The ACIT, 1(2), Bhopal V. M/s. Hare Krishna Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal

ITSSA 70/IND/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7794 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 21-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 18-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARUN DEWAN
• Assessee Lawyers: H P VERMA; GIRISH AGARWAL S
• Keywords: Depreciation; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Competent authority; Reason to believe
• Section: 44AD; 153A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, J.M. AND SHRI R.C.SHARM A, A.M. PAN NO. : AAACH9189G I.T. (SS). A.NO S . 62 TO 66 / IND /20 10 AND 74 & 75/IND/2010 A.Y S . : 2000 - 01 TO 2004 - 05 & 2006 - 07, 2003 - 04 & 2005 - 06 M/S.HARE KRISHNA COLONIZERS PVT.LTD., ACIT, E - 5/137, ARERA COLONY, VS 1(2), BHOPAL. BHOPAL APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN NO. : AAACH9189G I.T.(SS).A.NOS. 67 TO 73/IND/2010 A.Y S . : 2000 - 01 TO 2006 - 07 ACIT, M/S.HARE KRISHNA COLONIZERS PVT.LTD., 1(2), VS E - 5/137, ARERA COLONY, BHOPAL BHOPAL. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI H.P.VERMA AND SHRI GIRISH AGARWAL, ADVOCATES DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI ARUN DEWAN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 20 . 12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31 . 01 .201 2 -: 2: - 2 O R D E R PER R. C. SHARMA, A.M. THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2000-01 TO 2006-07. 2. COMMON GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE IN ALL THE YEARS RELATES TO THE NET PROFIT RATE APPLIED BY THE CIT(A) AT 6.5 % AS AGAINST NET PROFIT RATE OF 4.7 % SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 ARE AS UNDER :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT ILLEGAL, INVALID AND UNTENABLE IN LAW. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT ACCEPTING T HE BOOKS RESULT AND IN APPLYING THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 6.5 % AS AGAINST THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 0.93 % SHOW N BY THE APPELLANT. -: 3: - 3 4. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORDS PERU SED. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPAN Y DOING WORK OF CONSTRUCTION UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/ S. HARE KRISHNA COLONIZERS PVT.LTD. THERE WAS SEARCH AT THE PLACE OF SOME OF THE PERSONS, WHO HAPPENED TO BE DIRECTORS O F THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. AS THERE WAS NO SEARCH AT ASSESSE E COMPANY, ACTION U/S 153C WAS TAKEN IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 TO 2 006- 07. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DEALS IN REAL ESTATE AND AS A DEVELOPER AND BUILDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SIMPLY FURNISHED PRINT OUT OF LEDGERS AND NO SPECIFIC DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE HIM. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER FURTHER STATED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SE ARCH, SHRI RAMNATH SHARMA, ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY ADMITTED THAT THE GROUP WAS EARNING UNACCOUNTED MON EY ON PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY BY RECEIVING AND M AKING PAYMENT OF ON MONEY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED -: 4: - 4 THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD SHOWN LOW GROSS PROFI T BY POINTING OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED TH E REQUIRED DETAILED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED B OOK RESULT AND APPLIED GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 25 % OF THE TURNOV ER SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR. THUS, TRAD ING ADDITION WAS MADE IN EACH OF THE YEAR. IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COM PANY HAD MAINTAINED REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH WERE DULY AUDITED AND THE RETURNS WERE FILED ON THE BASIS OF THE AUDI TED ACCOUNTS. ALL THE SALES, PURCHASES AND EXPENSES WERE SUPPORTE D BY VOUCHERS. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AP PELLANT HAD PRODUCED ACCOUNT BOOKS AND HAD ALSO FURNISHED PHOTO COPY OF LEDGERS BEFORE THE AO AND THE LD. AO HAD NOT POINTE D OUT ANY DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE AR OF THE APPE LLANT ALSO SUBMITTED (I) THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOUND EVEN DURING THE SEARCH, WHICH MAY INDICATE THAT THE APPELLANT RECEI VED ANY 'ON MONEY' IN ANY TRANSACTION OF SALE OR PURCHASE OR TH AT THE APPELLANT ENTERED INTO ANY TRANSACTIONS, WHICH WERE NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, (II) THAT TH E G.P. SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT WAS THE ACTUAL GP EARNED BY THE APPEL LANT, WHICH -: 5: - 5 WAS BETWEEN 10 % TO I5 % IN THE DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THAT IT WAS NOT LOW AND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT CITED ANY COMPARABLE CASE, WHERE ANY BUILDER HAD SHOWN TH E GP AS HIGH AS 25 % ; AND (III) THAT DECLARATION MADE BY ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF RS.1.83 CRORES C OULD NOT HAVE ANY ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE GENUINENESS OF ACCOUNT BO OKS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT ON THE CONTRARY SINCE THE ADDITIONAL INCOME HAD BEEN DECLARED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY AND ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY, THE BOOK RESULTS OF THE COMPANY SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED. THUS, IT WAS ARGUED THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE AO TO INVOKE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 145(3) OF THE ACT AND TO REJECT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FO R THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF BUILDERS, IT IS UNUSUAL FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO AP PLY THE GP RATE, WHERE USUALLY THE N.P. RATE IS APPLIED IF THE ACCOUNT BOOKS ARE REJECTED. HE SUBMITTED AS AN ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT THAT EVEN IF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE REJE CTED, THE APPLICATION OF GP RATE OF 25 % IS TOO UNREASONABLE. HE REFERRED TO THE ORDER OF ITA T AGRA BENCH IN THE CA SE OF DASS -: 6: - 6 BUILDERS (P) LTD. VS. DCIT (2004) 88 TTJ (AGRA) 651, WHEREIN N.P. RATE OF 4 % ON THE DECLARED SALES IS APPLIED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS OF SAID CASE ARE IDENTICAL WITH THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. THUS, THE AR OF THE APPELLANT REQUESTED THAT THE BOOK RESULTS OF THE AP PELLANT BE ACCEPTED OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE NP RATE OF 4 % BE APPLIED ON THE SALES IN PLACE OF GP RATE OF 25 % AP PLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . 5. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THA T IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WHO IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSIN ESS OF CONTRACTORS AND BUILDING CONSTRUCTIONS, NET PROFIT RATE ON THE SALES SHOULD BE APPLIED AFTER REJECTING THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT IN PLACE OF GROSS PROFIT RATES. GROSS PROFI T RATE IS GENERALLY APPLIED IN THE CASES OF CONCERNS DEALING MAINLY IN TRADING OF GOODS. MOREOVER, THE AO HAD APPLIED A GP RATE OF 25 % WHICH IS ON THE HIGHER SIDE. THE AR CONTENDED IN THE ALTERNATE ARGUMENT THAT NP RATE OF 4 % ON THE SALES MAY BE APPLIED, RELYING ON THE DECISIO N IN THE CASE OF DASS BUILDERS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT, (2004 ) 88 -: 7: - 7 TTJ (AGRA) 651. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT NP RATE DEPEND S ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE. I CAME ACROSS THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT INDORE BENCH IN APPEAL NO. 193 & 194/IND/2003 FOR A.Y. 1992-93 AND 1 994-95 DATED 1 9.08.2004 AND IN ITA NO. 884/IND/96 FOR A.Y. 1993-94 DATED 19.09.2002 IN THE CASE OF M/S SAV BUILDERS BHOPAL, VS. ACIT WHEREIN THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS ESTIM ATED THE NET PROFIT @ 6 %. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSE SSEE HAD SHOWN NP RATES IN DIFFERENT YEARS AS UNDER: A.Y. NET PROFIT RATE SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT 2000-01 0.93 % 2001-02 3.47 % 2002-03 0.76% 2003-04 1.26% 2004-05 4.6% 2005-06 6.15 % SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT PROVIDED FOR 8 % OF NET PRO FIT IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION WHERE GROSS RECEIPTS DOES NOT EXCEED A N AMOUNT OF FORTY. LAKHS RUPEES. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE GR OSS RECEIPTS IN ALL THE YEARS WERE MORE THAN FORTY LAKHS RUPEES AND, -: 8: - 8 HENCE, THE RATE OF 8 % OF NET PROFIT OF GROSS RECEI PTS CANNOT BE APPLIED. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCE OF THE CASE AND THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY ITSELF HAD SHOWN NET PROFIT RATE IN A.Y. 2005-06 AT 6.15 % ON THE SALES, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT IT WOULD BE FAIR AND REASONABLE IF NP RATE OF 6.5 % ON THE SALES IS APPLIED. AFTER APPLYING NET PROFI T AT 6.5 % ON THE SALES, THE ESTIMATION OF NP IN DIFFERENT A.YS W ERE WORKED OUT. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), BOTH ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. CONTENTION OF THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WA S THAT CONSIDERING SECTION 153C, IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 153C IS HARSH WITH RESPECT TO THE PERSON WHO HAS NOT BEEN SEARCHED AS ALSO ECHOED BY SUPREME COURT IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 158BD IN TH E CASE OF MANISH MAHESHWARI V. ASSTT. CIT [2007] 289 ITR 3 41. A PERSON AGAINST WHOM NO SEARCH WARRANT HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED SHOULD NOT BE EQUATED WITH THE PERSON AG AINST WHOM SEARCH IS AUTHORIZED SO AS TO MAKE ASSESSMENT IN HIS -: 9: - 9 CASE ALSO IN THE SAME MANNER AS IN THE CASE OF PERS ON SEARCHED AS PER PROVISION OF SECTION 153A. THERE AR E VITAL POINTS OF DISTINCTION IN BOTH THE CASES - (A) EXTENSIVE ENQUIRIES ARE CONDUCTED AND INFORMA TION IS COLLECTED BY HIGH RANKING DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS BE FORE FORMING 'REASON TO BELIEVE' REGARDING UNDISCLOSED INCOME AN D ISSUING SEARCH WARRANT AGAINST THE PERSON TO BE SEARCHED. N O 'REASON TO BELIEVE' REGARDING UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS FORMED AND RECORDED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO THE OTHER PERSON. TO MAKE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT OF SUCH OTHER PERSON MANDATORILY FOR SEVEN YEARS CANNOT BE JUSTIF IED ON THE GROUND OF PLAIN EQUITY. (B) NO OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN WHETHER ASSETS ARE DISCLOSED IN THE HANDS OF OTHER PERSON IS PROVIDED TO HIM DUR ING SEARCH BEFORE TAKING DECISION OF SEIZURE. THIRD PER SON CANNOT BE PUT IN A WORSE POSITION THAN THE PERSON SEARCHED. UNDER SUCH SITUATION, EVEN DISCLOSED ASSE TS BELONGING TO OTHER PERSON MAY BE SEIZED AND IN THAT CASE INVOKING PROVISION OF SECTION 153C CAN NOT BE THE -: 10: - 10 INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE. THE PROVISION OF SECTION 153C NEEDS TO BE READ DOWN IN A MANNER SO AS TO ACHIEVE THE ACTUAL LEGISLATIVE INTE NT. THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISION OF THIS SEC TION NEEDS TO BE TONED DOWN SO THAT THERE ARE NO UNINTENDED SEVER E REPERCUSSIONS ON THE THIRD PERSON. 8. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE POWERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 153C ARE NOT UNBRIDLED BUT ARE LOADED W ITH SEVERAL RESTRICTIONS. IT IS ALSO ILLOGICAL THAT STRICT COND ITIONS SHOULD BE NECESSARY FOR A SEARCH AND CONSEQUENT ASSESSMENT U/ S 153A AND THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO RESTRICTIONS FOR THE AS SESSING OFFICER FOR THE ISSUE OF THE NOTICE AND ASSESSMENT U/S 153C IN THE CASE OF A THIRD PARTY, WHO HAS TO SUFFER THE SA ME HARSH CONSEQUENCES OF REASSESSMENT OF SIX PRECEDING ASSES SMENT YEARS. YOUR HONOUR WILL APPRECIATE THAT IN ORDER TO MAKE THE PROVISIONS LOGICAL, ENOUGH SAFEGUARDS TO PROTECT TH E INTERESTS OF THE INNOCENT ASSESSEE AND SEVERAL RESTRICTIONS O N THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE PROVIDED IN THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 153C AND THAT UNLESS SOME INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS BELONG INGS TO THE THIRD PARTY ARE SEIZED, NO ACTION IN A CASUAL M ANNER CAN BE -: 11: - 11 TAKEN AGAINST A THIRD PARTY JUST TO MAKE THE ROVING ENQUIRES. THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS ALSO SUPPO RTED BY THE RECENT COURT DECISIONS AS UNDER:- 1. L.J.J. INTERNATIONAL LTD VS. DY. CIT, (2008) 119 TT J (KOL) 214. 2. S.R.BATLIBOI & CO. VS. CIT (INVESTIGATION), (2009) 181 TAXMAN 9 DELHI. NO ACTION WAS CALLED FOR U/S 153C IN THIS CASE. 9. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED BY THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, NO INCRIM INATING MATERIAL BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT SATISFYING ~HE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT ANY ESCAPED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE ABOVE SAID SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS H AS BEEN FOUND AND THE ID. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SIMPLY DIST URBED THE OLD ASSESSMENT AND HAS RE-ASSESSED THE INCOME U /S 153C BY APPLYING THE HIGHER G.P. RATE OF 25% WITHOU T -: 12: - 12 POINTING OUT ANY DEFECTS IN THE ALE BOOKS AS AGAINST THE G.P. SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT BETWEEN 8.48% TO 15.66% IN THE DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS ON THE BASIS OF DULY AUDITED ACCOUNTS BOOKS. ON THESE FACTS, WHEN THERE IS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL SEIZED AND NO SATISFACTION I S RECORDED, THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153C AND CONSEQUENT ASSESSMENT IS ILLEGAL. REGHUBAR MANDAI HARIHAR MANDAI VS STATE OF BIHAR 7 STC 770 SC : 'WHEN THE RETURNS AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE REJECTED, THE AO MUST MAKE AN ESTIMATE AND TO THAT EXTENT HE MUST MAKE AN ESTIMATE AND TO THAT EXTENT HE MUST MAKE A GUESS BUT THE ESTIMATE MUST BE RELATED TO SOME EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL , AND IT MUST BE SOMETHING MORE THAN MERE SUSPICION.' STATE OF ORISSA VS MAHARAJA SHRI B.P. SINGH DEO 76 ITR 690 SC : 'THE MERE FACT THAT THE MATERIAL PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITIES IS UNRELI ABLE DOES NOT EMPOWER THOSE AUTHORITIES TO MAKE AN ARBITRARY ORDER. THE POWER TO LEVY ASSESSMENT ON TH E -: 13: - 13 BASIS OF BEST JUDGMENT IS NOT AN ARBITRARY POWER; I T IS AN ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF BEST JUDGMENT. IN OTH ER WORDS, THE ASSESSMENT MUST BE BASED ON SOME RELEVANT MATERIAL. IT IS NOT A POWER THAT CAN BE EXERCISED UNDER THE SWEET WILL AND PLEASURE OF THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES. THE SCOPE OF THAT POWER HAS BEEN EXPLAINED OVER AND OVER AGAIN BY THIS COURT.' COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. LAXMINARAYAN BADRIDAS 51TR 170 PC : 'HE (THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY) MUST NOT ACT DISHONES TLY, OR VINDICTIVELY OR CAPRICIOUSLY BECAUSE HE MUST EXERCISE JUDGMENT IN THE MATTER. HE MUST MAKE WHAT HE HONESTLY BELIEVES TO BE A FAIR ESTIMATE OF THE P ROPER FIGURE OF ASSESSMENT, AND FOR THIS PURPOSE HE MUST, THEIR LORDSHIPS THINK, BE ABLE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION LOCAL KNOWLEDGE AND REPUTE IN REGARD TO THE ASSESSEE'S CIRCUMSTANCES, AND HIS OWN KNOWLEDGE OF PREVIOUS RETURNS BY AND ASSESSMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE, AND ALL OTHER MATTERS WHICH HE THINKS WIL L ASSIST HIM IN ARRIVING AT A FAIR AND PROPER ESTIMAT E; AND THOUGH THERE MUST NECESSARILY BE GUESS-WORK IN THE MATTER, IT MUST BE HONEST GUESSWORK. IN THAT SENSE, TOO, THE ASSESSMENT MUST BE TO SOME EXTENT ARBITRARY.' -: 14: - 14 CIT VS DR. M.K.E. MEMON 248 ITR 310 (BOM.) : THE SEARCH WAS CARRIED BUT IN DECEMBER 96 IN THE COURSE OF WHICH CERTAIN BOOKS WERE FOUND FOR THE PERIOD NOVEMBER 1993 TO DECEMBER 1996. THE AO MADE THE ADDITION FOR THE ENTIRE BLOCK PERIOD ON TH E BASIS OF SUCH BOOKS. THE COURT HELD THAT ADDITION COULD NOT BE MADE FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 1993. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AN D FOUND FROM RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS DEALING IN REAL ESTATE AND WAS DEVELOPING AND SELLI NG FLATS. HOWEVER, NO SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT AT ASSESS EE COMPANYS BUSINESS PREMISES, HOWEVER, ON THE BASIS OF SEARCH CARRIED OUT AT RESIDENCE OF SOME OF THE DIRECTORS/PARTNERS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FRAMED ASSESSMENT U/S 153C IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE COMPAN Y. AFTER POINTING OUT SOME DEFECTS IN THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND NET TRADING ACCOUNT BY APPLYING GROSS P ROFIT RATE OF 25 % AS AGAINST GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 10.3 % TO 15.66 % SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN DIFFERENT YEARS, -: 15: - 15 WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND WITHOUT REFERRING TO ANY SEIZ ED MATERIAL, DOCUMENTS/EVIDENCE. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT( A) HAS GIVEN PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYIN G NET PROFIT RATE OF 6.5 % AS AGAINST DIFFERENT NET PROFI T RATES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE NET ADDITION WAS RETAINED BY THE LD.CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATED NET PROFIT RATE APPLIED BY HIM. FROM THE RECORD, WE FOU ND THAT GROSS PROFIT RATE OF ASSESSEE HAS INCREASED AF TER EVERY YEAR AS THE DIRECTORS GAINED EXPERIENCE IN TH IS LINE OF BUSINESS. THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY A LSO KEPT ON INCREASING YEAR AFTER YEAR. FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01, THE SALES OF RS. 69.73 LAKHS WERE JUMPED T O RS. 1.32 CRORES IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 WITH INCREAS E FOR GROSS PROFIT FROM 10.3 % TO 14.99 % SHOWING THAT TH E DIRECT EXPENSES DECREASED FROM YEAR TO YEAR. NO MAJ OR DISCREPANCY WAS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, WHICH WAS MAINTAINED IN REGULAR COURSE OF COURSE BUSINESS AND DULY AUDITED ACCOUNTS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WERE OF THE VIE W THAT -: 16: - 16 THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT VALUED THE STOCK PROPERLY WHER EAS WE FOUND THAT THE STOCK WAS VALUED AT COST IN EACH OF THE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED QUANTITATIVE DETAI LS OF THE STOCK. THE QUANTITY OF STOCK WITH QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF PURCHASE AND SALES WERE ALSO SUBMITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE REPLY IN QUESTION NOS. 4 & 5 FOR EACH. AS PER THE REPLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, WHICH FOUND PLACED AT 34, 38, 43, 48,54 & 60 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WE FOUND THAT VOUCHERS WERE SUBMITT ED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS REMARKED THAT N O SUCH DETAILS WERE FURNISHED. WE FOUND THAT VARIATIO N IN THE NET PROFIT RATES WERE SHOWN BECAUSE OF INDIRECT EXPENSES, WHICH KEPT ON FLUCTUATING DEPENDING ON FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH YEAR. HOWEVER, GENUINENES S OF EXPENDITURE WERE NEVER DOUBTED NOR IT WAS CASE OF ASSESSING OFFICER THAT EXPENDITURE WERE NOT INCURRE D FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. MOST OF THE EXPENDITURE CONSISTED OF SALARY, CONVEYANCE, DEPRECIATION, BANK INTEREST, DIRECTORS REMUNERATION, LEGAL AND PROFESS IONAL -: 17: - 17 CHARGES AND OFFICE RENT. LOOKING TO THE QUANTUM ASSESSEES BUSINESS, THE AMOUNT OF INDIRECT EXPENDI TURE BY THE ASSESSEE AND DEBITED TO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT APPEARS TO BE REASONABLE AS AGAINST THE SALES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR :- A.Y. SALES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE G.P. RATE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE N.P. RATE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE 2000 - 01 6973010 10.3 % 0.93 % 2001 - 02 3441370 10.49 % ( - ) 3.47 % 2002 - 03 7591000 13.5 % 2.3 % 2003 - 04 56 60955 15.66% 1.26% 2004 - 05 9454625 13.05 % 4.6% 2005 - 06 13294800 14.99% 6.15% 11. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE S IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 TO 2006-07 RESPECTIV ELY AS PER DETAILS GIVEN BELOW :- -: 18: - 18 A.Y. 2000 - 01 A.Y. 2001-02 A.Y.2002-03 A.Y. 200304 A. Y. 2004 -05 A. Y. 2005-06 A. Y. 2006-07 NO. EXPENSES HEAD PB19 PB 31 PB 55 PB 81 PB 104 PB 132 PB 160 1. SALARY 1,16,000 73,500 1,51,200 1,61,500 1,63,300 2,27,000 2,46,000 2. CONVEYANCE 30,100 26,200 28,400 37,485 39,385 37,894 45,890 3. DEPRECIATION 63,984 64,028 47,700 76,231 80,865 1,28,953 1,09,190 4. BANK INTEREST 46,433 78,350 9,414 16,200 6,747 1,473 15,126 5. DIRECTORS 2,50,000 1,50,000 3,75,000 3,75,000 3,75,000 3,75,000 3,75,000 REMUNERATION 6. LEGAL & 5,000 42,244 52,356 45,700 12,600 2,65,026 13,555 PROFESSIONAL EXPO 7. OFFICE RENT - - - 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 8. TOTAL RS. 5,11,517 4,34,322 6,64,070 7,24,116 6,89,927 10,47,346 8,22,761 9. TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE L~ 6,51,228 5,41,968 8,54,283 7,83.891 7,71,626 11,78,776 10,49,743 EXP 10. PERCENTAGE 78.55% 80.1% 77.73% 92.37% 89.4% 88.85% 73.38% 12. THE VERIFIABLE EXPENSES WHICH ARE TO THE EXTENT OF FIXED IN NATURE, ALSO FOR ELEMENT OF VARIABILITY AS IS CLEAR FROM ABOVE TABLE ROW NO.10. AGAINST THESE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED NET PROFIT RATE OF 6.5 % AT CONSTANT AND FIXED RATE FOR ALL THE YEARS, WHICH IS NOT CORRECT. AS PER OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE DISALLOWANCE IF AT ALL HAS TO BE MADE, HAD TO BE MA DE AFTER CONSIDERING THE VERIFIABILITY OF THESE EXPENSES YEA R ON YEAR BASIS. AFTER VERIFYING THE COMPLETE DETAIL FILED BE FORE THE LOWER -: 19: - 19 AUTHORITIES, AS PER OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE DISALL OWANCE OF EXPENSES SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO THE FOLLOWING EXTE NT : - A.Y. A.Y. A.Y. A.Y. A.Y. A.Y. A.Y. NO. HEAD 2000-01 2001-02 200203 200304 2004-05 2005-06 200607 1. EXPENSES OTHER THAN MAJOR VERIFIABLE 1.39.711 1.07,646 1,90,213 59,775 81,699 1,31,400 2,26,982 EXPENSES. CHART - III, COLUMN (98) 13. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE MODIFY BOTH THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND DIRECT THAT ADDITIO N SHOULD BE RESTRICTED AS BELOW :- A.Y. A.Y. A.Y. A.Y. A.Y. A.Y. A.Y. NO. HEAD 2000-01 2001-02 200203 200304 2004-05 2005-06 200607 1. EXPENSES OTHER THAN MAJOR VERIFIABLE 1.39.711 1.07,646 1,90,213 59,775 81,699 1,31,400 2,26,982 EXPENSES. CHART - I II, COLUMN (98) 14. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 15. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN ONE MORE GROUND WITH REGARD TO ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF PLOT AT CHUNA BHATTI FOR RECONSI DERATION OF RS. 1,42,70,256/-. 16. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATIONS, AN AGREEMENT TO SELL BETWEEN TH E ASSESSEE AND SHRI SHYAMNATH SHARMA AS SELLERS AND S HRI PARAMJEET CHANDOK & SMT. BADAMIDEVI JAIN AS PURCHAS ERS -: 20: - 20 FOR THE SALE OF 1.04 ACRE LAND FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. L,42,70,256/ WAS FOUND. WHEN SHRI RAMNATH SHARMA, ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY, WAS CONFRONTED WITH T HE AGREEMENT OF SELL AND ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE O F TRANSACTION, HE STATED THAT THIS TRANSACTION WAS FO R THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,42,00,000/- AND UPTO THE DATE OF SEARCH I.E. 16.09.2005, THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED RS.71,00,000/-,OUT OF WHICH RS. 4L,OO,OOO/- LAKHS H AD BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR AND THE BALANCE OF RS. 30,00,000 /- RECEIVED IN CASH WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND HE OFFERED THIS AMOUNT AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOS ED SOURCES AND PROMISED TO PAY TAX THEREON. 17. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE TRANSACTION RECOR DED IN THE AGREEMENT TO SELL SEIZED AS LPS- 5 AND PAGE NO. 6 OF LPS- 1. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE AS SESSEE AND OTHER CO-OWNER MADE AN AGREEMENT TO SELL OF LAN D MEASURING 0.420 AT CHUNA BHATTI WITH SHRI PARAMJEET SINGH CHANDOK AND SMT. BADAMIDEVI JAIN FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,42,70,256/- . THE ASSESSEE HAD -: 21: - 21 RECEIVED RS. 20,00,000/- IN CASH AS ADVANCE AGAINST THE SAID AGREEMENT FROM SHRI PARAMJEET SINGH CHANDAK. HOWEVE R, LATER ON THE SAID AGREEMENT WAS CANCELLED AND THE A SSESSEE HAD RETURNED THE ADVANCE AMOUNT TO THE VENDEE. BUT THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE POSSESSION OF LAND HAD BEEN GIVEN AND THE OTHER PARTY WAS CONSTRUCTING RESIDENTIAL HOUSES ON THE SAID LAND. THE AO CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY TRANSFERRED THE SAID LAND FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS . 1,42,00,000/- AND, THEREFORE, LIABLE TO PAY TAX ON THE PROFITS & GAINS ARISING IN RESPECT OF THIS DEED. IT WAS NOT ED BY THE AO THAT APPELLANT HAD SHOWN TOTAL COST OF THE ENTIRE L AND AT RS.32,00,000/- AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE PROFIT WORKED OUT AT RS. L ,08,00,000/-. HOWEVER, THE AO FURTHER NOTICED THAT RS.30,00,000/- HAD ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE INCOME SURRENDERED BY THE DIRECTORS TOTALING TO RS.1.83 CR ORES AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND, THEREFORE, HE MADE AN ADDIT ION OF THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 78,00,000/- AS UNACCOUNTED SALE OF THE YEAR. 18. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE -: 22: - 22 ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 75,02,692/- AS AGAINS T ADDITION OF RS. 78 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS :- 5.4 I H AVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ADMITTED FACT OF THE CASE ARE THAT 3/4 TH PARTS OF THE PROPERTY WAS OWNED BY THE APPELLANT AND 1/4 TH PART WAS OWNED BY SHRI SHYAMNATH SHARMA. THEY HAVE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEM ENT TO SELL' FOR THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY TO SHRI PARAMJEET SINGH CH ANDOK AND SMT.BADAMIDEVI JAIN W/O LATE SHRI B.LJAIN FOR A CON SIDERATION OF RS.1,42,70,256/-. THE AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED ON 30.0 4.2005, THE DATE MENTIONED IN THE ALLEGED DEED FOR CANCELLATION OF AGREEMENT DATED 29.06.2005. AS PER THE APPELLANT, THE AGREEME NT TO SELL ENTERED ON 30.04.2005 WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CANCELLED VI DE DEED DATED 29.06.2005. THEREAFTER, THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 40,OO,OOO/- ONLY VIDE SALE DEED REGISTERED ON 25.10.2005. OUT OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 40,OO,OOO/-, THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN SALE PROCEEDS OF RS.32,00,000/- AND THE OTHER CO-OWNER, SHRI SHYAMNATH SHARMA, HAD SHOWN RS.8,00,000/-. -: 23: - 23 THUS, THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT WAS THAT THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION FOR THE SALE OF THE SAID PROPE RTY WAS RS. 40,OO,OOO/- ONLY. ON PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS AND CONSIDERING THE FACT OF THE CASE, THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT FOUND TENABLE. FIRST, WHEN THE DIRECTOR OF THE APPELLANT, SHRI RAMNATH SHARMA, WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE AGREEMENT TO SELL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) ON 16.09.2005, HE HAD CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,42,00,000/-. SECOND, THE DEED FOR CANCELLATION OF AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 30.04.2005 HAS BEEN PURPORTED TO BE ENTERED ON 29.06.2005 BUT IT IS CONSPICUOUS TO NOTE THAT NO SUCH DEED OF CANCELLATION WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS ON 16.09.2005 . THIRD, HAD THE DEED FOR CANCELLATIO N OF AGREEMENT TO SELL BEEN ENTERED ON 29.06.2005, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF SHRI RAMNATH SHARMA AND HE WOULD HAVE POINTED OUT THE SAME IN -: 24: - 24 HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4). FOURTH, IT IS AL SO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS ENTERE D ON 30.04.2005 BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND SH. SOMNATH SHARMA AS SELLERS AND THE PURCHASERS WERE (I) SHRI PARAMJEET SINGH CHANDOK S/O LATE SHRI SARDAR S.H.CHANDOK AND (II) SMT. BADAMIDEVI JAIN W/O LATE SHRI B.LJAIN. THE FINAL SALE DEED WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REGISTERED ON 25.10.2005 ALSO SHOWS THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD TO THE SAME PERSONS AND ONLY ONE MORE PERSON WAS ADDED WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE DEED WHEREIN THE PURCHASERS ARE (I) SMT.HARPAL KAUR W/O SHRI PARAMJEET SINGH CHANDOK (II) SMT. BADAMIDEVI JAIN W/O LATE SHRI B.LJAIN AND (III) SMT.BABITA W/O SHRI NARESH KUMAR. IT IS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE THAT A PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS ENTERED IN APRIL, 2005 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.1. 42 CRORES APPROXIMATELY WOULD BE SOLD TO THE SAME PURCHASERS AFTER ABOUT SIX MONTHS PERIOD IN OCTOBER , 2005 FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.40,00,000/- -: 25: - 25 ONLY. THIS IS AGAINST THE TEST OF THE PRINCIPLE OF HUMAN PROBABILITY. IT MAY NOT BE OUT OF PLACE TO MENTION HERE THAT IT IS A NORMAL PRACTICE THAT AGREEMENT TO SELL IS ENTERED AT THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION TO ENFORCE THE PAYMENTS WHEREAS SUBSEQUENTLY THE SALE DEED IS REGISTERED AT A LOWER PRICE. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITY, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE APPELLANT AND THE CO-OWNER, SHRI SHYAMNATH SHARMA, HAD SOLD THE PROPERTY FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. L,42,70,256/- AS SHOWN IN THE AGREEMENT TO SELL ENTERED ON 30.04.2005. AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE THE APPELLANT OWNED 3/4 TH PARTS OF THE PROPERTY AND ONE PART WAS OWNED BY SHRI SHYAMNATH SHARMA. THE APPELLANT'S 3/4 1H SHARE IN THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,42,70,25 6/- WORKS OUT AT RS. 1,07,02,692/-. IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED HERE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD ALREADY DEBITED I N ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE TOTAL PURCHASE -: 26: - 26 CONSIDERATION ON THE 3/4 TH OF LAND AT RS. 32,60,467/-. THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN SALE RECEIPTS OF ONLY RS.32,00,0OO/-, AS AGAINST THE ACTUAL SHARE OF THE APPELLANT IN THE SALE PROCEEDS OF RS. 1,07,02,692/-. THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN THE SAID LAND AS STOCK IN TRADE. THUS, THE APPELLANT HAD UNDERSTATED THE SALE RECEIPTS ON THE SALE OF THE SA ID LAND BY RS. 75,02,692/- ( RS. 1,07,02,692/- - RS. 32,00,000/-). IF THE ACTUAL SALE PROCEEDS OF THE SA ID LAND OF RS. 1,07,02,692/- IS SUBSTITUTED IN PLACE O F THE SALE PROCEEDS OF RS. 32,00,000/- SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT, IT AMOUNTS TO AN ADDITION OF RS. 75,02,692/- IN THE RETURNED INCOME. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 75,02,692/- IS CONFIRMED AS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS. 78,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE RESULT, THE APPELLANT GETS A RELIEF OF RS. 2,97,308 /- ( RS. 78,00,000/- - RS. 75,02,6923/-). -: 27: - 27 19. IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE THAT AGREEMENT TO SALE THE CHUNNA BH ATTI, BHOPAL LAND MEASURING 1.04 ACRES WAS NOT ACTED UPON . THE SALE-AGREEMENT WAS BETWEEN FOUR SELLING PARTIES TO TWO BUYING PARTIES. THIS DRAFT AGREEMENT SUFFERED FROM THE VARIOUS SHORTCOMINGS. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT FAI R MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND WAS RS. 63 LAKHS AS PER CO LLECTOR AND STAMP DUTY WAS ALSO CHARGED ACCORDINGLY. HE FUR THER SUBMITTED THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 53A OF THE T.P . ACT, WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN SO FAR AS POSSESSION OF THE L AND WAS NOT GIVEN AS PER THE AGREEMENT ITSELF AND THE MAJOR AMOUNT WAS STILL OUTSTANDING. AS PER LD. AUTHORIZED REPRES ENTATIVE , THE STATEMENT OF SHRI RAMNATH SHARMA WAS NOT CORREC T WITH REGARD TO RS. 1.42 CRORES U/S 132(4) ON 16.9.2 005. SHRI RAMNATH SHARMA CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD. IN FACT THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD ON 25.10.2005 AFTER THE SEARCH AND STATEMENT OF THE DE PONENT. THIS FACT ITSELF SHOWS THAT RAMNATH SHARMA WAS NOT CORRECT IN STATING THE FACT. 20. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CONTENTION, THE LD. AUTHORIZED -: 28: - 28 REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE TRANSACTION AS SALE, IN SO FAR AS AGREEMENT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WAS CAN CELLED AND FRESH SALE DEED WAS REGISTERED, WHEREIN VALUE O F PLOT WAS DETERMINED BY COLLECTOR AT RS. 63 LAKHS FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY AND STAMP DUTY WAS ALSO CHARG ED ACCORDINGLY. 21. ON THE OTHER HAND THE, LD. SENIOR DR RELIED ON THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WITH REGA RD TO THE AGREEMENT FOUND DURING COURSE OF SEARCH AND THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT , 1961,. 22. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AN D FOUND FROM RECORD THAT THE AGREEMENT TO SALE WAS FOUND DU RING SEARCH INDICATING SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS. 1,42,70 ,256/-. IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) ONE OF THE DIR ECTORS OF THE COMPANY SHRI RAMNATH SHARMA HAS GIVEN A STATEME NT THAT PROPERTY WAS SOLD FOR THIS MUCH OF CONSIDERATI ON AND RS. 20 LAKHS WAS ALSO PAID IN ADVANCE. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT UP TO THE DATE OF SEARCH I.E. ON 16.9.2005, TH E ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED RS. 71 LAKHS OUT OF WHICH RS. 41 LAKHS HAD BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR AND THE BALANCE OF RS. 30 LAKHS RECEIVED IN CASH WAS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT, WHICH WAS ALSO OFFERED AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. SINCE THE ALLEGED CANCELLATION DEED WAS FO UND -: 29: - 29 DURING COURSE OF SEARCH ACCOMPANIED BY THE STATEMEN T RECORDED U/S 132(4) CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THERE WAS NO CANCELLATION OF PLOT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OF FICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE DIFFERENCE IN SALE CONSID ERATION ACTUALLY DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN AS COMPARED TO THE SALE CONSIDERATION FOUND RECORDED ON THE SALE AGREEMENT, WHICH WAS FOUND DURING COURSE OF SEARCH. THE LD. CIT(A) A FTER RECORDING DETAILED FINDING CORRECTLY COMPUTED THE G AIN ON SUCH SALE AT RS. 75,02,692/-. WE DO NOT FIND ANY IN FIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR CONFIRMING THIS ADDITION . 23. IN THE RESULT, GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST JANUARY, 2012. (JOGINDER SINGH) ( R.C.SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED :31 ST JANUARY, 2012. CPU* 30.1