SHRI KAUSHIK S .DESAI, Ahmedabad V. THE JT,CIT(ASSTT)SR-2, Ahmedabad

ITSSA 41/AHD/2000

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7835 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 year(s) 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 09-01-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2000
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S PARIDA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Document seized; Peak credit; Corroborative evidences; Documents seized
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND SHRI A. K. GARO DIA, AM) IT(SS)A NO.41/AHD/2000 B. P.: 01-04-1987 TO 31-03-1997 & 01-04-1997 TO 28- 08-1997 SHRI KAUSHIK S. DESAI, 4, PREYAS BUNGALOW, OPP. RUSHIL BUNGALOW, NR. BODAKDEV, AUDA FIRE STATION, JUDGES BUNGALOW, AHMEDABAD PA NO. -- VS THE JCIT (ASSESSMENT), SPECIAL RANGE-2, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.84/AHD/2000 B. P.: 01-04-1987 TO 31-03-1997 & 01-04-1997 TO 28- 08-1997 THE JCIT (ASSESSMENT), SPECIAL RANGE-2, AHMEDABAD VS SHRI KAUSHIK S. DESAI, 4, PREYAS BUNGALOW, OPP. RUSHIL BUNGALOW, NR. BODAKDEV, AUDA FIRE STATION, JUDGES BUNGALOW, AHMEDABAD PA NO. -- (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.42/AHD/2000 B. P.: 01-04-1987 TO 31-03-1997 & 01-04-1997 TO 28- 08-1997 SHRI VIKRAM S. DESAI, 4, PREYAS BUNGALOW, OPP. RUSHIT BUNGALOW, NR. BODAKDEV, AUDA FIRE STATION, JUDGES BUNGALOW, AHMEDABAD PA NO. -- VS THE JCIT (ASSESSMENT), SPECIAL RANGE-2, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) IT (SS) A NO. 41, 42, 84 AND 86/AHD/2000 SHRI KAUSHIK S DESAI AND SHRI VIKRAM S DESAI 2 IT(SS)A NO.86/AHD/2000 B. P.: 01-04-1987 TO 31-03-1997 & 01-04-1997 TO 28- 08-1997 THE JCIT (ASSESSMENT), SPECIAL RANGE-2, AHMEDABAD VS SHRI VIKRAM S. DESAI, 4, PREYAS BUNGALOW, OPP. RUSHIT BUNGALOW, NR. BODAKDEV, AUDA FIRE STATION, JUDGES BUNGALOW, AHMEDABAD PA NO. -- (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI DHIREN SHAH, AR DEPARTMENT BY SHRI S. S. PARIDA, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING: 09-01-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20-01-2012 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: THIS ORDER SHALL DISPOSE OF ALL THE ABOVE APPEALS WHICH ARE CONNECTED WITH EACH OTHER. 2. BRIEFLY, THE BACKGROUND LEADING TO FILING OF TH E APPEALS ARE THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE IT ACT AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI KAUSHIK S. DESAI, THE ABOVE ASSESSEE ON 28-08-1997. IN ADDITION TO ABOVE, SIMULTANEOUS SEAR CH OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE IT ACT WERE ALSO CARRIED OUT ON THE SAME DAY AT THE OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF S/SHRI SENDHABHAI M. DE SAI, VIKRAM S. DESAI, KARAMSIBHAI DESAI , TUSHAR J. PATEL, JETHABHAI PATEL, KAMLESH PATEL, BALWANT THAKKAR, M/S. SQUARE REALITY PVT. LT D., MAHESH P. PATEL AND SURENDRA B. BHATT. LARGE NUMBERS OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND ON THAT BASIS B USINESS IT (SS) A NO. 41, 42, 84 AND 86/AHD/2000 SHRI KAUSHIK S DESAI AND SHRI VIKRAM S DESAI 3 INCOME WAS ESTIMATED. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE APPEALS F OR THE PURPOSE OF DISPOSAL AS UNDER: IT(SS)A NO.41/AHD/2000 IT(SS)A NO.84/AHD/2000 (ASSESSEE- SHRI KAUSHIK S. DESAI) 3. THESE CROSS APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IV, AHMEDABAD DATED 10-04-2000 FOR THE ABOVE BLOCK PERIOD. 4. THE ASSESSEE ON GROUND NO.1 CHALLENGED THE ADDIT ION OF RS.2,80,699/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.6,01,432/ - ON ACCOUNT OF PEAK OF BANK ACCOUNTS. THE REVENUE IN GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF ADDITION OUT OF PEAK OF BANK BALANCES AMOUNTING TO RS.3,20,733/-. IT IS NOTED IN THE IMPU GNED ORDER THAT THE AO MADE OBSERVATIONS THAT AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A COMBINED PEAK BALANCES IN RESPECT OF THREE BANK ACCOUNTS AND THE PEAK BALANCE WAS WORKED OUT AT RS.6,01,432/ -. THE AO REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE S AID THREE BANK ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN OPERATED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE INSTRUCTION GIVEN BY HIS FATHER SHRI SENDHABHAI DESAI AND HE HA S OPERATED THE BANK ACCOUNTS AS A NOMINEE OF HIS FATHER. THE AO R EJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS AND OTHER ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS ARE MAINLY FROM AGRICULTURAL O PERATION. THE AO ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A MAJOR AND COMPETE NT TO ENTER INTO ANY CONTRACT BECAUSE OF HIS MAJORITY AND ALL THE AC COUNTS WERE OPENED AND OPERATED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HE WAS SOLE OWNER OF THE SAME. ALL THE BANK ACCOUNTS ARE OPERATED BY THE ASS ESSEE ONLY. THE IT (SS) A NO. 41, 42, 84 AND 86/AHD/2000 SHRI KAUSHIK S DESAI AND SHRI VIKRAM S DESAI 4 AO ACCORDINGLY MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.6,01,432/- A S UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF PEAK OF THE BA NK ACCOUNTS. IT WAS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS NO INDEPENDENT SOURCE OF INCOME AND WAS OF THE AGE OF 23 YEARS OLD AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. THE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE OPERATED AS NOMINEE OF HIS FATHER AND FURTHER CASH WAS DEPOSITED OUT OF FA MILY AGRICULTURAL INCOME, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE AGAIN ST THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,20,733/- ON ACCOUNT OF S ALE OF BANAKHAT RIGHTS OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS SUBHASH BUNGALOW WH ICH WAS ALSO DEPOSITED IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT. TELESCOPING BEN EFIT OF RS.3,20,733/- WAS ACCORDINGLY CLAIMED. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE REDUCED THE ADDITION BY A SUM OF RS.3,20,733/-. HIS FINDINGS IN PARA 3.2 AR E REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 3.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE F ACT REMAINS THAT THE APPELLANT IS A MAJOR HE HAD OPENED THE BAN K ACCOUNTS IN QUESTION AND THAT HE WAS OPERATING TH4E BANK ACC OUNTS. ALSO AT THE TIME OF SEARCH IT WAS REVEALED THAT THE APPE LLANT WAS LOOKING AFTER HOTEL SAVERA (Q. 2 PARTY NO.2). ALSO THE CONSTRUCTION OF AMAR COMPLEX WAS UNDERTAKEN BY THE APPELLANT AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS (Q. 12 PARTY NO.2). THUS THE APPELLANT WAS NOT SITTING IDLE BUT WAS ENGAGED IN THE INCOME EARNING ACTIVITIES. FURTHER, AS PER APPELLANTS OWN ADMISSI ON HE HAS ACTED AS A MEDIATOR AND EARNED INCOME THEREFROM. AL SO THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION THAT THE APPELLANTS FATHER WHO HA S OPERATED HIS OWN BANK A/CS OPEN BANK ACCOUNT IN APPELLANTS NAME AND MONITOR THE SAID BANK A/CS THROUGH HIS SON I.E. THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION IS NOT ACCEPT ABLE. HOWEVER, THERE IS SOME MERIT IN APPELLANTS ALTERNA TIVE ARGUMENT ABOUT GIVING SET OFF FOR THE INCOME OF RS. 3,20,733/- IT (SS) A NO. 41, 42, 84 AND 86/AHD/2000 SHRI KAUSHIK S DESAI AND SHRI VIKRAM S DESAI 5 EARNED BY HIM. THE A. O. IS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED TO REDUCE THE ADDITION IN QUESTION BY THE SUM OF RS.3,20,733/. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND SUBM ITTED THAT THE ADDITION MAY BE CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF HIS FATH ER SHRI SENDHABHAI PATEL. HE HAS REFERRED TO PB-107 TO 116 WHICH ARE THE DETAILS OF THREE BANK ACCOUNTS AND THE PEAK WORKING GIVEN AT PB-169. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON GOING THROU GH STATED THAT TELESCOPING BENEFIT GRANTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) P ERTAINED TO CHEQUE NO.118975 DATED 27-11-1996 AND THE PEAK IS W ORKED OUT AT PB-169 ON 2/3-09-1996. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON TH E ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT THE BANK ACCOUNTS ARE IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE DEPOSITS THEREIN HAVE NOT BEEN DIS PUTED. TELESCOPING BENEFIT HAS BEEN WRONGLY GRANTED IN FAV OUR OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE CHEQUES DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF BANAKHAT RIGHT WAS AFTER THE DAT E OF WORKING OF THE PEAK DEPOSITS AND AS SUCH THE ENTIRE ADDITION SHOUL D BE MADE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO REDUCE PART ADDITION ON THE MATTER IN ISSUE. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED THREE BANK ACC OUNTS AND ALSO OPERATED THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE WAS MAJOR AT THE TI ME OF SEARCH WHILE MAINTAINING ALL THE THREE BANK ACCOUNTS. THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AL SO NOT IN IT (SS) A NO. 41, 42, 84 AND 86/AHD/2000 SHRI KAUSHIK S DESAI AND SHRI VIKRAM S DESAI 6 DISPUTE. THUS, IT IS PROVED ON RECORD THAT THE ASSE SSEE WAS OWNER AND BENEFICIARY OF ALL THE DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACC OUNTS. SINCE UNACCOUNTED DEPOSITS WERE FOUND IN THE BANK ACCOUNT S OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, ONUS WAS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AND PROVE THAT THE DEPOSITS DID NOT BELONG TO HIM. HOWE VER, NO EVIDENCE WAS FILED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO THEIR SAT ISFACTION, THEREFORE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS OWNER OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS AND THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ASSESSEES FATHER TO OPEN BANK ACCOUNTS IN THE NAME OF THE ASS ESSEE. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCORDINGLY RIGHTLY REJECTED. AS FAR AS THE BENEFIT GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) OF RS.3, 20,733/- IS CONCERN, THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE WORKING OF THE PEAK SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS IN A SUM OF RS.6,01,432/- WAS FOUND ON 2/3-09-1996 (PB-169). T HE AO NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN PARA 7.1 THAT VASUPUJYA HOL DINGS PVT. LTD. WHO ENTERED INTO ALLEGED BANAKHAT DATED 21-04-1996 WITH THE ASSESSEE HAD ISSUED A CHEQUES OF RS.4,00,000/- BEAR ING NO.118975 ON 27-11-1996 WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOU NT OF THE ASSESSEE AND CLEARED ON 28-11-1996 (PB-170). FURTHE R, WHEN BANAKHAT WAS EXECUTED ON 21-04-1996 THERE IS NO ENT RY IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE NEARBY APRIL, 1996 OF THE S AME AMOUNT OF TELESCOPING BENEFIT WAS CLAIMED. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR ANY SET OFF OF THE AMOUNT OF R S.3,20,733/- BECAUSE THE SAID CHEQUES WAS NEVER CLEARED IN THE B ANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE PRIOR TO THE WORKING OF THE PEAK ON 2/ 3-09-1996. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS, THEREFORE NOT JUSTIFIED IN GRAN TING BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING TO THE ASSESSEE OF THAT AMOUNT. WE ACCO RDINGLY, CONFIRM IT (SS) A NO. 41, 42, 84 AND 86/AHD/2000 SHRI KAUSHIK S DESAI AND SHRI VIKRAM S DESAI 7 THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE A DDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PEAK DEPOSITS AS IS MADE BY THE AO, HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN GRANTING BENEFIT/SET OFF OF TH E AMOUNT OF RS.3,20,733/-. HIS ORDER TO THAT EXTENT IS SET ASID E AND THE ORDER OF THE AO IS RESTORED. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO.1 OF T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AND THE GROUND NO.2 OF THE AP PEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. 8. ON GROUND NO.2, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDI TION OF RS.3,20,733/-. THE AO FOUND FROM THE EVIDENCES ON R ECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO DEAL RELATED TO PROPERTY AND RECEIVED RS.3,20,733/-. THE AO ALSO FOUND FROM THE SAID SALE DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY AT TPS -19, FINAL PLOT N O.582 OF MEMNAGAR, AHMEDABAD THAT THE ASSESSEE IN FACT ENTERED INTO BA NAKHAT AGREEMENT DATED 21-04-1996 WITH ORIGINAL OWNERS OF THE LAND SHRI K. R. PATEL GANDHI. IN THE MEANTIME, M/S. VASUPUJYA HO LDINGS PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD GOT INTERESTED IN THE PROPERTY AND ENTERE D INTO BANAKHAT RIGHT SALE AGREED WITH THE SAID COMPANY AND AFTER P AYMENT OF RS.3,20,733/- PERTAINING TO HIS ONE THIRD SHARE IN THE PROPERTY ENTERED INTO BANAKHAT AGREEMENT DATED 21-04-1996. THUS, PAY MENT WAS FOUND TO BE IN RESPECT OF SALE OF BANAKHAT RIGHT IN FAVOUR OF M/S. VASUPUJYA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. THUS, FROM THE EVIDENC ES IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THIS AMOUNT HAS BE EN PAID TO THE ASSESSEE FOR VACATING OR CLEARING FROM ENCROACHMENT FROM THE SAID PROPERTY. THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE RE VEAL THAT PAYMENT OF RS.3,00,000/- TO TWO PERSONS FOR CLEARIN G OF ENCROACHMENT ARE NOT RELIABLE AND COULD NOT BE CROS S VERIFIED IN THE IT (SS) A NO. 41, 42, 84 AND 86/AHD/2000 SHRI KAUSHIK S DESAI AND SHRI VIKRAM S DESAI 8 ABSENCE OF COMPLETE DETAILS. ADDITION OF RS.3,20,73 3/- WAS ACCORDINGLY MADE BEING UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME SUBM ISSIONS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT EVIDENCES HAV E BEEN PLACED ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE SPENT RS.3,00,0 00/- TOWARDS CLEARANCE OF THE ENCROACHMENT OF THE PROPERTY AND T HE PAPERS ARE FILED AT PB- 190 AND 191. IT WAS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT ADDITION MAY BE DELETED. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HOWEVER, CONFIRMED T HE ADDITION. HIS FINDINGS IN PARA 5.2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE REPR ODUCED AS UNDER: 5.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE OBSERVATION OF THE A. O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE APPELLANTS REPLY DATED 16 .8.99 AND 24.8.99 AND THE PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS COMPILED IN TH E PAPER BOOK AS WELL AS THE ORAL ARGUMENTS OF THE AUTHORISE D REPRESENTATIVE. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE EVIDENCES C OMPILED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE NO.190 AND 191 WHICH IS IN R ESPECT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT FOR CLEARANCE OF ENCROACHMENT IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH T HE APPELLANT HAS ACTED AS A MEDIATOR, NO ADDRESSES OF THE PERSON S TO WHOM THE SAID PAYMENTS WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN MADE A RE MENTIONED. IT IS ONLY A STATEMENT ON A PIECE OF PAP ER AND CANNOT BE VERIFIED ON THE BASIS OF DETAILS SUBMITTE D BY THE APPELLANT. THE A. O. IS, THEREFORE, JUSTIFIED IN RE JECTING THE APPELLANTS CLAIM OF RS.3 LACS AGAINST THE AMOUNT O F RS.3,20,733/- RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT. THE ADDITI ON OF RS.3,20,733/- IS, THEREFORE, CONFIRMED. 9. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND R EFERRED TO PB- 184 WHICH IS REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME LINE FOR CLEARANCE OF ENCROACHMENT BY UNAUTHORIZED PERSONS IN THE PROPERT Y AND REFERRED TO THE RECEIPTS FOR THE SAME IN THE PAPER BOOK FILE D AT PB-190 AND 191. IT (SS) A NO. 41, 42, 84 AND 86/AHD/2000 SHRI KAUSHIK S DESAI AND SHRI VIKRAM S DESAI 9 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON T HE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IS NOT VERIFIABLE AND THERE IS NO CO-RELATION WITH THE PAY MENT AND THE AMOUNT RECEIVED THROUGH BANAKHAT AND REFERRED TO PA GE 97 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO SHOW THAT THE DOCUMENTS DID NOT DISCLOSE ANY AMOUNT SPENT BY THE ASSESSEE FOR VACATING OR CLEARI NG THE ENCROACHMENT IN THE PROPERTY. 11. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE D O NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISPUTED RECEIPT OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,20,733/- FOR EXECUTING BANAKHAT RIGHT SALE AGREEMENT WITH M/S. VASUPUJYA H OLDINGS PVT. LTD. THE SAID PAYMENT IS ALSO CLEARED IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER, CLAIMED THAT HE HAS SPENT RS.3,00 ,000/- FOR REMOVAL OF THE ENCROACHMENT. BUT NO SATISFACTORY EV IDENCE COULD BE FILED. THE AO ALSO NOTED THAT IN THE DOCUMENTS FOUN D DURING THE SEARCH AND EVIDENCES AVAILABLE ON RECORD IT WAS NOT FOUND THAT AMOUNT WAS PAID FOR VACATING OR CLEARANCE OF THE EN CROACHMENT IN THE PROPERTY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF EXPENDITURE OUT OF THE INCOME, THEREFORE, ONUS IS UPON THE ASSE SSEE TO PROVE THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN EXPENDED FOR EARNING THE SAID I NCOME. HOWEVER, NO SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE WAS FILED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM MADE IN THIS REGARD. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE, THEREFORE, JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE IS DISMISSED. IT (SS) A NO. 41, 42, 84 AND 86/AHD/2000 SHRI KAUSHIK S DESAI AND SHRI VIKRAM S DESAI 10 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT (SS)A NO.41/AHD/2000 IS DISMISSED. 13. THE REVENUE ON GROUND NO.1 CHALLENGED THE DELET ION OF ADDITION OF RS.97,500/-. THE AO REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF T HE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT OF RENT WAS RECEIVED BY HIM IN HIS REPRE SENTATIVE CAPACITY ON BEHALF OF KAUSHIK DESAI, SANDHABHAI DESAI, VIKRA M DESAI AND SMT. GEETABEN DESAI. THE AO FOUND THAT LEASE AGREEM ENT FOR RENT IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY OCCUPIED BY MACON INDIA LTD . HAS BEEN ENTERED INTO BY SHRI SENDHABHAI DESAI ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER AND AS PER THE TERMS OF THE LEASE DEED RENT IS TO BE PAID TO ALL THE FOUR PERSONS AND SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR RENT IS CREDI TED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. ADDITION WAS ACCORDINGLY MADE. IT WAS EXP LAINED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION BELONG ED TO THE COMPANY AND THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED RENT ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY M/S. SAVERA HOTEL PVT. LTD. AUDITED ACCOUNTS OF M/S . SAVERA HOTEL PVT. LTD. WERE ALSO PRODUCED IN WHICH THE RENT INCO ME HAS BEEN REFLECTED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE PROPERT Y IS ALSO SHOWN IN THE FIXED ASSETS OF THE COMPANY. IT WAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO RECEIVE ANY RENT IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE AO HAS ACCEPTED T HAT THE TENANTED PROPERTY BELONGED TO M/S. SAVERA HOTEL PVT. LTD. AN D THE ASSESSEE IS NOT OWNER OF THE SAME. IT WAS, THEREFORE, FOUND THA T RENT WAS RECEIVED ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS REF LECTED IN THEIR ACCOUNTS. ADDITION WAS ACCORDINGLY DELETED. THE LEA RNED DR MERELY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO. IT (SS) A NO. 41, 42, 84 AND 86/AHD/2000 SHRI KAUSHIK S DESAI AND SHRI VIKRAM S DESAI 11 14. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS LET OUT TO THE TENA NT. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED RENT ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER WHICH IS REFLE CTED IN THEIR ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFI ED IN DELETING THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 15. ON GROUND NO.3, REVENUE CHALLENGED DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.11,04,460/-. THE AO MADE OBSERVATION THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ADEQUATE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES REGARDING THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE LAND DEALS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE CA NNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE ASSESSEES SHARE IN THE LAND COMES TO ONE THIRD OF RS.33,13,381/- WHICH COMES TO RS.11,04,460/- AND TH E SAME WAS TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE BLOCK ASSESSME NT. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT ALL THE PA PERS, DOCUMENTS AND SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY HAVE B EEN EXPLAINED THROUGH THE FAMILY OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, NO A DDITION COULD BE MADE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT DETAILS OF THE PAY MENT THROUGH THE FAMILY MEMBERS AND FAMILY CONCERNS M/S. GEETA ENTER PRISES, M/S. DESAI ENTERPRISES AND M/S. GUJARAT LIVESTOCK AGENCI ES AND IN THE NAME OF SENDHABHAI HUF ALONG WITH COPIES OF ACCOUNT S WERE FURNISHED TO SHOW THAT ALL INVESTMENTS IN THE PROPE RTY HAVE BEEN DULY EXPLAINED OUT OF THE FUNDS WITHDRAWN BY FAMILY CONC ERNS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE SOURCES OF INVESTMEN T HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED AND NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE. THE LEARNE D CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE SOURCES OF IT (SS) A NO. 41, 42, 84 AND 86/AHD/2000 SHRI KAUSHIK S DESAI AND SHRI VIKRAM S DESAI 12 PAYMENT ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RETURN OF INCO ME OF ALL THE FAMILY CONCERNS AND THEIR COPIES OF THE ACCOUNTS WE RE PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT INVESTMENT WAS MADE FROM KNOWN SOURCES. A DDITION WAS ACCORDINGLY DELETED. 16. THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERAT ED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND R EFERRED TO PB- 196 WHICH IS COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE SOURCES OF THE INVESTMENT, PARTY WISE DETAILS, DRAFT NUMBER/AMOUNT AND DATE ETC. WHI CH ARE ALSO SUPPORTED BY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN OF INCOME AN D ACCOUNTS OF THE PARTIES. 17. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE D O NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED COMPLETE DETAILS OF SOURCES OF INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHICH CLEARLY PROVED THAT VARIOUS FA MILY CONCERNS MADE INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTIES THROUGH KNOWN SOU RCES. DETAILS ARE NOTED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE FAMILY CONCERNS AN D SHOWN TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT BY FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE, SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. THE LE ARNED CIT(A) ON PROPER APPRECIATION OF FACTS, EVIDENCES AND MATERIA LS ON RECORD RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT (SS)A NO.84/AHD/2000 IS DISMISSED AND THE APPEAL OF THE R EVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. IT (SS) A NO. 41, 42, 84 AND 86/AHD/2000 SHRI KAUSHIK S DESAI AND SHRI VIKRAM S DESAI 13 IT(SS) A NO.42/AHD/2000 IT(SS) A NO.86/AHD/2000 (ASSESSEE SHRI VIKRAM S. DESAI) 19. BOTH THE CROSS APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-IV, AHMEDABAD DATED 12-04-2000 FOR T HE ABOVE BLOCK PERIOD. 20. THE ASSESSEE ON GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL CHALL ENGED THE ADDITION OF RS.33,704/-. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS EITHER NOT OWNED THE ENTRIES OR HAS TRIED TO EXPLAIN THAT IN THE FORM OF GIFTS OR GIYANA RECEIVED BY HIS WIFE. ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WAS REJECTED AND ADDITION OF RS.52,484/- WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ANNE XURE A/7 PARTY NO.4 OF THE SEIZED MATERIALS. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFO RE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE SEIZED ANNEXURE WERE THE BILLS/VOUC HERS OF MISCELLANEOUS, JEWELLERY, AND SAREES PURCHASED AND LABOUR PAYMENT FOR JEWELLERY. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED PHOTO COPIES O F THE SAME IN THE PAPER BOOK BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND ARGUED THA T NOT A SINGLE BILL HAS BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. SOME BILLS WERE FOUN D IN THE NAME OF WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSE E WAS PAID BY HIS WIFES PERSONAL SAVINGS AND SOME JEWELLERY GIFT ED BY HIS FATHER-IN- LAW TO HIS DAUGHTER. RESTS OF THE BILLS WERE EXPLAI NED TO BE THE AMOUNTS SPENT THROUGH AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE FA MILY. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOUND FROM SOME OF THE BILLS THAT THESE WERE ROUGH JOTTINGS BUT THREE BILLS OF RS.10,000/-, RS.5,000/- AND RS.15,70 4/- WERE IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEES WIFE FOR PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY E TC. TO THAT EXTENT ADDITION OF RS.30,704/- WAS CONFIRMED. IT (SS) A NO. 41, 42, 84 AND 86/AHD/2000 SHRI KAUSHIK S DESAI AND SHRI VIKRAM S DESAI 14 21. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE D O NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LE ARNED CIT(A). THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FOUND ALL THREE BILLS THAT THE SA ME PERTAINED TO THE EXPENSES SPENT BY THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SOU RCE OF THE AMOUNT SPENT WAS NOT EXPLAINED. THE SOURCE OF THE A MOUNTS SPENT WAS NOT EXPLAINED. THE ASSESSEE TOOK THE PLEA THAT SAME AMOUNT IS SPENT OUT OF PERSONAL SAVINGS OF HIS WIFE OR OCCASI ONAL GIFTS MADE BY HER FATHER. HOWEVER, NO SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE OR SO URCE IS EXPLAINED OR FILED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. EVEN, DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENT, THE LEARNED AR DID NOT POINT OUT ANY SPEC IFIC EVIDENCE TO EXPLAIN THE SEIZED PAPERS. SINCE THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE ON BASIS OF SPECIFIC SEIZED PAPERS WHICH WERE FOUND IN THE NAME OF WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE SHALL HAVE TO EXP LAIN THE SAME THROUGH RELIABLE AND COGENT EVIDENCES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME SEIZED PAPERS, THEREFORE, THE A DDITION WAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 22. ON GROUND NO.2, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADD ITION OF RS.2,83,915/- ON ACCOUNT OF PEAK OF THE BANK ACCOUN TS. THE REVENUE ON GROUND NO.5 CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.3,20,733/-. THE AO MADE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED COMBINED PEAK BALANCES IN RESPECT OF FIVE BANK ACCOUNTS AND THE PEAK BALAN CE WAS WORKED OUT AT RS.6,04,648/-. ADDITION WAS ACCORDINGLY MADE BY REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE BANK ACCOUNTS W AS OPERATED ON THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSE E SHRI SENDHABHAI DESAI. THE ASSESSEE MADE SIMILAR EXPLANATIONS AS WE RE GIVEN IN THE IT (SS) A NO. 41, 42, 84 AND 86/AHD/2000 SHRI KAUSHIK S DESAI AND SHRI VIKRAM S DESAI 15 CASE OF KAUSHIK S. DESAI (SUPRA) AND SET OFF OF RS. 3,20,733/- WAS CLAIMED ON SALE OF BANAKHAT RIGHT OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS SUBHASH BUNGALOW WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE SAID BANK ACCOU NT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) PARTLY ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESS EE FOR GIVING BENEFIT OF RS.3,20,733/- AS WAS GIVEN IN THE CASE OF KAUSHIK S. DESAI. 23. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS SAME AS IS CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF KAUSIK S. D ESAI AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DETAILS ARE SAME AS WERE NOTED ABOVE . THE LEARNED DR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS SAME. 24. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE NOTED ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS SAME AS IS CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF THE A SSESSEE KAUSHIK S. DESAI (SUPRA). BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER IN THAT CA SE, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDIT ION ON ACCOUNT OF PEAK DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE AD DITION OF RS.3,20,733/-. THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF KAUSHIK S. DESAI IS DIRECTED TO BE FOLLOWED IN THIS CASE. 25. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AND GROUND NO.5 OF THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEA L IS ALLOWED. 26. ON GROUND NO.3, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITIO N ON SALE OF BANAKHAT RIGHT OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS SUBHASH BUN GALOW OF RS.3,20,733/-. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE ORD ER IN THE CASE OF KAUSHIK S. DESAI CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. BOTH THE P ARTIES SUBMITTED IT (SS) A NO. 41, 42, 84 AND 86/AHD/2000 SHRI KAUSHIK S DESAI AND SHRI VIKRAM S DESAI 16 THAT THE ISSUE IS SAME AS IS CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF KAUSHIK S. DESAI. BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF KAUSHI K S. DESAI (SUPRA) WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND DISM ISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 27. ON GROUND NO.4, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADD ITION OF RS.21,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE BOOKING AMOUNT PA ID IN RESPECT OF UNO CAR. THE AO HAS MADE OBSERVATION THAT SOURCES O F PAYMENT OF RS.21,000/- AS BOOKING AMOUNT OF UNO CAR BEING AGRI CULTURAL INCOME OF ASSESSEES FATHER SENDHABHAI DESAI WAS REJECTED AND ADDITION WAS ACCORDINGLY MADE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS NO ACTIVITY AND SOURCE OF INCOME IS OUT OF AGRICULTURA L OPERATION BY HIS FATHER SENDHABHAI DESAI AND NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BR OUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSE E. SOURCE OF ADVANCE AMOUNT OF RS.21,000/- FOR UNO CAR IS OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS EXEMP T. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOUND ON EXAMINATION OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS OWNER OF SOME IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES AND WAS ALSO EAR NING INCOME OUT OF BROKERAGE. BOOKING OF CAR IN THE NAME OF TH E ASSESSEE CLEARLY PROVES THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE PAYMENT FROM UNACCOUN TED SOURCE. ADDITION WAS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED. 28. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE D O NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE A UTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSED COULD NOT EXPLAIN SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT PAI D BY HIM IN RESPECT OF BOOKING OF UNO CAR. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAIN ED ON THE BASIS OF REPLY THAT BOOKING AMOUNT WAS PAID BY DEMAND DRA FT DATED 08-08- IT (SS) A NO. 41, 42, 84 AND 86/AHD/2000 SHRI KAUSHIK S DESAI AND SHRI VIKRAM S DESAI 17 1996 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.21,000/- WHICH WAS PAID OU T OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF HIS FATHER. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOUND ON E XAMINATION OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT THE CAR HAS BEEN BOOKED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS UNDER OBLIGATI ON TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSIT OF THE AMOUNT FOR BOOKING OF THE CAR WHICH THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN. NO SPECIFIC EVIDENCE IS FILED TO PROVE THAT THE AMOUNT WAS PAID OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF F ATHER OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DIS MISSED. 29. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT (SS)A NO.42/AHD/200 IS DISMISSED. 30. ON GROUND NO.1, THE REVENUE CHALLENGED THE DELE TION OF ADDITION OF RS.1,56,480/- ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATE OF BROKERAGE. THE AO MADE OBSERVATION IN THE ORDER THAT ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCES ON RECORD, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE DEALT I N LAND ON PRINCIPAL TO PRINCIPAL BASIS. HOWEVER, SINCE THE EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF LAND HAS BEEN RECOVERED FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, THE EVIDENCES CANNOT BE IGNORED COMPLETELY. IT WAS NOTE D THAT ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE ON RECOVERY OF THE SEIZED DOCUMEN TS FROM HIS POSSESSION WHICH ONUS HAS NOT BEEN DISCHARGED BY TH E ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE DEALT IN THE LAND IN HIS CAPACITY AS A BROKER AND BROKERAGE SHALL BE CHARGED TO INCOME @ 5% OF THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE LAND. THE AO HAS FURTH ER OBSERVED IN THE ORDER THAT PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS FROM PAGE 20 TO 23 OF ANNEXURE A/4 PARTY NO.4 WHICH IS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE SAID IT (SS) A NO. 41, 42, 84 AND 86/AHD/2000 SHRI KAUSHIK S DESAI AND SHRI VIKRAM S DESAI 18 LAND REVEALS THAT LAND AT 972/4 IS ADMEASURING 15,0 00 SQ. YDS. THE VALUE OF THE LAND HAS BEEN MENTIONED AT PAGE 22 OF ANNEXURE A/4 PARTY NO.4 AT RS.151/- PER SQ. YD. THE AO ACCORDING LY WORKED OUT THE COST OF THE LAND AND MADE THE ADDITION ACCORDINGLY. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE LAND DID NOT BEL ONG TO HIM AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AWARE OF ANY SUCH TRANSACTIONS. NO BROKERAGE HAS BEEN EARNED. THE AO HAS NOT IDENTIFIED THE PURCHASE R. THEREFORE, ADDITION IS UNJUSTIFIED. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ACCEPTE D THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY COGENT MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS A CTED AS BROKER/DALAL. ADDITION WAS ACCORDINGLY DELETED. 31. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUT SET CONCEDED THAT ITAT AHMEDABAD C BENCH IN THE GROUP CASES OF SHRI TUSHAR J. PATEL AND JETHABHAI P. PATEL DECIDED THE APPEALS IN IT(SS) A NO.85/AHD/2000 ETC. VIDE ORDER DATED 28-07-2011 AND CONSIDERING THE SEIZED PAPERS, IT WAS FOUND THAT SHRI TUSHAR J. PATEL ACTED AS A LAND BROKER AND IN THAT CASE INSTEAD OF 5% BROKERAG E THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED 2% AS BROKERAGE AS REASONABLE AND ACCORD INGLY THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL HAS BEEN PARTLY ALLOWED. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE, THE TRIBUNAL ALSO DIRECTED THAT SET OFF SHALL BE GIVEN OF THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT AGAINST BROKERAGE INCOME. COPY OF THE OR DER IS PLACED ON RECORD. HE HAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL, THEREFORE, 2% BROKER AGE MAY BE CONFIRMED AND SET OF AGAINST THE UNDISCLOSED INVEST MENT MAY BE IT (SS) A NO. 41, 42, 84 AND 86/AHD/2000 SHRI KAUSHIK S DESAI AND SHRI VIKRAM S DESAI 19 GIVEN AS IS DIRECTED IN THE CASE OF SHRI TUSHAR J. PATEL. THE LEARNED DR ALSO SUBMITTED ACCORDINGLY. 32. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF SHRI TUSHAR J. PATEL (SUPRA) D ECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL HAVE RELEVANCE TO THE ISSUE IN THE MATTER. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF THE A SSESSEE AND SEVERAL OTHER PERSONS INCLUDING SHRI TUSHAR J. PATE L. ON THE BASIS OF APPRECIATION OF THE SEIZED MATERIALS AND DOCUMENTS ON RECORD AND ON IDENTICAL FACTS, THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI T USHAR J. PATEL FOUND ON FACTUAL POSITION THAT SHRI TUSHAR J. PATEL ACTED AS A LAND BROKER. ACCORDINGLY, INSTEAD OF 5% BROKERAGE, THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE BROKERAGE @ 2%. IT IS ALSO DIRECTED IN THE SAID ORD ER THAT SET OFF SHALL BE GIVEN AGAINST THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT FROM TH E BROKERAGE INCOME. BOTH THE PARTIES SUBMITTED THAT FACTS ARE I DENTICAL IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE ORDER O F THE TRIBUNAL IN THE GROUP CASES OF SHRI TUSHAR J. PATEL (SUPRA) WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION AND RES TORE THE ORDER OF THE AO FOR MAKING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BROKERAGE. HOWEVER, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO MAKE ADDITION OF 2% ON ACCOUNT OF BROKERAGE INSTEAD OF 5% AND THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE ENTITLED FO R SET OFF OF BROKERAGE INCOME AGAINST THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT . IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENU E IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 33. ON GROUND NO.2, REVENUE CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.17,94,493/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN LANDS. IT (SS) A NO. 41, 42, 84 AND 86/AHD/2000 SHRI KAUSHIK S DESAI AND SHRI VIKRAM S DESAI 20 34. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO MADE OBSERVATION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAJOR AND CAPABLE IN HANDLING HIS OWN AFFAIRS AND WAS ELIGIBLE TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT. THERE WAS NO DISPUTE REGARDING THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY AT PALDI HAS B EEN REGISTERED IN T HE NAMES OF THREE PERSONS OUT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING ONE THIRD INTEREST. SINCE THE OTHER TWO PERSONS HAVE DI SCLOSED AN AMOUNT OF RS.5,83,033/- EACH IN THEIR BLOCK PERIOD BY WAY OF INVESTMENT OF THEIR SHARE IN THE SAID PROPERTY, THE AMOUNT WAS AD DED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD ON ACCOUNT OF HIS SHARE OF INTEREST IN THE SAID PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT HE IS MERELY NOMINEE OF HIS FATHER SHRI SENDHABHAI DESAI AND THE FAMILY HAS AGRICULTURAL OPERATION AND EVIDE NCES OF THE SAME WERE FILED, THEREFORE, INVESTMENT WAS MADE OUT OF A GRICULTURAL INCOME OF APPROXIMATELY RS.5,00,000/- PER ANNUM. NECESSARY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE OF EARNING OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS FILE D. IT WAS ALTERNATIVELY CLAIMED THAT SINCE THE ADDITION OF PE AK BALANCE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS MADE OF RS.6,04,648/-, THEREFORE, BENEFIT OF THE SAME MAY BE GIVEN BECAUSE THE PEAK BALANCE WAS WORK ED OUT FOR SEPTEMBER, 1996 AND THEREAFTER THERE IS CONSISTENT REDUCTION IN THE PEAK BALANCE AND CONVEYANCE DEED FOR PALDI PROPERTY WAS EXECUTED ON 09-01-1997. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT IS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SET OFF. T HE LEARNED CIT(A) ON MERIT CONFIRMED THE ADDITION HOLDING THAT THE AS SESSEE MADE INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY IN HIS NAME WHICH IS ALS O CONFIRMED FROM THE SEIZED MATERIAL. THEREFORE, THEORY OF PROPERTY PURCHASED AT THE INSTANCE OF FATHER IS NOT ACCEPTED. HOWEVER, ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED THAT SET OFF MAY BE GIVEN OUT OF PEAK BALANCE IT (SS) A NO. 41, 42, 84 AND 86/AHD/2000 SHRI KAUSHIK S DESAI AND SHRI VIKRAM S DESAI 21 OF THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH IS INVESTED IN THE PROPER TY AT PALDI. TELESCOPING BENEFIT WAS GIVEN AND ADDITION OF RS.5, 83,033/- WAS ACCORDINGLY DELETED. 34.1 THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COUR SE OF SEARCH AND ASSESSEES SHARE COMES TO RS.33,000/- WHICH WAS ADDED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY I N THE SCHEME IN MEHSANA LAND SURVEY NO.1730. THE LEARNED CIT(A) O N MERIT CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO BECAUSE TRANSACTION O F REAL ESTATE WAS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE BUT BENEFIT OF AGRICULT URAL INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEES FATHER SHRI SENDHABHAI DESAI OF R S.5,00,000/- PER ANNUM WAS CONSIDERED AND IT WAS HELD THAT SUFFICIEN T CASH BALANCE WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE FAMILY OF THE ASSESSEE AND I NVESTMENT WAS MADE OUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEES FATHER AND THE FAMILY. ADDITION OF RS.33,000/- WAS ACCORDINGLY DELETED. 34.2 THE AO SIMILARLY FOUND FROM THE DOCUMENTS THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY BEING ONE SIXTH SHA RE IN MEHSANA LAND SURVEY NO.1725. ADDITION OF RS.32,000/- WAS ACCORDINGLY MADE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. TH E LEARNED CIT(A) SIMILARLY NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED DETAILS OF SALE OF CROPS FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD WHICH WORKS OUT TO APPRO XIMATELY RS.45 LACS TO 50 LACS. THEREFORE, ASSESSEES FAMILY EARNE D RS.5 LACS PER ANNUM OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND AFTER MEETING HOUSEHOLD IT (SS) A NO. 41, 42, 84 AND 86/AHD/2000 SHRI KAUSHIK S DESAI AND SHRI VIKRAM S DESAI 22 EXPENSES OF APPROXIMATELY RS.1 LACS TO RS.1.50 LACS , BALANCE IS AVAILABLE FOR EXPLAINING THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ABOVE PROPERTY. ADDITION OF RS.32,000/- WAS ACCORDINGLY DELETED. 34.3 THE AO FURTHER FOUND FROM THE DOCUMENTS THE IN VESTMENT IS MADE IN THE LAND OF SURVEY NO.474/1 AT VILLAGE DASK OL AND THE ASSESSEES ONE SIXTH SHARE COMES TO RS.42,000/-. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS DOUBLE ADDITION AS WAS CONSIDERED IN RES PECT OF VARIOUS LANDS IN PARA 7.10 OF THE ORDER. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOUND THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE CORRECT AND HELD T HAT SEPARATE ADDITION OF RS.42,000/- SHOULD BE DELETED. ADDITION WAS ACCORDINGLY DELETED. 34.4 THE AO FURTHER FOUND FROM THE DOCUMENTS THAT A SSESSEES SHARE IN THE LAND WILL BE ONE THIRD OF RS.33,13,381 /- AND HIS SHARE COMES TO RS.11,04,460/- WHICH WAS IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING SURVEY NUMBERS STARTING FROM 371 TO 387 AND 717 AND 421. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT THROUGH VA RIOUS DIFFERENT CONCERNS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEES FAMILY. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT INVESTMENT IN THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN MADE OUT OF WI THDRAWALS MADE FROM DIFFERENT CONCERNS OF THE FAMILY NAMELY M/S. G EETA ENTERPRISES, M/S. DESAI ENTERPRISES, M/S. GUJARAT LIVESTOCK AGEN CIES AND SENDHABHAI DESAI HUF. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOUND THAT INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM THE FAM ILY CONCERNS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THUS PAYMENTS ARE EXPLAINED AND TH ESE FIRMS HAVE FILED THEIR RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE SAID PERIOD. T HEREFORE, ADDITION WAS DELETED. IT (SS) A NO. 41, 42, 84 AND 86/AHD/2000 SHRI KAUSHIK S DESAI AND SHRI VIKRAM S DESAI 23 35. THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO LINK OF THE INVESTMENTS WITH THE S OURCES EXPLAINED ABOVE. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE REL ATES TO FIVE PROPERTIES AS ABOVE AND ON THE FIRST PROPERTY AT PA LDI THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 09-01-1997, THEREFORE, NO TELESCOPI NG BENEFIT OF PEAK CREDIT SHOULD BE GIVEN. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITT ED THAT NO EVIDENCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS FILED; THEREFOR E, ADDITION SHOULD NOT BE DELETED. 36. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND REFERRED TO PEAK BALANCES PB-248 IN THE BANK ACCOUN T OF RS.6,04,648/- AS ON 2/3-09-1996 AND SUBMITTED THAT INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE AFTER WORKING OF THE PEAK BALANCE. W ITHDRAWALS HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE BANK ACCOUNTS WHICH ARE AVA ILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE INVESTMENTS. AGRICULTURAL INCOME O F THE FAMILY IS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH SUFFICIENT EVID ENCES WERE FILED. AS REGARDS ADDITION OF RS.11,04,460/-, HE HAS SUBMITTE D THAT THIS ISSUE IS SAME AS GROUND NO.3 IN THE APPEAL OF SHRI KAUSHIK S . DESAI ABOVE ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCES FROM FA MILY CONCERNS. DETAILS IN THE PAPER BOOK OF SHRI KAUSHIK S. DESAI HAVE BEEN FILED AT PAGE 196 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 37. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE D O NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE ISSUE OF INVESTMENT OF RS.11,04,460/- IS CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF SHR I KAUSHIK S. DESAI (SUPRA). IT WAS FOUND THAT WITHDRAWALS HAVE BEEN MA DE FROM SEVERAL IT (SS) A NO. 41, 42, 84 AND 86/AHD/2000 SHRI KAUSHIK S DESAI AND SHRI VIKRAM S DESAI 24 CONCERNS OF THE FAMILY OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEY HAV E ALSO FILED RETURN OF INCOME AND INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED. ADDI TION WAS ACCORDINGLY DELETED BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER IN THE C ASE OF SHRI KAUSHIK S. DESAI. DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE IS DISM ISSED. 37.1 SO FAR AS TELESCOPING BENEFIT GRANTED BY THE L EARNED CIT(A) OF PEAK DEPOSITS, THE PEAK WAS WORKED OUT IN SEPTEMBER , 1996 AND INVESTMENT IN PALDI PROPERTY WAS MADE ON 09-01-1997 . THERE ARE WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNTS; THEREFORE, PEAK IS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR INVESTMENTS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WA S, THEREFORE, JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT TELESCOPING EFFECT OF PEA K BALANCE OF BANK ACCOUNTS IS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING IN VESTMENTS IN THE PROPERTY AT PALDI. ADDITION OF RS.5,83,033/- WAS, T HEREFORE, RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). ON ONE OF THE ISSUE S, THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOUND THAT IT IS DOUBLE ADDITION MADE ON WHI CH NO COMMENTS HAVE BEEN OFFERED BY THE LEARNED DR DURING THE COUR SE OF ARGUMENTS. THEREFORE, NO INTERFERE IS CALLED FOR. THE RESTS OF THE TWO INVESTMENTS ARE OF SMALL AMOUNT AND CONSIDERING THE AGRICULTURA L INCOME EARNED BY THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF TH E VIEW THAT LEARNED CIT(A) ON PROPER APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD RIGHTLY GIVEN BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 38. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 39. ON GROUND NO.3, REVENUE CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.3,03,195/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS IN PREYAS IT (SS) A NO. 41, 42, 84 AND 86/AHD/2000 SHRI KAUSHIK S DESAI AND SHRI VIKRAM S DESAI 25 BUNGALOW AND ON ACCOUNT OF BILLS OF HARDWARE AND BU ILDING MATERIALS. IT WAS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY INVESTMENT IN THIS PROPERTY, BECAUSE HIS F ATHER IS THE OWNER OF THE BUNGALOW AND HE IS MERELY STAYING IN THE PRO PERTY. ALL THE CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR WORKS HAVE BEEN DONE BY HIS FATHER. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND MA TERIAL ON RECORD ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.2,37,636/-. THE LEARNED CIT(A) SIMILARLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.65,359/- ON ACCOUNT OF MATERIAL PURCHASED FOR C ONSTRUCTION OF THE SAME BUNGALOW. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMIS SIONS WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE. NOTHING IS PRODUCED BEFORE US TO CONTRADICT THE FINDINGS OF TH E LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE BUNGALOW IN QUESTION STANDS IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE. ALL THE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS FOR PRACTI CAL PURPOSES WOULD HAVE BEEN PURCHASED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, T HEREFORE, ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY DISM ISSED. 40. ON GROUND NO.4, REVENUE CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.3,53,010/- ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME EARNED ON UNEXPL AINED ADVANCES. THE AO OBSERVED ON EXAMINATION OF THE SEI ZED PAPER PAGE 44 OF ANNEXURE A/7 PARTY NO.4 THAT THE SAME PA GE CONTAINED THE DETAILS OF LOANS AND ADVANCES AND INTEREST EARN ED AGAINST NUMBERS OF LANDS, SURVEY NUMBERS. THE AO, THEREFORE , CALCULATED THE TOTAL OF ALL THE DOCUMENTS BEING RS.3,53,010/- AND MADE THE ADDITION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE L EARNED CIT(A) THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS IS NOT WRITTEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND DID NOT IT (SS) A NO. 41, 42, 84 AND 86/AHD/2000 SHRI KAUSHIK S DESAI AND SHRI VIKRAM S DESAI 26 PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE DENIED THE TRANSACTION CONTAINED THEREON. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT NO EVIDENC E WAS FOUND TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE EARNED INTEREST INCOME ON A NY ADVANCE. NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED. IT WAS, THEREF ORE, SUBMITTED THAT NO ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF NOTING AND JOTTINGS IN THE SEIZED PAPER WHICH EVEN DID NOT PER TAIN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE CONTENTIO N OF THE ASSESSEE ON EXAMINATION OF THE SEIZED PAPER AND FOU ND THAT THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO PROVE THA T THE ASSESSEE EARNED INTEREST INCOME. ADDITION WAS ACCORDINGLY DE LETED. 41. THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE SEIZED PAPER WAS RECOVERED FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, PRESUMPTION IS AGAINST THE ASS ESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE EARNED INTEREST. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE L EARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSION MADE BEF ORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 42. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSION WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE ASSESSEE SPECIFICALLY EXPLAINED THAT THE SEIZED PAPER DID NO T PERTAIN TO HIM AND IS NOT IN HIS HAND WRITING. NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDEN CE WAS FOUND TO SUPPORT THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. MERELY ON NOTING AN D JOTTINGS IN THE SEIZED PAPER, ADDITION COULD NOT BE MADE AGAINST TH E ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED CIT(A), THEREFORE, RIGHTLY HELD THAT NO EVI DENCE IS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE EARNED INTEREST I NCOME. NO MATERIAL IS PRODUCED BEFORE US TO CONTRADICT THE FI NDINGS OF THE IT (SS) A NO. 41, 42, 84 AND 86/AHD/2000 SHRI KAUSHIK S DESAI AND SHRI VIKRAM S DESAI 27 LEARNED CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MER IT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISM ISSED. 43. ON GROUND NO.6, THE REVENUE CHALLENGED THE DELE TION OF ADDITION OF RS.60,433/- ON ACCOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION BILLS OF PREYAS BUNGALOW. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOLLOWING HIS FINDINGS ON GROUND NO.3 ABOVE DELETED THE ADDITION. BOTH THE PARTIES SUBMIT TED THAT THE ISSUE IS SAME AS IS CONSIDERED ABOVE. SINCE THE PROPERTY BELONG TO THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI SENDHABHAI DESAI, THERE FORE, ON PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD RI GHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO.6 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 44. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. 45. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE S ARE DISMISSED AND BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE PARTLY ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (A. K. GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER LAKSHMIKANT DEKA/ LAKSHMIKANT DEKA/ LAKSHMIKANT DEKA/ LAKSHMIKANT DEKA/- -- - IT (SS) A NO. 41, 42, 84 AND 86/AHD/2000 SHRI KAUSHIK S DESAI AND SHRI VIKRAM S DESAI 28 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER D Y. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD