Shri Pankajkumar G.Gandhi, Ahmedabad V. The ACIT.,Cent.Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

ITSSA 496/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9073 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-11-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 01-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KISHAN VYAS
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure
• Section: 131; 132

Judgement Text

- , - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIPKUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ IT(SS)A NO.496 AND 497/AHD/2012 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2008-09 AND 2009-10 SHRI PANKAJKUMAR G. GANDHI 10, ADITRAJ BUNGALOW NR. PRENATIRTH DERASA JODHPUR GAM SATELLITE AHMEDABAD 380 015. PAN : ABCPG 5176 G VS. ACIT, CENT.CIR.2(2) AHMEDABAD. ( APPLICANT ) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI TUSHAR P. HEMANI, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI KISHAN VYAS, CIT-DR ! '#$ % &' / DATE OF HEARING : 10/07/2019 ()* % &' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10/07/2019 ,- / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THESE TWO APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AT THE INSTANCE OF T HE ASSESSEE AGAINST COMMON ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD DATED 30.7.2012 PASSED FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2008-09 A ND 2009-10. 2. SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD.CI T(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITIONS OF RS.10 LAKHS AND RS .14.70 LAKHS IN THE ASSTT.YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10 WHICH WERE ADDE D BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN IT(SS)A NO.496 AND 497/AHD/2012 2 THE PROPERTY. FACTS ON ALL VITAL POINTS ARE COMMON IN BOTH THE CASES. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH UNDER S ECTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE RES IDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 11.2.2010. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, LOOSE PAPER INVENTORISED AS PAGE NO.13 OF T HE ANNEXURE A/1 WAS FOUND AND SEIZED. A PERUSAL OF THIS LOOSE PAPER WOULD INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF R S.10 LAKHS AND RS.14.70 LAKHS IN THE PROPERTY FOR PURCHASE OF OFFICE-SPACE BEARING NO.206, ASHIRWAD PARAS. ON AN ANALYSIS OF THIS LOOSE PAPER, THE LD.AO HAS OBSERVED THAT TOTAL VALUE OF T HE PROPERTY WAS WORKED AT RS.39 LAKHS, OUT OF WHICH 60% WAS TO BE P AID IN CASH AND REMAINING 40% BY CHEQUE. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT OF RS.1.70 LAKHS BY WAY O F DEMAND DRAFT (DD) AS BOOKING AMOUNT AND REST IN CASH. TH E STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED ON 3.5.2010. COPY OF THI S STATEMENT IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO.6 TO 8 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ACC ORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO.2, THE ASSESSE E HAS EXPLAINED THE LOOSE PAPER FOUND AT HIS PREMISES, AN D IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THIS DEAL WAS NOT ULTIMATELY MATERIA LIZED. BOOKING AMOUNT WAS REFUNDED THEREFORE, HE HAS NOT MADE ANY UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. HOWEVER, THE LD.AO WAS NOT SATISFIED W ITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. HE OBSERVED THAT INVE STMENT IS SPREAD OVER IN TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS. THEREFORE, HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.10 LAKHS IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2008-09 A ND RS.14.70 LAKHS IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2009-10. DISSATISFIED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL, A ND REITERATED HIS CONTENTIONS. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS REJECTED ALL TH E CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND RECORDED THE FOLLOWING FINDING: IT(SS)A NO.496 AND 497/AHD/2012 3 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELL ANT. THOUGH IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AO HAS SCANNED T HE COPY OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT IN THE SECOND PAGE OF T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE SAME IS NOT ELIGIBLE. THEREFO RE, THE COPY OF THE RELEVANT SEIZED PAPER IS ANNEXED AS ANN EXURE 1 TO THIS ORDER. 4.1 ON THE EXAMINATION OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT, IT I S NOTICED THAT THE ENTRIES MENTIONED IN .THE TOP HALF ARE DEF INITELY THE PROPOSAL FOR THE PURCHASE .OF OFFICE NUMBER 206, AS HIRWAD PARAS. AS PER THIS, THE TOTAL AREA OF THE PROPERTY IS 1625 FT. THE RATE IS SHOWN AT RS.2400 PER SQUARE FEET. THE T OTAL CONSIDERATION IS SHOWN AT RS.39 LACS, OUT OF WHICH 60% IS TO BE PAID IN CASH AND 40% BY CHEQUE. THE POSSESSION I S TO BE GIVEN AFTER 18 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF BOOKING. THE PAYMENT CONDITION SAYS THAT 30% IS TO BE PAID AT TH E TIME OF BOOKING, 15% AT THE TIME OF POSSESSION AND 55% IN E IGHT INSTALMENTS OF RS.268,125/- EACH FROM FEB. 2008 TO SEPTEMBER 2008. EXPENSES LIKE AEC, AMG AND MAINTENA NCE AND CAR PARKING ARE TO BE PAID EXTRA. SIMILARLY DOCUMENTATION CHARGES AND LABOUR CHARGES ARE TO BE PAID EXTRA. BELOW THIS NOTING A LINE IS DRAWN. BELOW THIS LINE THE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS GIVEN ARE MADE AS UNDER: PAYMENTS ARE GIVEN 1. RS. 10 LAKH (WRITTEN IN CODE 1000/00} CAS H DATED- 26/1/8 RS. 170,000 BY DD IN THE NAME OF AISHWARYA ORGANISE R PVT LTD. I. RS. 49,000 DD NUMBER 001261 SBI DATED 17/ 1/2008 II. RS. 49,000 BY DD NUMBER 001263 SBI DATED 17/1/2008 . III. RS 49,000 BY DD NUMBER 00126& SBI DATED 17/1/2008 IV. RS. 23,000 BY DD NUMBER GEN 01270 SBI DA TED 17/1/2008 .. THEY TAKEN ON 1/2/08 2. RS. 270,000 (WRITTEN IN CODE 2,70/00) CASH DATE D 19/4/08 ' ' 25/4/08 3. RS. 300,000 (WRITTEN IN CODE 3,00/00} CASH DATE D 7/7/08 ' ' 9/7 08 IT(SS)A NO.496 AND 497/AHD/2012 4 4. RS. 300,000 (WRITTEN JN CODE 3,00/00} CASH DATED 4/9/08 ' 5. RS. 300,000 (WRITTEN IN CODE 3,00/00} CASH DATED 23/10/08 KHUSAL RS. 300,000 (WRITTEN IN CODE 3,00/0 0) CASH DATED 8/12/08 4.2 . IN MY VIEW, THE SEIZED PAPER CLEARLY SAYS THA T THE ABOVE-MENTIONED PAYMENT OF CASH AND DD HAD BEEN MAD E BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH. THIS IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT THE FIRST PAYMENT OF CASH OF RS. 10 LAKH WAS MADE ON 26/1/2008 BY THE APPELLANT. FOUR DDS AMOUNTING TO RS.170,000/- DATED 17/1/2008 WERE NOT GIVEN TO AISHWARYA ORGANISERS PVT. LTD ON 17/1/2008 BUT A S PER THIS PAGE THE DDS WERE TAKEN BY THEM ON 1/2/2008. T HIS- WOULD BE PROVED FROM THE FACT THAT IN THE ACCOUNT O F AISHWARYA ORGANISERS PVT LTD THE DDS MUST HAVE GOT CLEARED AFTER 1/2/2008. IN NORMAL COURSE, A LOCAL DD WILL N OT TAKE MORE THAN TWO DAYS TO CLEAR. IF THE DD WAS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT TO AISHWARYA ORGANISERS PVT LTD ON 17/172 008, THEN IT SHOULD HAVE GOT CREDITED IN THEIR ACCOUNT L ATEST BY 20/1/2008. HOWEVER, SINCE AS PER THIS PAGE THE DDS WERE HANDED OVER TO AISHWARYA ORGANISERS PVT LTD O N 1/2/2008 ONLY, IT MUST HAVE GOT CLEARED AFTER 1/2/2 008. SIMILARLY THOUGH THE CASH OF RS.2.70 LACS WAS GIVEN TO THE BROKER ON 19/4/2008, IL WAS HANDED OVER TO AISHWARY A ORGANISERS PVT LTD ON 25/4/2008 AS PER THE NOTING I N THE SEIZED DOCUMENT. SIMILARLY THE CASH OF RS.300,000/- WAS GIVEN TO THE BROKER ON 7/7/2008 BUT GIVEN TO AISHWA RYA ORGANISERS PVT LTD ON 9/7/2008. FURTHER, CASH OF RS.300,000/- WAS GIVEN TO KHUSHAL ON 23/10/2008. TH E ENTRIES IN THE PAPER LEAVE NO DOUBT REGARDING THE P AYMENT OF CASH OF RS.24.70 LACS FROM 26/1/2008 TO 8/12/2008. EVEN THOUGH THE APPELLANT DID NOT ACCEPT THAT HE HAD MAD E ANY CASH PAYMENT TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF THE OFFICE, I AM NOT INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE STATEMENT PARTICULARLY WHEN IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED PAPER THAT THE PAYM ENTS ARE GIVEN.. FIRST PAYMENT OF CASH OF RS. 10 LAKH IS SHO WN AS ON 26/1/& AFTER THAT THE DETAILS OF DD TOTAL AMOUNTING TO RS.170,000/- DATED 17/1/2008 IS MENTIONED. THE DDS ARE SHOWN AS TAKEN BY AISHWARYA ORGANISERS PVT LTD ON 1 /2/08 ONLY. THIS CLEARLY PROVES THAT BEFORE THE DD OF RS. 170,000/-, CASH OF RS. 10 LAKH WAS DELIVERED TOWARDS THE PURCH ASE OF THE PROPERTY. THUS, AT THE TIME OF BOOKING THE APPE LLANT HAS MADE TOTAL PAYMENT OF 10+1.70 LACS = RS.1.70.LACS W HICH IT(SS)A NO.496 AND 497/AHD/2012 5 IS EXACTLY 30% OF THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION AS PER TH E PROPOSAL. AS PER THE PROPOSAL, 30% PAYMENT IS TO BE MADE AT T HE TIME OF BOOKING, 15% AT THE TIME OF POSSESSION AND BALAN CE 55% IN EIGHT INSTALMENTS FROM FEBRUARY 2008 TO SEPTEMBE R 2008. THERE COULD HAVE BEEN SOME TRUTH IN THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT HAD THE CASH PAYMENT OF RS.10 LAKH DATED 26/1/8 WRITTEN AFTER THE ENTRIES OF DDS. IN THAT CASE, PRO BABLY IT COULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED THAT THE ENTRIES OF CASH P AYMENT REPRESENTS THE INSTALMENTS TO BE PAID IN FUTURE AND ACTUAL PAYMENTS. BUT THIS IS NOT THE CASE HERE. THE FIRST P AYMENT OF RS. 10 LAKHS IS SHOWN AS ON 26/1/8 AND THEN AS ON 1 /2/2008 THE DD IS OF RS. 170,000 DATED 17/1/2008 ARE GIVEN TO THE DEVELOPER. THIS PROVES THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PAID RS.11.70 LACS BEING 30% OF THE BOOKING AMOUNT ON 1/2/2008. THEREFORE, THE STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT HE H AD NOT PAID ANY CASH TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF THE OFFICE IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED DISCUSSION . FURTHER, AS PER THE PROPOSAL THE APPELLANT IS SUPPOSED TO PA Y 60% OF THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION BY CASH. THIS FACT IS ALSO PROVED AS BY 8/12/2008 THE APPELLANT HAD PAID ENTIRE CASH COMPON ENT TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF THE SAID OFFICE. SINCE THE TOTAL PAYMENT OF RS. 24.70 LACS FALLS IN TWO DIFFERENT AS SESSMENT YEARS NAMELY RS. 10 LACS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND RS.14.70 LACS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THE AO WA S FULLY JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE SAME AS UNDISCLOSED INVES TMENT OF THE APPELLANT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHER THE APPELLANT FINALLY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY OR NOT. IT WAS CONTE NDED BY THE AR THAT AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH, THE APPELLANT HAD CANCELLED THE DEAL. IN MY VIEW THE DEAL IS SHOWN AS CANCELLED AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH WITH THE SOLE INTENTION TO JUSTIFY THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE CASH PAYMENT W AS NOT MADE TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ADDITIONS OF RS.10 LAKH AND RS.14.70 LACS MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY AR E CONFIRMED. 4. BEFORE US, WHILE IMPUGNING ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTEN DED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A SPECIFIC PLEA BEFORE THE AO T HAT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THIS OFFICE-SPACE OR NOT, OU GHT TO BE VERIFIED FROM THE VENDOR. ACCORDING TO THE LD.COUN SEL FOR THE IT(SS)A NO.496 AND 497/AHD/2012 6 ASSESSEE, IN CASE THE OFFICE SPACE IS NOT ULTIMATEL Y PURCHASED, THEN MOTIVE TO MAKE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT WOULD BE MISSING AND IT CANNOT BE CONSTRUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS IN CURRED UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE IN THE SHAPE OF INVESTMENT. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER EMPHASISED THAT UNLESS WITH HELP OF CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE, IT IS DEMONSTRATED THAT ULTIMATELY PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT COULD N OT BE ASSUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED UNEXPLAINED EXPENDIT URE, BECAUSE THERE MIGHT BE A CORRESPONDING ASSET WITH THE ASSES SEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF CORRESPONDING ASSET, INCURRENCE OF SUCH EXPENDITURE COULD NOT BE IN THE AIR. HE FURTHER EMPHASISED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THIS FACT IN THE STATEMENT GIVEN TO T HE ADIT UNDER SECTION 131 ON 3.5.2010. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.CIT-DR CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO GIVE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AB OUT THE FACT THAT DEAL WAS NOT MATERIALIZED. IT IS A JUST A BAL D STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION ASKED BY THE ADIT. THIS STATE MENT WAS GIVEN MUCH AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF SEARCH WITH DUE CONSULTATION WITH HIS CONSULTANT. IN ORDER TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS STATEMENT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD FILE DETAILS POINTING OUT WHEN THE DEAL WAS CANCELLED, HOW HE HAS RECEIVED THE REFUND. HE SHOU LD HAVE PRODUCED THE CERTIFICATE FROM THE VENDOR ALSO THAT DEAL WAS CANCELLED, AND HOW MUCH MONEY WAS REFUNDED. 6. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GO NE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. BASICALLY, THE ASSESSEE IS HA RPING UPON THE REPLY TO QUESTION NO.2, WHICH WE TAKE NOTE OF ALONG WITH HIS REPLY, WHICH READS AS UNDER: IT(SS)A NO.496 AND 497/AHD/2012 7 Q.2 I AM SHOWING YOU PAGE-13 OF ANNEXURE A-1 SEIZED FORM YOUR RESIDENCE AT 10, ADIRAJ BUNGLOW WHICH CONTAINS DETAILS OF TRANSACTION IN RESPECT OF PROPE RTY 206 ASHIRVAD PARAS, PRAHALADNAGAR, SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD. THIS LOOSE PAPER THE NAME OF PURCHASE I S PANKAJ GANDHI AND SANJEEVKUMAR MATHURAPRASAD CHORASIYA. THE AREA IS 1625 SQ.FEET @ 2400 PER SQ.F EET COMING TO TOTAL VALUE OF RS.39,00,000/- (THIRTY NIN E LAKH). IT IS ALSO MENTIONED THAT 60% OF THE AMOUNT I.E. RS.23.40 LAKHS IS TO BE PAID IN CASH AND 40% I.E. RS.15.60 LAKHS IN CHEQUE. PLEASE THROUGH IT AND EXPLAIN THE SAME. ANS. THIS IS ONLY ESTIMATE AND OFFER FOR PURCHASE O F PROPERTY FOR WHICH ADVANCE WAS GIVEN BY SHRI SANJIV CHORASIY A BUT THE TRANSACTION COULD NOT COMPLETED AND BUILDER HAS REFUNDED THE ENTIRE BOOKING AMOUNT. THE FOLLOWING PAYMENT WAS MADE. 1. THREE DRAFT OF RS.49000/- OF SBI SIROHI DATED 17/1/2000/- THESE DRAFT WAS PURCHASED BY ME FROM CASH BALANCE AVAILABLE IN PERSONAL CASH OF SANJAY CHORASIYA. THE SAID AMOUNT RECEIVED BACK FROM BUIL DER DURING F.Y.2009-10. IN THE LOOSE PAPER THE PAYMENT REFERRED AT SR.NO.2 TO 5 WAS DUE DATE FOR MAKING PAYMENT, BUT WE COULD NOT PAY THE MONEY AND DEAL WAS CANCELLED. 7. CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT ONCE HE HAS TAKEN A STAND THAT DEAL WAS CANCELLED AND HE GOT THE REFUND OF BOOKING AMOUNT THEN IT IS TO BE CONSTRUED THAT INSTALMENTS WHICH WERE TO BE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH, WERE NOT PAID. TH IS DISCLOSURE IN THE STATEMENT IS A CORROBORATIVE PIECE OF EVIDENCE AND IT WAS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT NARRATIONS MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED PAPER HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN EFFECT BY THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED REPLY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS F INDING RECORDED BY THE LD.REVENUE AUTHORITY [CIT(A) EXTRACTED (SUPR A)]. THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS THAT A LOOSE PAPER WAS FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE EXHIBITING THE PURCHASE OF A PROPERTY. IT(SS)A NO.496 AND 497/AHD/2012 8 AS PER THE LOOSE PAPER, THE ASSESSEE HAS AGREED FOR PAYMENT OF 30% AT THE TIME OF BOOKING; 15% AT THE TIME OF POSS ESSION, AND BALANCE 55% IN EIGHT INSTALMENTS FROM FEBRUARY, 200 8 TO SEPTEMBER, 2008. SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON 11.2.2010 , MEANING THEREBY, ALL THESE INSTALMENTS HAVE BEEN ADHERED TO BECAUSE FIRST TIME ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED CANCELLATION OF DEAL IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON 3.5.2010. WE COULD APPRECIATE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD HE PRODUCED REFUND OF BOOKING AMOUNT B EFORE THE SEARCH, THAT IS, IF THE ASSESSEE HAS DEMONSTRATED T HAT PAYMENT OF RS.1.70 LAKHS PAID THROUGH DD WAS RECEIVED BACK BY HIM BEFORE 11.2.2010. TO SOME EXTENT IT COULD BE APPRECIATED THAT THIS PAPER WAS PERTAINING TO NEGOTIATION OF CERTAIN DEAL. IT I S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WE HAVE TO EVALUATE THE POSITION OF TH E PAYMENT ON THE TIME MENTIONED IN THE LOOSE PAPER. IN OTHER WO RDS, IF THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID MONEY IN CASH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCHEDULE, THEN IT IS TO BE CONSTRUED THAT UNEXPLAINED EXPENDI TURE WAS INCURRED; ON CANCELLATION OF THE DEAL, EVEN AFTER T HE SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE HAS GOT CASH COMPONENT IN CASH. HE WILL N OT DISCLOSE IT ANYWHERE THAT CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD NOT ABSOLVE HIM F ROM EXPLAINING POSITION OF AVAILABILITY OF CASH FROM EX PLAINED SOURCES ALSO AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT REFLECTED IN THE SCHEDU LE. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO OBSERVE THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS MADE A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THIS SCHEDULE IN THE LIGHT OF PAYMENT T HROUGH DD AND OBSERVED THAT PROBABILITY OF INCURRENCE OF EXPENDIT URE ACCORDING TO THE SCHEDULE IS MUCH MORE. ONLY CIRCUMSTANCE HIGHL IGHTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS THAT DEAL WAS CANCELLED, AND THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO MOTIVE OR OBJECTIVE TO MAKE UNEXPLAINED INVE STMENT. THE FACT THAT THE DEAL WAS CANCELLED HAS NOT BEEN BROUG HT ON RECORD. IT IS A DECLARATION AFTER THE SEARCH, WHICH IS NOT RELEVANT FACTOR. IT(SS)A NO.496 AND 497/AHD/2012 9 THEREFORE, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY HESITATION IN CONCURR ING WITH THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THIS ISSUE. BOTH APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DEVOID OF ANY MERIT, HENCE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 10 TH JULY, 2019. SD/- SD/- (PRADIPKUMAR KEDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER