Shri Bharat V.Patel, Ahmedabad V. The ACIT.,Circle-11, Ahmedabad

ITSSA 618/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0139 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 17-04-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 31-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T P KRISHNA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: P M PATEL
• Keywords: Document seized; Source of fund; Additional evidence; Block assessment; Documents seized
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NO.618/AHD/2012 (BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.95 TO 31.3.2001 AND 1.4.2001 TO 1 3.12.01) BHARAT V. PATEL, 66, VADILAL PARK SOCIETY, OPP. INDICA LAB TOLNAKA, BAPUNAGAR, AHMEDABAD. PAN: ABVPR 9550E VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II NARAYAN CHAMBER, AHMEDABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI T.P. KRISHNA KUMAR, D.R. ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI P.M. PATEL, A.R. / DATE OF HEARING : 17/04/2014 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30/06/2014 / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISING FROM AN ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-XVI, AHMEDABAD, DATED 18.12.2012. TH E MAIN GROUND IS GROUND NO.1, WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN CONCISED, HOWEVER FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS CONNECTED GROUNDS ARE ALSO REPRODUCED BELOW: 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) XVI ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.1,01,04,887/- AS UNDISCLO SED PAYMENTS TO LAND OWNERS ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SMALL DIARY SEIZED FROM THE ASSESSEE. 2. WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING VARIOUS CONTEMPO RARY EVIDENCES, NAMELY REGISTER BANAKHAT EXECUTED BY SHREEJI NAROL OWNERS ASSOCIATION WITH VARIOUS LANDOWNERS WHOSE NAME APPEARED IN SEIZED DIARY, BAN K STATEMENT, BANK BOOKS, ACCOUNTS OF LANDOWNERS APPEARED IN BOOKS OF SHREEJI NAROL OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND OTHER EVIDENCES MENTIONED IN APPLIC ATION U/S. 46A, AND TWO JUDGMENT PRODUCED, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS GRO SSLY ERRED IN DECIDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED BURDEN U/S 132 (4A) AND CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED ADDITION OF RS. 1,01,04,887. IT(SS)A NO.618/AHD/2012 BHARAT V. PATEL VS. ACIT, AHMEDABAD. - 2 - 3. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMI NG RS.1,01,04,887/- ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DIARY AND IN ABSENCE OF IOTA OF EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE A.O. AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENT OF HO NORABLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT QUOTED BEFORE HIM IN CASE OF CIT V/S MAULIKKU MAR K. SHAH 307 ITR 137(GUJ.). 4. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMI NG ADDITION OF RS. 1,01,04,887 WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE CHART PREPARED ANALYSING THE SEIZED DIARY WHICH CONSISTED AMOUNT PAID BY CASH, AMOUNT YET TO BE PAID AND AMOUNT PAYABLE FOR PROPERTY TO BE PURCHASED. 2. BEFORE WE ADJUDICATE THIS GROUND, IT IS WORTH TO MENTION THAT IN THE PAST FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1995 TO 31.03.2001 AND 1.04.2001 TO 13.012.2001 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF AN ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE RESPECTED CO-ORDINATE BENCH C ITAT AHD [IT(SS )A NO.57/AHD/2005] ORDER DATED 29.12.2010. THIS WAS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. THE ASSESSEE WAS IN CROSS-OBJECTION BE ARING CO. NO.90/AHD/2005 (ARISING OUT OF IT(SS)A NO.57/AHD/20 05). CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A, IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ADMI TTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. THEREFORE, T HE MATTER WAS REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO DECIDE REVENUES APPEAL AND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE AFRESH AS PER LAW. DUE TO THIS REASONS , THE EARLIER ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-I, AHMEDABAD, DATED 24.12.2004 HAS A LSO BEEN PLACED BEFORE US. WE HAVE PERUSED ALL THOSE ORDERS CAREFUL LY. 3. FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDING ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.158BC R.W.S 143(3), DATED 31.12.2003 WER E THAT THE ASSESSEE IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY IS STATED TO BE A BUILDER AN D DEVELOPER IN REAL ESTATE BUSINESS. A SEARCH U/S.132 WAS CONDUCTED ON THE ASSESSEE ALON G WITH SHREEJI GROUP ON 13.12.2001. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE GROUP WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL FLATS, BUNGALOWS, ETC. IT(SS)A NO.618/AHD/2012 BHARAT V. PATEL VS. ACIT, AHMEDABAD. - 3 - CONSEQUENCE UPON THE SEARCH CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS NOTICED THAT CERTA IN CASH PAYMENTS WERE MADE RELATED TO SHREEJI BUNGALOWS SCHEME . THE AO HAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE PARTNERS IN THE SAI D SCHEME. IT WAS FOUND THAT CASH PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO SOME LAND OWNERS AN D FEW OTHER PERSONS AS REVEALED FROM THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. IT W AS NOTED BY THE AO THAT A SUM TOTALING RS.1,01,04,887/- WAS PAID IN CASH TO THE FOLLOWING PERSONS AS PER THE SEIZED MATERIAL. SR.NO. PERSON TO WHOM PAID AMOUNT DOCUMENT NO. 1. NATWARLAL CHUNILAL 248523 A-8/1 2. NATWARLAL CHUNILAL 248521 A-8/1 3. NATWARLAL CHUNILAL 116402 A-2/2 4. NATWARLAL CHUNILAL 69394 A-2/2 5. RASIKLAL KESHAVLAL 295338 A-9/2 6. RASIKLAL KESHAVLAL 200000 A-9/2 7. RASIKLAL KESHAVLAL 223850 A-2/1 8. KAPILABEN DAHYABHAI 296451 A-6/2 9. KAPILABEN DAHYABHAI 296451 A-6/2 10. JAYANTIBHAI 2036023 A-10/2 11. JAYANTIBHAI 500000 A-10/2 12. JAYANTIBHAI 200000 A-10/2 13. JAYANTIBHAI 300000 A-10/2 14. JAYANTIBHAI 650000 A-10/3 15. JAYANTIBHAI 380000 A-10/3 16. JAYANTIBHAI 650000 A-10/3 17. LALITABEN 148776 A-2/3 18. LALITABEN 60730 A-2/3 19. SHANTABEN KESHAVLAL 60730 A-2/3 20. SHANTABEN KESHAVLAL 148776 A-2/3 21. ASHABHAI DHANABHAI 205363 A-2/4 22. ATULBHAI 515687 A-2/5 23. FALABHAI RAMANBHAI 301638 A-2/6 24. CHAMPABEN MANIBHAI 309684 A-2/6 25. RAMESHBHAI CHUNNIBHAI 989216 A-2/7 26. AMRAJI SHANKERJI 380546 A-2/7 27. MANUBHAI CHHOTABHAI 31762 A-2/8 28. MANUBHAI CHHOTABHAI 141026 A-2/8 TOTAL 10104887 3.1 AS PER THE ABOVE LIST, THE AO HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WERE RECOVERED, AS IDENTIFIED IN THE ABOV E LIST, THROUGH WHICH IT(SS)A NO.618/AHD/2012 BHARAT V. PATEL VS. ACIT, AHMEDABAD. - 4 - IT WAS FOUND THAT CASH AMOUNT WAS PAID TO THE PERSONS ALLEGED TO BE THE LAND OWNERS OVER WHICH THE PROJECT WAS TO BE CONSTRUCTED. THEREAFTER, THE AO HAS ALSO NARRATED THE ANNEXURE A LONG WITH THE SEIZED MATERIAL WHICH WERE RECOVERED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. AS PER AO, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE NAMES OF THE LAND OWNERS WERE MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL ALONG WITH DETAILS OF THE INSTA LLMENTS (PRATHAM HAPTO) (BIJO HAPTO) PAID IN CASH. THE ANNEXURES HAVE REVEA LED THAT IN RESPECT OF THE KHATA NUMBER OF THE LAND THE AMOUNTS WERE PAID AND THAT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED AS PER THE NOTING CHUKTE KAREL CHE. THE PARTY-WISE NOTINGS IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL WAS REPRODUCED BY TH E AO. THE ASSESSEE WAS SUMMONED TO GIVE HIS EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF THE SAID SEIZED MATERIAL. THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE EVID ENCES FOUND DURING THE SEARCH. THE ASSESSEES REPLY BEFORE THE AO WAS AS UNDER: Q.3. I AM SHOWING YOU ANNEXURE A-2, A-6, A-8, A-9, A-10 SEIZED FROM YOUR OFFICE WHICH SHOWS CASH PAYMENT TO VARIOUS PARTIES FOR THE LAND OF SHREEJI BUNGALOWS. PLEASE PERUSE THE SAME AND CLARIFY WHEN WERE THESE PAYMENTS MADE AND GIVE THE IT PARTICULARS AND THE ADDRESSES OF THESE PEOPLE. A.3 THESE PAYMENTS ARE FOR SHREEJI BUNGALOW, VASANT VIHAR, SHREEJI OWNERS ASSOCIATIONS COMBINED ACCOUNTS. THESE PAYM ENTS WERE MADE TO THESE PEOPLE WHILE BUYING THE LANDS FOR THE SCHEME. THE POSTAL ADDRESSES WILL BE GIVEN IN THREE DAYS. THE ABOVE PAYMENTS HAVE BEE N MADE BY ME FROM YEAR 1997 TO 2000 IN CASH AND CHEQUE. I AM MEDIATOR IN T HIS SCHEME. Q.4 YOU HAD SAID THAT YOU ARE A MEDIATOR AFTER PERU SAL OF ALL THESE ANNEXURES. THIS MEANS THAT THE MONEY HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM THE SOCIETY AND ITS DEVELOPERS AND GIVEN TO THE LAND OWNERS. PLEASE GIV E DETAILS WHETHER THESE AMOUNTS ARE REFLECTED IN YOUR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR I N THE BOOKS OF THE PAYERS OR IN THE BOOKS OF THE RECIPIENT. PLEASE GIVE THE C ONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE FOR THE SAME. A.4 I HAVE NO EVIDENCES, BUT I WILL TRY TO GIVE YOU INFORMATION ON 8.12.2003. 3.2 AS PER THE ALLEGATION OF THE AO, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED SO AS TO GIVE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE BUT ASSES SEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH ANY DETAILS AND ALSO FAILED TO BE PRESENT B EFORE AO. IN RESPECT OF THE NON-APPEARANCE AND NON-COMPLIANCE, THE AO HAS F URTHER NOTED FEW IT(SS)A NO.618/AHD/2012 BHARAT V. PATEL VS. ACIT, AHMEDABAD. - 5 - DATES IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO SAY THAT THERE WAS DELAYED COMPLIANCE OR NON-COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASS ESSEES REPLY BEFORE THE AO WAS AS UNDER: 2.2 THE ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S.142(1) DATE D 9.10.2003 TO EXPLAIN THE ISSUE AND PRODUCE CONTEMPORARY PROOF TO EXPLAIN THE SAME. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ATTEND AND AGAIN A NOTICE U/S.142( 1) DATED 21.11.2003 WAS ISSUED TO EXPLAIN ALL THE ISSUES & GIVE HIS REPLY B Y 1.12.2003. IN THE END, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A TWO PAGE REPLY ON 4.12.2003 WI THOUT COMING FORWARD WITH ANY DETAILS OR CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCES ON THE I SSUES PUT UP BEFORE HIM. THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN ASKED VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 18.12.2003 TO CLARIFY ON THE VARIOUS ISSUES PUT ACROSS TO HIM VID E NOTICE U/S.142(1) DATED 09.10.2003, IN VIEW OF THE TENETS OF THE NATURAL JU STICE. THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS REPLY DATED SUBMITTED REPLY AS FOLLOWS: BEFORE FEW YEARS SHREEJI NAROL OWNERS ASSOCIATION H AS ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT FOR PURCHASING LAND ADMEASURING TO 28500 S Q. YARDS APPROXIMATELY. THERE WERE ABOUT 20 ORIGINAL LAND OW NERS WITH WHOM SHREEJI NAROL OWNERS ASSOCIATION ENTERED INTO PURCH ASE CONTRACT, SUBSEQUENTLY SUCH LAND WAS INITIALLY SOLD TO SHREEJI CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED, DUE TO LARGE COMPLEXITY AND FORMALITIES. SHREEJI NAROL OWNERS ASSOCIATION ENTERED INTO THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND FOR SHREEJI NAROL OWNERS ASSOCIATION. SHREEJI NAROL OWN ERS ASSOCIATION PAID THE AMOUNTS TO THE ORIGINAL LAND OWNERS IN INS TALLMENT AS AND WHEN RECEIVED FROM THE SUBSEQUENT PURCHASERS. ALL THE AMOUNTS SHOWN IN THE ANNEXURE II TO THE SAID NOTICE HAVE AC TUALLY BEEN PAID BY THE SHREEJI NAROL OWNERS ASSOCIATION ONLY. HOWEVER, TO KEEP THE TRACK OF THE PAYMENTS AND PROPER MANAGEMENT OF THE CONTRACT, I HAVE KEPT TRACK OF ALL SUCH PAYMENTS MADE BY THE SHREEJI NAROL OWNERS ASSOCIATION WHICH WERE FOUND IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT S. THEREFORE IT IS TO BE STRONGLY NOTED THAT NO PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MAD E BY ME OR MY BEHALF. ALL THE PAYMENTS AS SHOWN WERE ONLY MADE BY THE SHREEJI NAROL OWNERS ASSOCIATION. I WAS ONLY ENTITLED TO CO MMISSION FROM ASSOCIATION, HENCE NO QUESTION OF UNDISCLOSED PAYME NTS, AS THOSE POINTS WERE NEVER BELONG TO ME. 3.3 THE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED BECAUSE OF THE ABSENCE OF ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO COUNTER THE ALLEGATION OF THE REVENUE T HAT AS PER THE SEIZED MATERIAL THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN CASH BY THE ASSE SSEE TO THOSE LAND OWNERS. AS PER AO, ALL THE CASH PAYMENTS WERE DULY RECORDED IN A SMALL DIARY WHICH WAS ALSO RECOVERED BY THE SEARCH PARTY. THAT DIARY CONTAINED THE NAMES OF THE PERSON TO WHOM THE PAYMENT WAS MAD E. THE PAYMENTS BEING MADE WERE RECORDED WITH METICULOUS DETAILS BY GIVING THE DATES OF IT(SS)A NO.618/AHD/2012 BHARAT V. PATEL VS. ACIT, AHMEDABAD. - 6 - THE PAYMENT, THE INSTALLMENTS GRANTED, THE AMOUNT PAID, REFERENCE OF THE PARTY ETC. THE AOS MAIN CONCERN WAS THAT ADMITTEDL Y THE ASSESSEE HAPPENED TO BE BUILDER/DEVELOPER AND IT IS KNOWN FA CT THAT THE SAID PAYMENTS ARE BEING MADE FROM WHOM THE LAND IS PURCH ASED. THERE WAS ALSO A REFERENCE OF CERTAIN SEIZED PAPER RECOVERED FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF ONE MR. PIYUSH PATEL, ALSO A PARTNER. O N INQUIRY, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE LANDS HAVE BEEN PROPERLY PURCHASED BEFORE LAUNCHING OF SCHEME AND THE LAND OWNERS WERE PAID THE AMOUNT. ONE OF TH E COMMENTS OF THE AO IS WORTH PRODUCTION. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ANNEXURE A-30, PAGES 16 & A-34 PAGES 51 & 32 SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF PIYUSH PATEL ONE OF THE PARTNERS , IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE LANDS HAVE BEEN PROBABLY PURCHASED BEFORE LAUNCH OF EACH SCHEME AND THE LAND OWNERS ARE PAID OFF. THIS LENDS CREDEN CE TO THE FACT THAT THE MONEY WOULD INDEED HAVE BEEN COLLECTED BEFORE FLOAT ING ANY SCHEME AND LANDOWNERS PAID THE MONEY. THE CLARITY OF THE EVIDE NCE CAN BE GAUGED FROM THE FACT THAT AFTER THE MONEY HAS BEEN COLLECTED FR OM THE PARTNERS THE LAND OWNERS ARE PAID UP AND THE CONSTRUCTION STARTS AND THE ON MONEY STARTS FLOWING IN. THIS LEAVES NO DOUBT THAT THE GROUP HAS FLOATED VARIOUS SCHEMES AND PAID OFF THE LAND OWNERS, AT THE START OF EACH SCHEME. HENCE THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE IS A MIDDLE MEN IN THE LAND DEAL AND HE IS COLLECTING THE MONEY FROM THE VARIOUS PERSONS AND P AYING OF THE LAND OWNERS IS WRONG AND WITHOUT ANY MERIT. 3.4 THE AO HAS ALSO DISCUSSED THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132 (4A) OF IT ACT WHICH SAYS THAT AN ARTIC LE OR THING OR MATERIAL FOUND IN POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF ANY PERSON IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH IS THE OWNER AND RESPONSIBLE TO EXPLAIN THE SAME. FEW CASE LAWS HAVE ALSO BEEN MENTIONED BY THE AO IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID LEGAL PR OPOSITION. THE AO HAS ALSO REMARKED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED OPP ORTUNITY TO DISPLACE THE SAID PRESUMPTION WITH THE SUPPORT OF LEADING EV IDENCES AND THE SAID PRESUMPTION IS REBUTTABLE BUT IN SPITE OF GRANTING THE OPPORTUNITY ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO REBUT THE SAME PRESUMPTION. SO HE HAS CONCLUDED THAT CONSIDERING THE NATURE AND THE CLARITY OF THE EVIDE NCES THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,01,04,887/- WAS THE UNDISCLOSED PAYMENT TO THE LAND OWNER BY THE IT(SS)A NO.618/AHD/2012 BHARAT V. PATEL VS. ACIT, AHMEDABAD. - 7 - ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WAS ACCORDINGLY TAXED IN HIS HANDS. BEING AGGRIEVED THE SAME WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 4. IN THE FIRST ROUND OF APPEAL, LEARNED CIT(A) VID E ORDER DATED 24.12.2004, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, HE HAS REJECTED THE REQUEST OF ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. SOME OF THE OBSERVATION OF LEARNED CIT(A) IS WORTH REPRODUCTION. 3.3 NOW TO CONSIDER THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS GIVEN ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT, IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED THAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO ONLY SOME COMMISSION FROM SHREEJI NAROL OWNERS ASSOCIATION BUT NO EVIDE NCE OF ANY SORT IS GIVEN NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE ALLEGED A SSOCIATION WHO ACTUALLY PAID THE MONEY BEING ENQUIRED INTO AT RS. 1,01,04,8 87/-, HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN NOR PROOF OF SOURCE OF FUNDS WITH THEM HAS BEEN GIV EN. IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NEVER MADE ANY ATTEMPT TO ACTUALLY DI SCHARGE THE BURDEN CAST UPON HIM REGARDING PAYMENTS WHICH ARE DISCUSSED BY THE A.O. AND TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED PAYMENTS TO THE LAND OWNERS. THE A.O. H AD REFERRED TO THE PAYMENTS AS BEING 'CASH PAYMENT RELATED TO THE SCHE ME OF SHREEJI BUNGLOWS'. IN CERTAIN DETAILS NOTED ON PAGES 3, 4 & 6 OF THE A SSTT. ORDER, THERE ARE REFERENCES TO SOME PAYMENT BY CHEQUE BUT THE ACTUAL PAYMENT OF THE CHEQUES HAS NOT BEEN INDICATED. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO MADE NO ATTEMPT WHATSOEVER TO INDICATE THE QUANTUM WHICH, OUT OF THE TOTAL PAYMEN TS HAS BEEN MADE BY WAY OF CHEQUE. IT WAS IN THE APPLICATION U/S.46A THAT V IDE APPENDIX III THE APPELLANT GAVE DETAILS OF LAND PURCHASED BY SHREEJI NAROL OWNERS ASSOCIATION BUT THERE ALSO NO DATES OF THE- PAYMENTS ARE GIVEN. AS SUCH, THIS DETAIL CANNOT BE CO-RELATED WITH THE COPY OF THE SAURASHTRA CO.OP .BANK LTD. A/C. OF THE ASSOCIATION'S ACCOUNT NO. BEING 6573 FOR THE DATES 1.1 .97 TO 20TH JULY,2004. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS MA DE ON 24TH SEPT.,2004, IN RESPONSE TO SUPPLY OF COPY OF REMAND REPORT GIVEN B Y THE DCIT.,CENT.CIR.L(4), AHMEDABAD, THE ANNEXURE-1 GIVEN SHOWING NAMES AND A DDRESSES OF PERSONS WHO SOLD LAND TO THE SHREEJI NAROL OWNERS ASSOCIATI ON, THE DATES OF THE BANAKHAT BY WHICH SALE TRANSACTION WAS TO BE MADE A RE ALL DTD SEPT, OR OCT., 1996. OBVIOUSLY THESE DATES OF THE BANAKHATS AND TH E CLAIM THAT BANAKHAT AMOUNT WAS PAID TO THE LAND HOLDERS, THOSE PAYMENTS WOULD NOT BE BY CHEQUE AND IF THEY WERE, THE COPY OF THE BAN ACCOUNT SUBMI TTED BEING FROM A LATER DATE WOULD NOT REFLECT THE TRANSACTIONS. 3.31 THERE ARE, BESIDES, CERTAIN UNACCEPTABLE FACTS WHICH LEAD TO ADVERSE INTERPRETATIONS. APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE AN Y OF THE MEMBERS OF THE ALLEGED SHREEJI NAROL LAND OWNERS' ASSOCIATION DESP ITE THE FACT THAT HE WAS THE WITNESS TO THEIR MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION. THI S MEMORANDUM ITSELF IS DTD. 15TH MARCH, 1997 WHICH IS SUBSEQUENT TO THE RE CORDING OF THE BANAKHATS. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE DATE OF THE BANAKHATS BEIN G IN VARIOUS DATES OF SEPT. & OCT., 1996, THEY REFER TO PURCHASE BEING MADE BY SH REEJI NAROL LAND OWNERS' ASSOCIATION WHICH ACTUALLY DID NOT GET INCORPORATED UPTO 6TH MAY, 1997 AND IT(SS)A NO.618/AHD/2012 BHARAT V. PATEL VS. ACIT, AHMEDABAD. - 8 - SO WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE ON THE DATE THESE WERE EXEC UTED. THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION IS THEN THAT THE ASSOCIATION BEING NOT I N EXISTENCE WHEN THE BANAKHATS WERE ENTERED INTO AND SIGNED BY THE PERSO NS WHO WERE SELLING LAND, THE PURCHASE WAS NOT MADE BY THE SAID ASSOCIATION. ALSO THE ONLY PERSON IN ME KNOW OF THINGS WOULD BE SHREE RAMESH M. PATEL WHO I S CLAIMED TO BE THE PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OR THE APPELLANT SHRI BHARAT V. PATEL WHO CLAIMS TO BE WORKING AS MEDIATOR RIGHT FROM THE TIME THE V ARIOUS BANAKHATS WERE ENTERED INTO FOR PURCHASE OF VARIOUS LANDS. NOW SIN CE THE ASSOCIATION ITSELF WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE, SO ALSO ITS PRESIDENT HAD NO LEGAL EXISTENCE ON THE DAY THE BANAKHATS WERE ENTERED INTO OR SIGNED OR REGIST ERED. BUT THE ONE PERSON WHO DID HAVE SOME CONNECTION WITH THE SCHEME FROM T HE DATE THE BANAKHATS WERE ENTERED INTO, WAS THE APPELLANT WHO ADMITS TO NOTING OF THE VARIOUS PAYMENTS MADE TO LAND OWNERS IN HIS DIARY. THE ALLE GED COPY OF RESOLUTION AS MEDIATOR SIGNED BY SHRI RAMESH M.PATEL IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT SPEAKS OF COMPLETE INVOLVEMENT OF THE APPELLANT FROM THE DATE THAT THE DIFFERENT BANAKHATS WERE DRAWN UP AND IT IS ALSO MENTIONED TH EREIN THAT HE HAS BEEN GIVING ADVICE IN LEGAL AND CONSTRUCTION MATTERS. TH EREFORE, THE UNDISPUTED CONCLUSION TO BE DRAWN IS THAT THE WHOLE SCHEME OF PURCHASE OF LAND IN THE NAME OF NON EXISTENT ASSOCIATION WAS THE BRAIN CHIL D OF THE APPELLANT AND ALL THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE LANDOWNERS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE APPELLANT HIMSELF. 4.1 AFTER THE AFORE-NOTED OBSERVATIONS, HE HAS HELD THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS LACKING THE TRUTHFULNESS SO THE ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED. 3.2 LIKEWISE, WHEN THE MATTER WAS REMANDED BY THE T RIBUNAL TO THE FILE OF LEARNED CIT(A) THEN VIDE AN ORDER DATED 18 TH DECEMBER, 2012, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE FINDINGS WERE AS UNDER: 4.0 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE C ASE IN THE LIGHT OF SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND THE ARGUMENTS TAKEN BY THE ID ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS A SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW U/S. 132(4A) THAT THE ONUS TO SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THE VERACITY OF DOCUMENTS FO UND AND SEIZED RESTS UPON THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM SEARCH PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN UNDERTAKEN. THE ENTIRE ADDITION RESTS ON THE ARGUMENT TAKEN BY THE A O DOU BTING THE THEORY OF BEING JUST A MEDIATOR PROPOUNDED BY THE APPELLANT. ANALYS IS OF THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCES INDICATES THAT CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT A RE NOT DULY SUPPORTED WITH COGENT AND SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE. THE ONLY DOCUMENT PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT IS THE RESOLUTION OF SNOA MENTIONED SUPRA OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON. EVERY OWNERS ASSOCIATION COMPRISES OF A LARGE NUMBE R OF MEMBERS WHO JOIN THE BODY / ASSOCIATION FOR FURTHERANCE OF COMMON OB JECTIVES. AS ALL THE MEMBERS MAY NOT BE PRESENT AT ALL TIMES FOR ATTENDI NG TO DAY TO DAY FUNCTIONING OF THE ASSOCIATION A COMMITTEE COMPRISI NG 8 TO 10 MEMBERS IS IT(SS)A NO.618/AHD/2012 BHARAT V. PATEL VS. ACIT, AHMEDABAD. - 9 - FOUND WHICH INCLUDES CHAIRMAN / PRESIDENT /SECRETAR Y, JT. SECREJARY, TREASURER AND A FEW EXECUTIVE MEMBERS. THE COMMITTEE THEN TAK ES DECISION ON BEHALF OF ALL THE MEMBERS THROUGH BOARD MEETINGS AND PASSES W HAT IS KNOWN AS RESOLUTION WHICH IS BINDING ON ALL THE MEMBERS OF T HE ASSOCIATION. IN THE CONTEXT OF SNOA AS AN ASSOCIATION, THE APPOINTMENT OF THE APPELLANT AS THE MEDIATOR IN LAND DEALING OF THE ASSOCIATION AND THE DECISION TO PAY HIM .5% COMMISSION CHARGES WAS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT DECIS ION HAVING FAR REACHING PRESENT AND FUTURE CONSEQUENCES. IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT WHEREAS THE RESOLUTION OF SNOA, HEAVILY RELIED UPON BY APPELLAN T, STATES THAT 'A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF THE DIRECTORS OF NAROL OWNERS ASSOC IATION HELD AS ON 15-5- 1997 AT 4.00 P.M., THE RESOLUTION IS SIGNED BY JUST ONE PERSON NAMELY SHRI RAMESH M PATEL, IN THE CAPACITY OF SECRETARY. IF, A S EVIDENT FROM THE WORDING OF THIS RESOLUTION, ALL THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WER E PRESENT, THEN THE QUESTION ARISES AS TO WHY THERE WAS NO MENTION OF THEIR NAME S ON THE RESOLUTION AND AS TO WHY THEY DID NOT SIGN, ORDINARILY EVERY RESOLUTI ON ALWAYS BEARS, THE NAMES OF PERSONS PRESENT ALONGWITH THEIR DESIGNATION. THE SAME IS CONSPICUOUSLY ABSENT FROM THE IMPUGNED RESOLUTION. THUS, THE RESO LUTION RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT, IS AT BEST A SELF SERVING DOCUMENT AND S UFFERS FROM THE VICE OF BEING A GENUINE DOCUMENT. ASSUMING WITHOUT CONCEDING THAT THE RESOLUTION IS GENUINE, THEN THE QUESTION ARISES IS AS TO WHERE IS THE APPOINTMENT LETTER OF APPELLANT ISSUED BY THE SNOA. NATURALLY, SINCE APPE LLANT WAS NEITHER PRESENT DURING THE BOARD MEETING NOR IS A SIGNATORY, HE WOU LD NOT BE AWARE OF HIS APPOINTMENT AS MEDIATOR BY SNOA, UNLESS OFF COURSE SNOA ISSUES HIM A FORMAL APPOINTMENT LETTER. IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE AO IN THE FIRST REMAND REPORT DT 19-11-2004 THAT BEFORE HIM ONE SHR I GORDHANBHAI NATHUBHAI PATEL, A MEMBER OF SNOA HAD APPEARED. SAI D SHRI G. N. PATEL DEPOSED THAT HE DID NOT KNEW THE APPELLANT WELL. NO W IF APPELLANT WAS ACTUALLY A MEDIATOR, THEN SAID SHRI G N PATEL OUGHT TO HAVE KNOW HIM AS APPELLANT HAD PERFORMED RESPONSIBLE AND ALL IMPORTA NT SERVICES OF ACTING AS A MEDIATOR FOR HIS ASSOCIATION. AGAIN THE RESOLUTION IS UNDATED AND DOES NOT BEARS ANY DATE WHICH CASTS SERIOUS DOUBTS ON VERACI TY OF THE DOCUMENT PER SE. AN EQUALLY IMPORTANT ASPECT NOTED IN THE CASE IS NO N RECEIPT OF COMMISSION BY THE APPELLANT FROM SNOA. HAD APPELLANT ACTUALLY BEE N A MEDIATOR THEN HE SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED COMMISSION FROM SNOA WHICH IN THAT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND DEBITED TO THE BOOKS OF SNOA PRODUCED DU RING PROCEEDINGS. TO WRIGGLE OUT OF THIS SITUATION THE APPELLANT SUBMITT ED THAT BECAUSE SNOA DECIDED TO SCRAP THE PROJECT FOR WHICH A LAND WAS A CQUIRED HE WAS NEVER PAID THE COMMISSION. TO BEGIN WITH NO EVIDENCE REGARDING THIS DECISION OF SNOA HAS BEEN PRODUCED. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE SAME, T HE APPELLANTS RIGHT TO RECEIVE COMMISSION FROM SNOA WAS ALWAYS THERE BECAU SE ALLEGEDLY HE HAD RENDERED THE SERVICES OF A MEDIATOR TO THE EXTENT O F METICULOUSLY RECORDING ALL THE ENTRIES OF PAYMENTS IN HIS DIARY AND HENCE SNOA S DECISION TO SCRAP THE PROJECT CANNOT HAVE ANY RELATION WITH NON PAYMENT O F MEDIATOR CHARGES TO APPELLANT. THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCES THUS POINT TOWAR DS THE ONLY CONCLUSION THAT THE RESOLUTION RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT A GE NUINE DOCUMENT AND IS ACTUALLY AN AFTERTHOUGHT CONCEIVED AFTER THE CONDUCT OF SEARCH SOLELY WITH THE INTENTION OF ADDING CREDENCE TO THE THEORY OF APPELLANT BEING JUST A MEDIATOR AND THUS AVOIDING TAXATION. THE APPELLANT RELIANCE UPON THE BANAKHATS IS ALSO MISPLACED. IN THIS CASE, THE AO H AD REQUESTED TO PRODUCE IT(SS)A NO.618/AHD/2012 BHARAT V. PATEL VS. ACIT, AHMEDABAD. - 10 - THE ORIGINAL BANAKHATS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DONE BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS PRIMARILY ARGUED THAT THE SAME ARE RE GISTERED AND HENCE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS. THE APPELLANT IS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE ALL THE DOCUMENTS REQUESTED DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS. IN CASE THE SAID BANAKHATS WERE AS STATED EXECUTED THEN THE APPELLANT SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY HES ITATION IN PRODUCING THE ORIGINAL THEREOF. IT IS FURTHER INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT THE PARTIES IN THE BANAKHAT WHO HAVE APPARENTLY SOLD THEIR LAND TO SNO A WERE NEVER PRODUCED DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS SO FAR. IF THE APP ELLANT IS CONFIDENT THAT HE WAS JUST A MEDIATOR THEN HE OUGHT TO HAVE PRODUCED THE PARTIES INDICATED IN BANAKHATS TO VINDICATE HIS STATEMENT THAT HE WAS JU ST A MEDIATOR BETWEEN THE SAID LAND SELLING PARTIES AND SNOA. IT IS PERTINENT TO POINT OUT THAT THE BURDEN OF RESPONSIBILITY U/S. 132(4) IS UPON THE APPELLANT . COMING TO THE ISSUE OF MATCHING OF FIGURES APPEARING IN THE DIARY WITH THE AMOUNTS INDICATED IN BANAKHAT AND BOOKS OF SNOA, IT IS SEEN THAT THE SAM E IS ALSO PLAGUED WITH DEFICIENCIES AND SHORTCOMINGS. THE APPELLANT HAS AT TEMPTED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME BUT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SAME AS I N THE CASE OF JAYANTIIAL, RASIKLAL KESHAVLAL, ETC WITH ANY COGENT EVIDENCE. T HE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT ALL THE ENTRIES IN THE DIARY MATCH W ITH THOSE IN BANAKHAT AND BOOKS OF SNOA THEREFORE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. ANOTHER ARGUMENT TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE SEARCH IN HIS CASE HAS NOT YI ELDED ANY ASSET AND HENCE THIS ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE. THE POSSIBLE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN SUPPORTED BY SOME UNACCOUNTED ASSETS WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. THE ARGUMENT TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT IS UNACCEPTABLE SINCE THE ME RE FACT THAT NO WORTHWHILE ASSET WAS DISCOVERED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH DOES NOT MEANS THAT INCOME NOTED FROM THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS CANNOT BE TAXED AS UNDISC LOSED INCOME. THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN AN ARGUMENT THAT THE A O HAS NO T MADE ANY RESPECT OF CHEQUE ENTRIES INDICATED IN THE DIARY AND HAS TOUCH ED ONLY THE CASH PART AND THAT THE CHEQUES HAVE BEEN TRACED TO THE BANK ACCOU NT OF SNOA. IT HAS BEEN ARGUED THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THIS KIND OF DICHOTOMY WHERE CHEQUES HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AS GENUINE AND CASH AS INGENUINE. THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT IS UNTENABLE AS THE CHEQUES ARE AMOUNTS O F MONIES WHICH ARE ROUTED THROUGH THE ESTABLISHED BANKING CHANNEL. THE CASH COMPONENT HAS HOT BEEN SUBSTANTIATED WITH THE CLEAR EVIDENCE AND HENC E THE SAME HAS BEEN ADDED BY THE AO NO APPARENT INFIRMITY HAS BEEN NOTE D IN THE ACTION OF THE AO. 4.1 IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSIONS MADE IN THE PRECEDIN G PARAGRAPHS, IT IS HELD THAT THE ACTION OF THE ID. A.O. IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.1,0L,04,887/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AS HIS UNDISCLOSED IN COME EARNED DURING THE BLOCK PERIOD IS BASED UPON CORRECT INTERPRETATION O F THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ACCOMPANYING EVIDENCES AND NO INTERFERENCE IS REQUI RED TO BE MADE AT THIS STAGE. CONSEQUENTLY THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS. 1.01,04.887/- IS CONFIRMED AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BEARING NO. 1, 2 & 3 ARE DISMISSED. 5. CHALLENGING THE FINDINGS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORIT IES, FROM THE SIDE OF THE APPELLANT, LEARNED AR, MR. P.M. PATEL APPEAR ED. HE HAS PLEADED IT(SS)A NO.618/AHD/2012 BHARAT V. PATEL VS. ACIT, AHMEDABAD. - 11 - THAT SHREEJI NAROL OWNERS ASSOCIATION (SNOA) WANTED TO DEVELOP A HOUSING PROJECT FOR WHICH LAND WAS REQUIRED TO BE P URCHASED FROM SEVERAL LAND OWNERS. HE HAS REFERRED A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SNOA HELD ON 15.05.1997 IT WAS RESOLVED THAT THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT WOULD ACT AS A MEDIATOR TO PROVIDE ADVISE ON LEGA L AND CONSTRUCTION MATTER AND FOR THAT SERVICES SHALL BE ENTITLED TO A REMUNERATION @ 0.50% OF THE TOTAL PROJECT AMOUNT INCLUDING THE COST OF L AND AND THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. IT WAS PROVIDED THAT THE REMUNERATION SHALL BE GIVEN ONLY AT THE END OF THE COMPLETION OF THE SCHEME. HOWEVER, I T WAS FOUND THAT THE SAID RESOLUTION WAS DATED NIL AND SIGNED BY THE SECRETARY, NAMELY, SRI RAMESH M. PATEL. LEARNED AR HAS ARGUED THAT BY EXEC UTION OF AGREEMENT OF SALE BANAKHATS THE SNOA HAS ACQUIRED FROM 21 F ARMERS. HE HAS PLEADED THAT IN VIEW OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS, IT WA S CLEAR THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY SNOA TO THE LAND OWNER. AGAIN, HE HAS REPEATED THAT TOO MATERIALIZE THE BILL THE ASSESSEE HAD WORKED ONLY AS A MEDIATOR. BECAUSE HE WAS A MEDIATOR, THEREFORE, HE HAS RECORDED THE TRANSACTION ON THE PAPER AS SEIZED AT THE TIME OF S EARCH. THE ENTRIES IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT HAD THEREFORE MATCHED WITH THE ENTR IES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF SNOA. HOWEVER, LATER ON SNOA DECIDED NO T TO DEVELOP THE RESIDENTIAL SCHEME, THEREFORE, THE LAND WHICH WAS A CQUIRED BY WAY OF BANAKHATS WAS SOLD BY THE ASSOCIATION. SINCE, THE SNOA DECIDED NOT TO DEVELOP THE RESIDENTIAL SCHEME, THEREFORE, THE BANA KHATS WHICH WERE EXECUTED WERE NOT CONVERTED INTO REGISTERED SALE DE ED AND THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS FURTHER TRANSFERRED ALSO THROUGH BANA KHATS BY THE ASSOCIATION. LEARNED AR HAS PLACED BEFORE US FEW CH ARTS DESCRIBING THE NATURE OF THE PAYMENT. IN ONE CHART, LEARNED AR HAS TRIED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE AMOUNT APPEARED IN THE SEIZED DIARY HAD MA TCHED WITH THE AMOUNTS APPEARED IN THE BOOKS OF SNOA. HIS ATTEMPT IS TO PROVE THAT THE IT(SS)A NO.618/AHD/2012 BHARAT V. PATEL VS. ACIT, AHMEDABAD. - 12 - CHEQUES WERE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE LAND OWNERS, W ERE IN FACT THE CHEQUES ISSUED BY SNOA AND NOT BY THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT ALTHOUGH SOME CHEQUE AMOUNTS WERE NOTED IN THE DIARY BUT THAT WAS NOT ADDED BY THE AO WHICH WERE AMOUNTING T O RS.24,73,161/-, AS PER THE STATEMENT ON PAGES 24 AND 25 OF THE PAPE R BOOK. IF THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE CHEQUE AMOUNTS WERE THE EXP LAINED AMOUNT; HENCE, NOT TO BE ADDED THEN IT WAS VERY MUCH OBVIOU S THAT THE CHEQUE PAYMENTS BEING MADE FROM THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE A SSOCIATION WAS NOT TO BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEN LEAR NED AR HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON A LONG LIST OF THE BANAKHATS AS APPE ARED FROM PAGES 31 TO 37 OF PAPER BOOK-1 TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE BANAKHAT S WERE DULY REGISTERED AND IN THE SAID REGISTERED DOCUMENTS THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION WAS DULY MENTIONED. HENCE, HIS ARGUME NT IS THAT THE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THE BANAKHATS AND THE NAMES OF THE FIRMS HAD DULY APPEARED IN THE BOOKS OF SNOA AS PER LEDGER ACCOUNT OF EACH PERSON, THEREFORE, THE SAME WAS WRONGLY TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS STATED THAT MERELY 55 CHEQUES WERE ISSUED BY SN OA TO VARIOUS LAND OWNERS. THE ASSOCIATION HAS MENTIONED AN INDEPENDEN T BANK ACCOUNT WITH SAURASHTRA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING HIS BANK ACCOUNT WITH SARASPUR NAGRIK C O-OPERATIVE BANK. THERE WAS NO TRACE OF CHEQUES ISSUED FROM BANK ACCO UNT OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN, THE SECRETARY OF THE SNOA APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND MADE A STATEMENT ON OATH IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSEE. HE HA S CONFIRMED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MERELY A MEDIATOR. LEARNED AR HAS ALSO FILED A SEPARATE BILL BOOK NO.2 CONTAINING THE PHOTOCOPY AND BANAKHATS IN GUJARAT LANGUAGE ALONGWITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. HE HAS PLEADED THAT PARTY OF THE SECOND PART WAS NOTED AS PRESIDENT OF SNOA AND SECRETARY O F SNOA. LEARNED AR HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON SEVERAL DECISIONS MA INLY ON THE LEGAL IT(SS)A NO.618/AHD/2012 BHARAT V. PATEL VS. ACIT, AHMEDABAD. - 13 - PROPOSITION THAT THE PRIMARY ONUS WAS DISCHARGED AN D IN A SITUATION WHEN THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS NOT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE BUT BY SNOA THEN IT WAS NOT JUSTIFIABLE TO PRESUME THAT THE IMPUGNED AM OUNT WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LEARNED D.R., MR. T.P. KRISHNA KUMAR APPEARED. HE HAS OBJECTED THE MANNER IN WHICH THE PAPER BOOKS HAVE BEEN FILED AT THE STAGE OF SECOND APPEAL. HE H AS CONTESTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED OPPORTUNITY TO FILE THOSE DOCU MENTS BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) BY REMANDING THE MATTER BACK BY THE RESPECTE D TRIBUNAL BUT EVEN THEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CO-OPERATED BEFORE L EARNED CIT(A). LEARNED DR HAS ALSO SHOWN US THE SAID SMALL DIARY T O DEMONSTRATE THAT IT WAS WRITTEN IN THE HANDWRITING OF THE ASSESSEE IN A CODED LANGUAGE. BY THE VERY FACT THAT THE DIARY WAS WRITTEN IN A CODED LANGUAGE; HENCE IT WAS A SECRET DOCUMENT THROUGH WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD TR IED TO CONCEAL THE PARTICULARS OF THE TRANSACTION. BUT IT WAS UNEARTHE D CONSEQUENCE UPON THE SEARCH. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A MEDIATOR BUT FULLY I NVOLVED IN THE LAND DEAL. THE ADMITTED FACTUAL POSITION WAS THAT NO COM MISSION WAS PAID TO THE ASSESSEE ALTHOUGH THE TRANSACTION WAS COMPLETED THROUGH REGISTERED SALE DEED AND THE ASSOCIATION GOT THE LAND IN QUEST ION. SO, IT WAS PROVED BEYOND DOUBT THAT HE WAS NOT A MEDIATOR; THEREFORE, HE HAS NOT RECEIVED THE AGREED 0.50% COMMISSION. ACCORDING TO LEARNED D R, SNOA DID NOT COME INTO THE PICTURE AT ALL. THE COMPONENT OF THE CASH AS PER THE DIARY WAS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE, HENCE RIGHTLY TA XED. MOREOVER THE CASH COMPONENT HAS NOT MATCHED WITH THE FIGURES NOTED IN THE BOOKS OF SNOA. HE HAS ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON TWO STATEM ENTS, NAMELY, MS. LALITABEN AND MS. SANTIBEN HAVING DISCREPANCY IN TH EIR RESPECTIVE ACCOUNTS. THE BENCH HAS PUT FEW QUESTIONS THAT WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE IT(SS)A NO.618/AHD/2012 BHARAT V. PATEL VS. ACIT, AHMEDABAD. - 14 - CASE OF SNOA AND WHETHER IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS THE AO HAS GIVEN A CONCLUSION THAT THE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE DIRECTLY HAN DLED BY THE MANAGER/SECRETARY OF SNOA? TO THIS QUESTION, LEARNE D DR HAS SUGGESTED THAT THE SAID ASPECT OF THE INVOLVEMENT OF SNOA CAN STILL BE INVESTIGATED IF SO DIRECTED BY THE RESPECTED BENCH. LEARNED DR H AS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON A JUDGMENT FOR THE LEGAL PROPOSITION TH AT IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132(4A), THE DIARY BEING SEIZ ED FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE THEN HE WAS UNDER OBLIGA TION TO EXPLAIN EACH AND EVERY ENTRY. THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNCOOPERATIV E; HENCE FAIL TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE HAVE PER USED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS THAT SNOA WANTED TO DEVELOP A HOUSING SCHEME FOR WHICH L AND WAS PURCHASED FROM SEVERAL LAND OWNERS. ABOUT 28,500 SQ . YARD OF LAND WAS TRANSACTED AND ALLEGED THAT SNOA HAD ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND FROM DIFFERENT LAND OWNERS. SO, TH E QUESTION IS THAT WHETHER THE TRANSACTIONS AS APPEARED IN THE SEIZED DIARY WERE IN FACT THE TRANSACTION OF SNOA OR THOSE TRANSACTIONS BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEES VEHEMENT CONTENTION IS THAT THE ENTRIES PASSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF SNOA. TO COUNTER SUCH ASSERTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE, IN OUR HUMBLE OPINION IT WAS EXPECTED FROM THE AO T O EXAMINE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF SNOA; TO SEE WHETHER THERE WAS SUFFI CIENT CASH IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BEFORE MAKING AN EXPENDITURE IN C ASH OR THROUGH CHEQUE. SUCH DETAILS ARE NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. T HERE ARE FEW QUESTIONS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN ANSWERED EITHER BY THE AO OR BY LEARNED CIT(A). WE THEREFORE DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE B ACK TO THE STAGE OF THE AO SO THAT THOSE DISCREPANCIES CAN BE REMOVED. IT(SS)A NO.618/AHD/2012 BHARAT V. PATEL VS. ACIT, AHMEDABAD. - 15 - 7.1 WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SOME OF THE VITAL QUEST IONS ARE YET TO BE ANSWERED WITH THE SUPPORT OF EVIDENCES, LISTED BELO W: (A) THE AO HAS TO GIVE A CONCLUSIVE FINDING ABOUT T HE POSITION OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS. THE AO IS REQUIRED TO EXAMINE THE SAURASHTRA CO-OPERATIVE LTD. AS WELL AS THE SARASPU R NAGRIK CO- OPERATIVE BANK LTD. HE HAS TO VERIFY THE PERSONS OP ERATING THE BANK ACCOUNTS. THE AO IS ALSO REQUIRED TO VERIFY TH E SIGNATORIES OF THE CHEQUES WHETHER ISSUED BY THE ASSOCIATION OR BY THE ASSESSEE. (B) ON EXAMINATION OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF BA NAKHATS, WE HAVE FOUND THAT ONLY THE SIGNATURE OF THE PARTY OF THE FIRST PART, I.E., THE NAME OF THE LAND OWNERS WAS MENTIONED, BUT THER E WAS NO MENTION OF THE PARTY OF THE SECOND PART, I.E., SNOA . ALTHOUGH, IN THE PREAMBLE OF THE BANAKHATS, IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE PARTY OF THE SECOND PART IS THE PRESIDENT AS WELL AS SECRETARY O F THE ASSOCIATION, BUT THERE WAS NO SIGNATURE OF THOSE PERSONS. IN THI S REGARD, THE EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESSES IN THE BANAKHATS SHALL ALSO PROVE BENEFICIAL TO ARRIVE AT THE RIGHT CONCLUSION. IF TH E BANAKHATS ARE THE REGISTERED DOCUMENTS THEN WHETHER THE REGISTRATION EXPENDITURE WAS DULY DEBITED IN THE BOOKS OF SNOA. WHETHER IT W AS SHOWN AS PURCHASED BY THE ASSOCIATION? WE HAVE ALSO FOUND TH AT THE ORIGINAL BANAKHATS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO. WE THERE FORE DEEM IT PROPER TO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL BANAKHATS TO THE AO SO THAT HE CAN EXAMINE THE NATURE OF THE DOC UMENT AND THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM THAT THOSE WERE DULY REGIS TERED DOCUMENTS. (C) THE APPELLANT HAS PLACED BEFORE US FEW EXHAUST IVE CHARTS BUT AT THE STAGE OF SECOND APPEAL IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO MATCH THE FIGURES OF THE CHART WITH THE CONTENTS OF THE DIARY ALONG W ITH THE ACCOUNTS IT(SS)A NO.618/AHD/2012 BHARAT V. PATEL VS. ACIT, AHMEDABAD. - 16 - OF SNOA. IN THIS CONNECTION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THA T THE AO IS THE BEST PERSON TO VERIFY AND MATCH THE CHEQUE AMOUNT A S WELL AS THE CASH AMOUNT AS NOTED IN THE DIARY WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF SNOA, AS ALLEGEDLY EXPLAINED THROUGH THESE CHARTS. IF THE SEIZED DIARY WAS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF T HE SNOA FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECORDING THE TRANSACTION MEDIATED T HROUGH HIM, THEN THE CONTENTS OF THE DIARY SHOULD MATCH WITH TH E CONTENTS OF THE ENTRIES MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF SNOA. (D) FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LEARNED DR HAS DO UBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF SNOA AND PL EADED THAT IT WAS NOTHING BUT AN AFTERTHOUGHT TO PLACE BEFORE THE AO A COMPUTER GENERATED OF SNOA. BUT ACCORDING TO US SUCH WRINKLE S CAN ALSO BE IRONED OUT BY EXAMINING THE DATE ON WHICH THE ACCOU NTS WERE WRITTEN IN THE COMPUTER. WE HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE AO TO EXAMINE THE DATES ON WHICH THE ACCOUNTS OF SNOA WERE WRITTE N IN THE COMPUTER. WE ALSO AUTHORIZE AO TO EXAMINE THE AVAI LABILITY OF CASH IN THE BOOKS AS WELL AS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SNOA FOR MAKING THE PAYMENT TO LAND OWNERS. (E) BEFORE US AN ARGUMENT HAS BEEN RAISED THAT THE CHEQUES WERE ISSUED BY THE SNOA AND NOT BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS FA CT CAN ALSO BE VERIFIED BY AO BY EXAMINING THE SIGNATORIES OF THE CHEQUES. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY DIRECT TO CO-OPERATE WITH THE INVESTIGATION. (F) IN RESPECT OF THE PLEA OF NON PAYMENT OF COMMIS SION AS RESOLVED THROUGH A RESOLUTION DATED 15.05.1997, RES OLVED TO BE PAID TO THE ASSESSEE, THE REASON GIVEN WAS THAT THE PROJ ECT/SCHEME OF CONSTRUCTION OF SHREEJI BUNGALOWS WAS SCRAPPED AND THE LAND WHICH WAS PURCHASED THROUGH BANAKHATS FROM THE LAND OWNERS WAS IT(SS)A NO.618/AHD/2012 BHARAT V. PATEL VS. ACIT, AHMEDABAD. - 17 - SOLD AS SUCH. IF THAT WAS THE FACTUAL POSITION THAT THE TOTAL LAND ADMEASURING 25800 SQ. YARDS, CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN P URCHASED BY SNOA THROUGH BANAKHATS WAS SOLD AS SUCH, THAT TOO T HROUGH BANAKHATS, THEN NATURALLY AN ACCOUNT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED BY SNOA. WE HEREBY DIRECT TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF LAND, SO THAT THE AO CAN DETER MINE THE AMOUNT OF PROFIT/LOSS ON THE IMPUGNED LAND TRANSACT ION AND TO SEE WHETHER RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF SNOA. THE ABOVE NOTED QUERIES CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST AND THE AO, THEREFORE, IN HIS DISCR ETION CAN RAISE ALLIED QUESTION TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PAYMENT WAS NOT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BUT BY SNOA. WE ARE AL SO CAUTIOUS ABOUT THE FACT THAT ONCE THIS VERY ISSUE WAS RESTOR ED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BUT AT THAT TIME THERE WAS AN APPARENT DENIAL OF OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AS P RESCRIBED UNDER RULE 46-A BY LEARNED CIT(A). ONLY ON THAT GROUND TH E MATTER WAS RESTORED BACK. BUT NOW THE SITUATION IS THAT EVEN A FTER THE PERUSAL OF THE REMAND REPORT THE QUESTIONS/DOUBTS AS RAISED HEREINABOVE COULD NOT BE REMOVED. THEREFORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AS ALSO CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS IT IS NOT ONLY NE CESSARY BUT ALSO JUSTIFIABLE TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE STAGE OF INVESTIGATION, I.E., THE ASSESSMENT STAGE SO THAT THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE BOTH CAN GO UPTO THE HILT OF THE FACTS AND THEREUPON CAN ARRIVE AT THE CORRECT CONCLUSION. IN VIEW OF THE AB OVE DISCUSSION THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE TREATED AS ALLOW ED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. IT(SS)A NO.618/AHD/2012 BHARAT V. PATEL VS. ACIT, AHMEDABAD. - 18 - 8. GROUND NO.5 IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 5. THOUGH HONORABLE ITAT REMANDED IMPUGNED APPEA L TO THE FILE OF CIT(APPEALS). THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTI FIED FOR NOT ADJUDICATING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: A. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S)- 1, AHMEDABAD IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.17,05,000/- CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WITHOUT APPRECIATING SOURCE OF INCOME I.E. AGRICULTURE INCOME AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ACCOUNTS OF APPELLANT FORM 'SHIVAN FARM' IN WHICH THE APPELLANT IS A CO-OWNER.. B. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S)-I, HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING POINTS REGARDING AN AGRICULTURE INCOME AND CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK IN REGULAR ASSESSMENT VIS-A-VIS BLOCK ASSESSMENT AS IT IS SETTLED BY VARIOUS COURTS WITHOUT ANY DOUBT THAT BOTH ASSESSMENTS ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT. C. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S)-I IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.76000/- SO CALLED INVESTM ENT MADE IN SHIVSHAKTI CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD. WITHOUT APPRECIATING FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF PREPARATION RECEIPTS FOUND FROM VAIKUNTH PREMISES A ND APPLICATION OF PROVISION OF SECTION 132(4A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. D. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S)-I IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.12660/- RETURNED INCO ME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 ON INCORRECT INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 158BB(L)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 9. IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.17,05,000/-, IT WAS NOTED BY THE AO AT THE TIME OF SEARCH THAT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAI NED THERE WERE SEVERAL DEPOSITS ON VARIOUS DATES. THE AO HAD MADE A CHART IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER GIVING THE NAME OF THE BANK, THE ACCOUNT NUMB ER ETC. AS PER THE DATE-WISE DETAILS OF AN ACCOUNT OF MR. BHARAT V. PA TEL, THE APPELLANT, SEVERAL DEPOSITS TOTALING RS.17,05,000/- WAS MADE D URING THE BLOCK PERIOD. THE MAIN EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TH AT THE DEPOSITS REPRESENTED AGRICULTURE INCOME, FROM SHIVAM FARM . THE AO HAS HELD THAT THERE WAS NO PROPER EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF THE AGRICULTURE INCOME. SINCE, IT BELONGS TO SEVERAL YEARS THEN AS PER AO T HERE WAS NO CASH FLOW IN RESPECT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE; HENCE, I T WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. REQUISITE I NFORMATION AND SUPPORTING BILLS ESTABLISHING THE AGRICULTURE PRODU CE WAS NOT PLACED IT(SS)A NO.618/AHD/2012 BHARAT V. PATEL VS. ACIT, AHMEDABAD. - 19 - BEFORE THE AO. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE AGRICULTURE BI LLS TO THE EXTENT OF ONLY RS.3,92,060/- WERE PRODUCED. 10. WHEN THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.17,05,000/- WA S CHALLENGED, IN THE SECOND ROUND OF APPEAL, IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE D IRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH DIRECTION IN RESPECT OF IMPUGNED ADDITION BY THE RESPECTED ITAT; HENCE, HE HAS OPINED THAT IN RESPECTFUL COMPLIANCE OF THE ORDER O F THE TRIBUNAL NO ADJUDICATION WAS REQUIRED. 11. AFTER HEARING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE EXACT DETAILS OF THE AGRICULTURE HOLDING AND THE INCOME EARNED THERE FROM. IT WAS NECESSARY ON T HE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO PLACE ON RECORD THE AREA/MEASUREMENT OF THE AGRI CULTURE HOLDING DULY SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE. ASSESSEE WAS ALSO REQUIR ED TO SHOW AGRICULTURE CROP PRODUCED. BE THAT AS IT WAS. IN AN Y CASE, TO SETTLE THE ISSUE WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED BILLS OF RS.3,92,060/- DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS MENT IONED IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH (UNNUMBERED) ON PAGE 12 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. TO THIS EXTENT ONLY A RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED. SINCE, THE ASS ESSEE HAD PRODUCED EVIDENCE TO THIS EXTENT CONFIRMING THE AGRICULTURE INCOME, THEREFORE, WE HEREBY DIRECT TO REDUCE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION BY TH IS AMOUNT AND REST OF THE AMOUNT IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. THIS PART OF THE GR OUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 11 .1 THE NEXT GROUND IS IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS. 76,000/- WHICH WAS SHOWN AS INVESTMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF VISA. THE AO HAS HELD THAT IT WAS IT(SS)A NO.618/AHD/2012 BHARAT V. PATEL VS. ACIT, AHMEDABAD. - 20 - AN UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT; HENCE, TAXED RS.76,000/- IN THE HAND OF THE ASSESSEE. 11.2 HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. A DEPOSIT MADE FOR THE P URPOSE OF OBTAINING VISA CANNOT BE TERMED AS AN INVESTMENT. A VISA MAY OR MAY NOT BE GRANTED, THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION APPEARS TO BE AN EXPENDITURE AND NOT AN INVESTMENT. SINCE, UNDISCLOSED INCOME HA S ALREADY BEEN TAXED COMING OUT OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL, THEREFORE, THE I MPUGNED EXPENDITURE FOR OBTAINING VISA CAN BE SET-OFF AGAINST THAT INCO ME; HENCE, NO ADDITION IS REQUIRED. ASSIGNING THESE REASON, WE HEREBY DIRE CT TO DELETE THE ADDITION. THIS PART OF THE GROUND IS ALLOWED. 11.3 NEXT PART OF THIS GROUND IN RESPECT OF ADDITIO N OF RS.12,660/- WHICH WAS DISCLOSED AS AN UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE RETURN FILED IN COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICE AFTER THE SEARCH OPERATION . WE FIND NO FALLACY IN THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO BECAUSE WHILE COMPUTING TH E INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD SUCH AN INCOME IS REQUIRED TO BE TAXED UNDER THE SPECIAL PROVISION OF IT ACT. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION IS HER EBY CONFIRMED. RESULTANTLY, GROUND NO.5 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. SD/- SD/- (N.S. SAINI) ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUD ICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 30/06/2014 PRABHAT KR. KESARWANI, SR. P.S. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT IT(SS)A NO.618/AHD/2012 BHARAT V. PATEL VS. ACIT, AHMEDABAD. - 21 - 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD