE HAD ONLY REC EIVED 40% OF RS. 5,82,34,906/- AND NOT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 8,82,34,906 /-. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT THAT THE AFORESAID LAND WAS STILL IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER TWO CO- OWNERS AND SAME WAS NOT TRANSFERRED TO THE BUYERS MENTIONED IN THE IMPUGNED BANAKHAT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSI ON OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED 40% OF RS. 8,82,34,906/- WHICH COMES TO RS. 3 ,52,93,962/- AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 OF THE ACT ON PROTECTIVE BASIS TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E. 5. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE L D. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED ADDITION OF RS. 3,52,93,962/- MA DE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS HOLDING THAT ADDITION ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF SHRI MEHUL MEHTA ON THE BASIS OF ORDER OF SETTLEMEN T COMMISSION THEREFORE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE ADDITION ON PROTECTIVE BASIS IN THE I.T(SS).A NO. 347/AHD/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE NO. ACIT VS. SHRI KARSANGIRI BUDDHGIRI GOSWAMI 4 CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TREATED AS UNJUSTIFIED. T HE RELEVANT PART OF THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 9. I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND CONSIDE RED THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION ALONG WITH THE REMAND REPORTS FROM THE AO AND THE APPELLANT'S REJO INDER. 9.1 FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS SEEN THAT RS.5, 82,34,906/- AND RS.5,82,34,096/- AS WELL AS RS.8,82,34,906/- AND RS.8,82,34,096/- HAVE BEEN USE D INTERCHANGEABLY AND ONE OF THEM IS TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR. THE RESPECTIVE CORRECT AMOUNT WILL BE THE ONE WHICH IS CORRECT AS PER THE RECORD. 9.2 DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS A LETTER ELATE D 09/09/2017 WAS WRITTEN TO THE OCIT, CC-2FL), AHMEDABAD TO KNOW THE STATUS OF SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIO N MADE IN THE CASE OF SHRI MEHUL MCHTA WITH A REQUEST TO FURNISH THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE OR DER OF THE HON'BLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IN THE CASE OF SHRI MEHTA. THE AO'S REMAND REPORT DATED 09 /02/2018 WAS RECEIVED ON 20/02/2013 WHICH WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE APPELLANT FOR HIS C OMMENTS. VIDE SUBMISSION DATED 06/06/2018 THE APPELLANT MADE A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCES IN CONNECTION WITH UNSECURED LOAN FROM SHRI AMRITLAL CHHAGANLAL JOSHI WHICH WAS FORWARDED TO THE ACIT, CC-2(1) VIDE LETTE R DATED 08/06/2018 FOR HIS COMMENTS ON THE EVIDENCES FILED AND ON THEIR ADMISSIBILITY. THE AO'S REMAND REPORT DATED 10/08/2018 WAS RECEIVED ON 16/0 8/2018 AND WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE APPELLANT WHO FILED THE REBUTTAL /REJOINDER TO THE REMAND REPORT ON 05/09/2018. THE REMAND REPORTS AND THE REBUTTAL/REJOINDER ARE ALREADY PROD UCED AS PART OF APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION BEFORE. 9.3 AT THE OUTSET IT CAN BE SAID THAT AS THE ADDITI ON IN THE HAND OF THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN MADE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS AND THAT BECAUSE THE TO-BE MADE SU BSTANTIVE ADDITION IN THE HAND OF SHRI MEHUL MEHTA HAVING BEEN SUBSUMED IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFOR E THE ITSC AND COVERED BY THE ORDER DATED 17/11/2017 U/S 245D(4), THE PROTECTIVE ADDITION IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT MAY BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED BUT SUCH A VIEW/ACTION WILL NOT BE PROPER. 9.4 WITHOUT GOING INTO OTHER ASPECTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT APPEARS THAT THE TREATMENT OF THE AO IN ADDING THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT OF RS.3,52,93,962/- ON PROTECTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT TECHNICALLY CORRECT BECAUSE PRIMA FACIE, GIV EN THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION NOTHING OTHER THAN SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT AS WEL L AS IN THE HANDS OF THE BUYER. THE ISSUE IS PURPORTED TRANSACTION OF LAND W HERE THE WOULD-BE-BUYER HAS MADE PART PAYMENT TO THE SELLERS. IF THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE BUYER IS NOT OUT OF DISCLOSED SOURCES, THE AMOUNT HAS TO BE ADDED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE BUYER ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS AND AT THE SAME TIME, IF THE RECEIPT OF CONSI DERATION IS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE SELLER(S), THE AMOUNT HAS TO BE ADDED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE SELLER(S) ON THE SUBSTANTIVE BASIS ONLY. IN SALE-PURCHASE TRANSACTIO NS THE AMOUNTS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES ARE TO BE ADDED SUBSTANTIVELY ONLY IN THE R ESPECTIVE HANDS AND THE TWO ADDITIONS IN TWO HANDS WILL NOT BE A CASE OF DOUBLE TAXATION OF THE SAME AMOUNT. IL IS NOT THE CASE OF SAY MONEY FOUND AT A PLACE OR IN POSSESSION OF A PERSON AND T HE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THAT PERSON IS SUCH THAT REQUIRED SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF SOME PERSONS AND PROTECTIVE ADDITIONS IN THE HANDS OF OTHER PERSONS TO AVOID DOUBLE TAXATION OF THE SAME AMOUNT. THUS IN THE PRESENT CASE PRIMA FACIE BOTH THE BUYER SHRI MEHUL MEHTA AND ALL THE THREE SELLERS INCLUDING SHRI KARSANGIRI BUDHGIRI GOSWAMI (APPELLANT) AND SMT. ATITHIBEN DEEP SHALL ARE LIABLE FOR SUBSTANTIVE ADD ITIONS OF THE RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS' PAID AND RECEIVED RESPECTIVELY IF NOT FOUND DISCLOR.ED/FRXPL HJNRFL BY IHTIM FOR LHE PURPOSE OF INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. 9.5 FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS SEEN THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH A BANAKLIAT (PAGES 1 TO 6 OF ANNEXURC A-2) SHOWING AGREEMENT TO SELL OF LAND BEARING SURVEY NO. 224 & 225 AT VILLAGE CHADOTAR ADMEASURING 46378 SQ. METER (LATER ON CAM E TO BE KNOWN AS 'MANAN FARM') FOR SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.23,29,36,385/- BETWEEN SHRI MEH UL L MEHTA (THE BUYER) AND THE SELLERS BEING THE APPELLANT ALONG WITH OTHER TWO (2) CO-OWNERS AN D SHOWING PAYMENT OF RS.5,82,34,906/- BY SHRI MEHUL MEHTA WAS FOUND AT THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI SOHIT MEHLA. IN THE STATEMENT SHRI MEHUL MEHTA ADMITTED TO HAVE SIGNED THE BAIIAKHAT .AND TO HAVE MADE THE SAID PAYMENTS. I.T(SS).A NO. 347/AHD/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE NO. ACIT VS. SHRI KARSANGIRI BUDDHGIRI GOSWAMI 5 ALSO DURING THE COURSE OF CONSEQUENT SEARCH CARRIED OUT AT THE RESIDENCES OF THE APPELLANT AND OTHER CO-OWNER AND SELLER, SMT. ATITHIBEN DEEP SHAH , THEIR STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED U/S 132(4] ON 20/07/2013 AND WHILE THE APPELLANT SHRI KARS ANGIRI GOSWAMI HAD ADMITTED THE RECEIPT OF AMOUNT OF RS.5,82,34,906/-, SMT. ATITHIBEN SHAH HAD ADMITTED RECEIPT OF ADDITIONAL RS.3,00,00, 000/- OVER AND ABOVE RECEIPT OF RS.5,82,34,906/- (I.E. RECEIPT OF KS.8,82,34,906/- I.E. AROUND RS.9,00,00,000/-). NO BASIS FOR STATING ADDITIONAL RECEIPT OF RS.3,00,00,000/- BY T HE APPELLANT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN RECORDED BY THE ITD SEARCH TEAM AND BROUGHT OUT BY THE AO. HOWE VER, IT WILL BE SEEN LATER THAT THIS ASPECT/FACT IS NOT MATERIAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECIDING THE APP EAL UNDER CONSIDERATION. 9.6 FROM THE STATEMENTS RECORDED U/S 132(4) IT IS S EEN THAT NEITHER SHRI KARSANGIRI GOSWAMI NOR SMT. ATITHIBEN SHALL ADMIT LED THEIR SHARE OF SAID RECEIPT AS THEIR UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND MADE DISCLOSURE OF THE SAID AMOUNT BEING UNACCOUNTED NOR DECLARED THEIR SHARES OF SAID RECEIPT IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND IN THEIR RETURNS OF INCOME. S O ALSO WHEN THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED U / S 142(1) TO EXPLAIN THE SAID TRANSACTION DURING THE ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE DEAL SO DISCUSSED WAS NOT COMPLE TED AND THE AMOUNT SO RECEIVED HAD BEEN RETURNED AND THAT HE HAD ONLY RECEIVED 40% OF RS.5, 82,34,906/- AND NOT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 8,82,34,906/- 9.7 IT IS NOTED THAT IT IS THE CASE OF THE AO THAT NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO CONTROVERT THE CONTENTS OF BANAKHAT HAD BEEN PRODUCED BY THE APPEL LANT DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AND NO EVIDENCES INDICATING MATERIAL CHANGE TO THE CIRCUMS TANCES PREVALENT AT THE TIME OF HIS SWORN STATEMENT AND AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN SUBMITTED. HOWEVER, IT IS MENTIONED BY THE AO THAT IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE APPELLANT TH AT THE LAND WAS STILL IN THE NAMES OF THE APPELLANT AND OTHER TWO CO-OWNERS AND THAT THE LAND WAS NOT TRANSFERRED IN THE NAME OF THE BUYER AT THE TIME OF BANAKHAT (OR LATER). HOWEVER, THE AO , BASED ON THE SWORN STATEMENTS DATED 20/07/2013 OF THE APPELLANT AND OF SMT. ATITHIBEN S HAH, ADDED 40% OF RS.8,82,34,906/- I.E. RS.3,52,93,962/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLA NT TO KEEP ISSUE ALIVE TILL THE OUTCOME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF SHRI MEHUL ME HTA. THUS IT APPEARS THAT THE AO HELD THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT DURING THE ASSESSMENT AS RETRACTION OF HIS STATEMENT U/S 132(4) AND IN VIEW OF THE FACTS BEFORE HIM THE AO CHOSE TO MAKE T HE ADDITION OF THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT ON PROTECTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. 9.8 THERE IS NO DISPUTE AS TO THE VERACITY OF AGREE MENT TO SELL AS PER THE BANAKHAT SEIZED AS PAGE 1 TO 6 OF ANNEXURE A/2 AT THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI SOH IT MCHTA. WHILE SHRI MEHUL MEHTA ADMITTED TO HAVE PAID RS.5,82,34,906/- TO THE SELLERS (THREE CO -OWNERS) AND SHRI KARSANGIRI GOSWAMI, THE APPELLANT AND ONE OF THE CO-SELLERS ADMITTED TO HAV E RECEIVED THE SAID AMOUNT (HIS SHARE IN THE LAND BEING 40%), HOWEVER, THE OTHER SELLER AND CO-O WNER, SRNT. ATITHIBEN SHAH ADMITTED TO HAVE RECEIVED RS.3,00,00,000/- OVER AND ABOVE RS.5,82,34 ,906/-. THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE THIRD CO- OWNER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT NEITHER SHRI KARSANGIRI GOSWAMI NOR SMT. ATITHIBEN SHAH ADMITTED THE AMOUNT RECEIVED TO BE T HEIR UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND MADE ANY DISCLOSURE U/S 132(4). THEY ALSO DID NOT DECLARE TH E AMOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND IN THEIR RETURNS OF INCOME. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S AND IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 142(1) BOTH SHRI KARSANGIRI GOSWAMI AND SMT. ATITHIBEN SHAH STA TED THAT THE LAND WAS NOT TRANSFERRED AT THE TIME OF BANAKHAT AND ON RECEIPT OF RS.5,82,34,906/- , THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED WAS RETURNED AND THAT THE LAND WAS STILL WITH THEM. THUS AS PER THE AO THE APPELLANT HAD RETRACTED FROM THE STATEMENT U/S 132(4). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS THE CASE O F THE AO THAT NO EVIDENCE/MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT BY THE APPELLANT TO CORROBORATE AND JUSTIFY THE RET RACTION OF STATEMENT U/S 132(4). HENCE THE AO CHOSE TO MAKE ADDITION OF THE PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF RS. 8,82 , 34.906/- IN THEIR HANDS IN PROPORTION TO THEIR SHARES OF 40% AND 15% ON PROTEC TIVE BASIS. THE APPROACH OF THE AO IN MAKING ADDITION ON PROTECTIVE BASIS WAS APPARENTLY NOT TE CHNICALLY CORRECT, IT BEING CASE OF SALE PURCHASE WHERE BOTH THE BUYER AND THE SELLER ARE LIABLE FOR SUBSTANTIVE ADDITIONS OF SAME/SIMILAR AMOUNT. 9.9 WITH CLARIFICATION BY THE SELLERS THAT THE POSS ESSION OF LAND WAS NOT TRANSFERRED AND THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RETURNED, THR. IMPUGNED TRANSACTION IN T HE HANDS OF THE WOULD-BE SELLERS TAKES A DIFFERENT HUE ICQUIRING EXAMINATION OF ACCRUAL TAXA BILITY IN THEIR HANDS. HOWEVER, AS THE PAYMENT OF RS.5,82,34,906/- WAS MADE BY THE BUYER SHRI MCHU L MEHTA, HE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE I.T(SS).A NO. 347/AHD/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE NO. ACIT VS. SHRI KARSANGIRI BUDDHGIRI GOSWAMI 6 SOURCE OF FUND FOR SUCH PAYMENT AND WHETHER IT WAS DULY RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS EVEN IF IT MAY BE TRUE THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RETURNED BY THE CO-OWNERS CUM SELLERS TO THE BUYER I.E. SHRI MEHUL MEHTA. 10. DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS I REQUIRED THE LD. AR TO APPRISE OF THE STATUS OF SAID LAND. VIDE SUBMISSION DATED 19/04/2018 IT HAS BEEN SAID T HAT THE SALE OF SAID LAND AS PER THE SEIZED BANAKHAT DATED 28/03/2012 DID NOT MATERIALIZE, THAT THE LAND DEAL (AS PER THE SEIZED BANAKHAT) WAS ULTIMATELY CANCELED WHICH IS ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE ERSTWHILE BUYER I.E. SHRI MEHUL MEHTA IN HIS ST ATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INCOME BEFORE I.E. HON'BLE 1TSC AND ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE AO IN THE REMAND REP ORT AND THAT THE LAND WAS ULTIMATELY SOLD ON 19/08/2016 TO BHUPENDRABHAI DANSUNGBHAI PATE L, MEGHRAJ GALBABHAI PATEL (HUF), ISHWARBHAI CHELABHAI KAIDVA AND MAFATBHAI KALUBHAI KANB AND THAT IT WOULD BE CLEAR THAT NO SUCH LAND TRANSACTION HAD BEEN UNDERTAKEN WITH MEH UL MEHTA. IT IS FURTHER ASSERTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RETURNED BY THE BROK ER THROUGH WHOM THE TRANSACTION WAY UNDERTAKEN. A COPY OF AFFIDAVIT OF SATYAM AMITBH AI PADHIAR, THE BROKER IN THE LAND DEALING VIDE THE SEIZED BANAKHAT WAS FURNISHED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 10. 1 IN THE REMAND REPORT THE A.O. HAS STATED THAT SHRI MEHUL MEHTA HAS OFFERED AN ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.13,75,00,000/ IN THE STATEMENT OF FACT S FILED ALONG WITH THE SETTLEMENT APPLICATION BEFORE HONBLE ITSC AND THAT FURTHER ADDITIONAL INC OME OF RS.2,75,00,000/ FOR A.Y. 2013-14 AND RS.53,40,053/- FOR A.Y. 2015-16 WAS OFFERED BY SHRI MEHTA DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE COMMISSION OVER AND ABOVE THE INITIAL OFFER OF RS.1 2.75 CRORE. FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ADDITION IMPUGNED IN THE APPEAL UNDER CONSIDERATION THE DETA ILS OF SHARE IN VARIOUS LANDS AND PAYMENTS AND ADJUSTMENTS THEREOF ARC NOT REQUIRED TO BE GONE INTO. IT WOULD SUFFICE TO NOTE THAT AS PER THE SUBMISSION BY SHRI MEHTA BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITSC TO TAL PAYMENT OF RS.11,64,68,192/- WAS MADE AND THE SAID PAYMENT WAS ADJUSTED WITH VARIOUS PERS ONS FOR PURCHASE OF VARIOUS LANDS. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS MENTIONED IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT NEIT HER ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO CONTROVERT THE CONTENTS OF BANAKHAT NOR THE MATERIAL CHANGES O F CIRCUMSTANCES FOR RETRACTION OF STATEMENTS U/S 132(4) BY BOTH SMT. ATITHIBEN DEEP SHAH AND SHR I KARSANGIRI B GOSWAMI WAS PRODUCED BY SHRI MEHUL MEHTA BEFORE THE ITSC BUT SHRI MEHUL MEH TA SUBMITTED CASH FLOW STATEMENT TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT TO VARIOUS PROPERT IES AND THAT NO ADVERSE VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE HON'BLE ITSC IN ITS ORDER DATED 17/11/201? PASSED U /S 245D(4) OF THE ACT COVERING THE PERIOD FROM A.Y. 2008-09 TO A.Y. 2014-15 SO FAR AS INVESTM ENT MADE IN 'MANAN FARM' IS CONCERNED. 10.2 THE PRESENT AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT APPEARS TO BE HARPING ON SUSTAINING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT AS IF THE RE TRACTION OF THE STATEMENT U/S 132(4) HAD OCCURRED WHICH COULD NOT BE ALLOWED. IT HAS ALREADY HELD BEE N BEFORE THAT IN THE STATEMENTS U/S 132(4) THERE WAS NO ADMISSION OF ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND NO C OMMITMENT TO OFFER THE SAME FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAX BY THE APPELLANT AND THAT THE SUBMISSION U/S 142(1) DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS MERE CLARIFICATION OF THE AFFAIRS AND STATUS OF THE PURPORTED TRANSACTION AS PER THE BANAKHAT AND NOT GOING BACK FROM THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132( 4). THUS THE CONTENTION OF THE PRESENT AO TO THIS EXTENT IS ALSO NOT ACCEPTABLE AND IS DISMISSED BEING NOT MATERIALLY RELEVANT FOR THIS APPEAL. 10.3 IN VIEW OF VARIOUS FACTS ON RECORD THERE REMAI NS NO DOUBT THAT THOUGH THE SEIZED BANAKHAT WAS GENUINE AND PAYMENT OF RS.5,82,34,906/- WAS REC EIVED BY THE CO-OWNERS CUM SELLERS OF THE LAND WHICH INCLUDED SHRI KARSANGIRI GOSWAMI AND SMT . ATITHIBEN SHAH, NOT ONLY THAT THEY DENIED THE TRANSFER OF LAND TO SHRI MEHUL MEHTA AND THE AS SERTED HAVING RETURNED THE AMOUNT RECEIVED THROUGH THE BROKER IN THE DEAL, IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE SAID LAND WAS ULTIMATELY SOLD ON 19/08/2016 TO OTHER PARTIES. TO ME WHEN THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED WHITHER' IT WAS RS.5,82,34,906/- OR RS.8,82,34,906/- THERE WAS NO CASE OF ANY DISCLO SURE BY AND ANY ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF SHRI KARSANGIRI GOSWAMI AND SMT. ATITHIBEN SHAH AS THE PURPORTED TRANSACTION DID NOT MATERIALIZE, THE LAND WAS NOT TRANSFERRED BY THE WOULD-BE SELLER TO THE WOULD-BE BUYER AND THE PART MONEY RECEIVED WAS RETURNED TO THE WOULD- BE BUYER. THE LIABILITY OF TAXATION DID NOT ARISE AS THE IMPUGN ED TRANSACTION DOES NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF 'TRANSFER' UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT I NCLUDING THE DEFINITION OF PART PERFORMANCE U/S 53A OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT. AS THE TRANSACTION CON3CQUCNT OF AND SUBSEQUENT TO THE SEIZED BANAKHAT HAS NOT COMPLETED, THE TAXABILITY OF THE AMOUNT IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT WHETHER I.T(SS).A NO. 347/AHD/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE NO. ACIT VS. SHRI KARSANGIRI BUDDHGIRI GOSWAMI 7 DISCLOSED OR UNDISCLOSED DOES NOT ARISE. THUS TH ERE WAS NEITHER A CASE FOR THE APPELLANT TO OFFER THE AMOUNT TO TAX IN THE RETURN OF INCOME NOR A CAS E FOR THE AO TO MAKE ADDITION TREATING THE RECEIPT AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS. MAY BE BECAUSE OF THIS POSITION IN MIND, THE AO FOUND IT PROPER TO MAKE THE ADDITION ON PROTECTI VE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. THUS THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.3,5 2,93 , 962/- AND THE APPEAL ON THIS GROUND SUCCEEDS. 11. THOUGH IT IS NO MORE REQUIRED TO DEAL WITH THE TREATMENT OF AFFAIRS IN THE HANDS OF SHRI MENUL MEHTA, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPREHENSIVENESS THE SAM E IS INCLUDED HERE. IT HAS BEEN SEEN THAT SHRI MEHUL MEHTA IN WHOSE HANDS THERE WAS CASE OF SUBSTA NTIVE ADDITION HAS MADE APPROPRIATE DISCLOSURE IN THE APPLICATION FOR SETTLEMENT AND TH AT THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAS NOT MADE ANY ADVERSE COMMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE SAID LAND W HICH WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF THE RELIED UPON SEIZED BANAKHAT AND THE BASIS UF PROTECTIVE ADDITIO N IN THE HANDS OF SHII KARWANGIRI GOSWAINI AND SUIT. ATITHIBEN SHAH. HAVING ENSURED THAT THE T O BE MADE SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION IN, THE HANDS OF SHRI MEHUL MEHTA HAS BEEN TAKEN CARE IN THE SETTLEM ENT APPLICATION AND IN THE ORDER DATED 17/11/2017 U/S 245D(4), THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELET E THE ADDITION OF RS.3,52,93.962/- IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPEAL SUCCEEDS ON THIS GROUND. 6. HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND CO-OWNER SMT. ATIT HIBEN SHAH 40% OF RS. 8,82,34,906/- WHICH COMES TO RS. 3,52,93,962/- WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS AND ASSE SSMENT ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS WAS MADE IN THE HAND OF SHRI MEHUL L MEHTA BU YER OF THE LAND. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS A PPRISED STATUS FOR THE IMPUGNED LAND TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATING THAT THE SALE OF SUCH LAND AS PER THE SEIZED BANAKHAT DATED 28 TH MARCH, 2012 WAS NOT MATERIALIZED AND THE LAND DEAL AS PER THE SEIZED BANAKHAT WAS ULTIMATELY CANCELLED. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE LA ND WAS STILL IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER TWO CO-OWNERS AND THE LAND W AS NOT TRANSFERRED IN THE NAME OF BUYER MENTIONED IN THE BANAKHAT. IT WAS FU RTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED WAS RETURNED BACK TO THE PARTIES ME NTIONED IN THE BANAKHAT. IT IS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT AMOUNT WAS RETURNED BY THE BROKER THROUGH WHOM THE TRANSACTION WAS UNDERTAKEN. IN THIS REGARD, A COPY OF AFFIDAVIT OF SATYAM AMITBHAI PADIHAR, BROKER IN THE LAND DEALING WAS FURNISHED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT IS FURTH ER NOTICED THAT THE I.T(SS).A NO. 347/AHD/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE NO. ACIT VS. SHRI KARSANGIRI BUDDHGIRI GOSWAMI 8 IMPUGNED LAND WAS ULTIMATELY SOLD ON 19 TH AUGUST, 2016 TO OTHER PARTIES. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO STATED THAT CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION ONLY SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF TH E BUYER AND IN THE HANDS OF THE SELLER ON THE REASONING THAT IF PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THE BUYER NOT OUT OF DISCLOSED SOURCES THE AMOUNT HAS TO BE ADDED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE BUYER ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS AND AT THE SAME TIME IF THE RECEIPT OF CONSIDERATION IS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE SE LLER, THE AMOUNT HAS TO BE ADDED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE SELLER ON THE SUBSTANTIVE BASIS ONLY. FURTHER IT IS UNDISPUTED F ACT THAT SHRI MEHUL MEHTA IN WHOSE HANDS THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS HAD MADE RELEVANT DISCLOSURE IN THE APPLICATION FOR SETTLEME NT WHICH HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IN THE ORDE R DATED 17 TH NOV, 2017 U/S. 245D(IV) AS ELABORATED IN THE FINDING OF LD. C IT(A). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY IN FIRMITY IN THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE SIMILAR ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APP EAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. GROUND NO. 2(ADDITION OF RS. 4 LACS U/S. 68 OF THE ACT) 7. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING O FFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED UNSECURED LOAN TO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 4 LACS FROM AMRITLAL CHHAGANLAL JOSHI. DURING THE ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATION OF THE LENDER, BANK PASSBOOK BUT DID NOT FILE COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME. ON PERUSAL OF THE DETAIL FILED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBVERTED THAT CONFIRMATION OF THE LENDER WAS UNSIGN ED AND ASSESSEE HAD FILED COPY OF HIS OWN BANK ACCOUNT INSTEAD COPY OF BANK A CCOUNT OF THE LENDER. I.T(SS).A NO. 347/AHD/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE NO. ACIT VS. SHRI KARSANGIRI BUDDHGIRI GOSWAMI 9 CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT ASSES SEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THEREFORE, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 4 LACS WA S TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME U/S. 68 OF THE ACT AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) . THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT P ART OF THE DECISION IS AS UNDER:- 12. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS SEEN THAT UNS ECURED LOAN OF RS.4,00,000/-TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT FROM ONE SHRI AMRATLAL CHHAGANLAL JOSHI W AS ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME BECAUSE THE APPELLANT HAD NOT DISCHARGED THE ONUS OF ESTABLISHI NG THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. DURING T HE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT FURNISHED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WITH THE PRAYER THAT THEY MAY BE ADMITTED. THOSE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE AO WHO HAS STATED THAT THE AD DITIONAL EVIDENCES SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED AT THIS STAGE -AS SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES WERE PROVID ED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE SAID SUBMISSION THE AO HAS VERIFIE D THOSE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND STATED THAT CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER IS STILL NOT ESTABLI SHED AS THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SUBMITTED THE COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME OF SHRI JOSHI AND THAT EVEN IF IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE LENDER IS OWNING CERTAIN AGRICULTURE LAND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST TH AT THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WERE OUT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE AGRICULTURAL CROP. IN REBUTTAL TO THE AO'S REPORT IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT SHRI AMRATLAL CHHAG ANLAL JOSHI WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME (DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS) AND T HEREFORE THE RELEVANT EVIDENCES COULD NOT BE OBTAINED (AND SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO] AND THAT WAS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE APPELLANT TO FURNISH THESE EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO AND THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES PRODUCED DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS ARE REQUIRED TO ADMITTED NOW BY THE CIT(A). RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE CASE OF SHAH RUKH KHAN (2007) 13 SOT 6.1 (MUMBAI). I AM OF THE VIEW THAT ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ASSISTING DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME IS REQUIRED FOR THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. THEREFORE THE GROUND OF THE AO FOR NOT ADM ITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IS NOT ACCEPTED. 12.1 AS TO THE MERITS OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES I T IS SEEN THAT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OF THE LENDER AND THE BANK STATEM ENT OF THE LENDER HAS BEEN FURNISHED. IT IS THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT THAT AS THE LENDER WAS AN AGR ICULTURIST HE WAS NOT LIABLE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT IS A PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION AND THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ON ANY FACTS OR EVIDENCE TO DEMOLISH THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM. THE FACT THAT THE LENDER WAS AN AGRICULTURIST AND WAS NOT FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME CANNOT BE THE BASIS TO DENY CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND TO REFUTE APPELLANT'S CLAIM. THOUGH THE LOAN TRANSACTION BEING THROUGH NORMAL BANKING CHANNELS DOES NOT MAKE THE T RANSACTION SACROSANCT AND NECESSARILY TO BE ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE, BUT THE PERUSAL OF BANK AC COUNT OF LENDER WITH ADARSH COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. SHOWS THAT THE IMMEDIATE SOURCE OF RS.4,00,000 /- GIVEN AS LOAN TO SHRI KARSANGIRI GOSWAMI IS NOT ANY CASH DEPOSIT AND NOT A CHEQUE DEPOSIT OF COMPARABLE AMOUNT. THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ARC VARIOUS CLEARANCES OF VARIOUS SUMS AND THE BALANCES IN THE BANK ARE NOT MEAGER. THE CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNTS FILED DURING THE APPEAL PR OCEEDINGS IS SIGNED. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT WILL NOT BE PROPER TO HOLD THAT THE APPELLANT HA S NOR ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THEREFORE THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.4,00,000/-. THE APPEAL SUCCEEDS ON THIS GROUND. I.T(SS).A NO. 347/AHD/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE NO. ACIT VS. SHRI KARSANGIRI BUDDHGIRI GOSWAMI 10 8. HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. BECAUSE OF NON-AVAILABILITY OF RETURN OF INCOME AND COPY OF BA NK ACCOUNT OF THE LENDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED THE UNSECURED LOA N AMOUNT OF RS. 4 LACS AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE L D. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WHICH WERE ADMITTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMAND REPORT WAS ALSO CALLED FROM THE ASSESSING O FFICER. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT CONFIRMATION OF THE LENDER COULD NOT BE OBTAINED AS HE WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THAT RELEVANT POINT OF TIME. HOWEVER AFTER ABLED TO CONTACT THE LENDER THE NECESSARY DETAIL IN SUPPORT OF THE TRANS ACTION I.E. COPY OF 7/12 OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNED BY THE LENDER, COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF THE LENDER AND CONFIRMATION OF THE LENDER WERE OBTAINED. ACC ORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WHICH WERE IN THE NA TURE OF BANK STATEMENT, CONFIRMATION CONTAINING HIS DETAILED ADDRESS, DOCUM ENTARY EVIDENCES OF THE OWNERSHIP OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND IT WAS ALSO EXPL AINED THAT SINCE LENDER WAS AN AGRICULTURIST THEREFORE HE WAS NOT LIABLE TO FILE ANY RETURN OF INCOME. THE LOAN WAS RECEIVED FROM NORMAL BANKING CHANNEL A S EVIDENT FROM THE BANK STATEMENT THERE WAS NO CASH DEPOSITED IN THE A CCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE PRIOR TO GIVING OF THE LOAN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL OR EVIDENCES ON RECORD TO DISPROVE THE AFO RESAID FACTS AND EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND DETAILED FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, THERE FORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO DISMISSED. I.T(SS).A NO. 347/AHD/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE NO. ACIT VS. SHRI KARSANGIRI BUDDHGIRI GOSWAMI 11 9. GROUND NO. 3 AND 4 OF THE REVENUE ARE OF GENERAL NATURE. THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FINDING AS DISCUSSED WHILE A DJUDICATING THE MAIN TWO GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS ABOVE, THE GROU ND NOS. 3 & 4 ARE DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12-04-2021 SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 12/04/2021 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,