Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Suresh C.Patel L/H Of Late Chhaganbhai ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 27 August, 2000
-1-
IT(SS)A No.394/Ahd/2003
The DCIT vs. Shri Suresh C.Patel
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BENCH "B"
Before Shri G.D. Agarwal Vice-President(AZ) and
Mukul Kr.Shrawat, JUDICIAL MEMBER
IT(SS)A No.394/Ahd/2003
Block period 1.4.1990 to 19.04.2000
The ACIT Shri Suresh Chhaganbhai Patel
Ahmedabad Vs. A/1, Nandeswar tenement
Opp.Sun-N-Step Club
Sola Road
Ahmedabad
PAN: AFU-PP-9382H
(Appellant) .. (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri G.C. Pipara, AR
Revenue by : Shri Alok Johri , DR
ORDER
Per Mukul Kr. Shrawaat, Judicial Member
This is an appeal at the behest of the assessee which has ema- nated from the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-I, Ahmedabad dated 27.8.2000. Several grounds have been raised by the Revenue to be decided serially herein below.
-2-IT(SS)A No.394/Ahd/2003 The DCIT vs. Shri Suresh C.Patel
2. Brief background of the case is that an assessment was made u/s.158BC of the Act dated 30/04/2002 in the status of individual. A search u/s.132(1) of the Act was carried out on 19/04/2000. It was observed by the AO that the said search was conducted on Vishwas Group which was headed by the assesses, i.e. Chhaganbhai Patel. During the course of search, a cash of Rs.4,10,000/- and jewellery of Rs.1,06,000/- was seized. Certain documents and incriminating mate- rial, stated to be in respect of land transactions, have also been found. With this brief background, we shall now proceed with the grounds of the case.
3. Ground No.1 reads as under:
The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.10,000/- made on account of sales consideration of plots.
3.1. In a cryptic manner, the AO has noted that as per pages 64, 68 and 70 of the seized material, it was noticed that there was a sale of plot dated 28/01/1992. The assessee's explanation was that the transac-
tion belonged to Ishwarkrupa Co-op.Housing Society and the land trans- action did not pertain to the assessee. However, the AO has held that in support of the said explanation the assessee has not produced any books of accounts of the said Co-operative Housing Society. The sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- was taxed as unaccounted profit in the hands of the assessee.
3.2. The CIT(A) has examined the facts of the case and there- upon held as under:-
-3-IT(SS)A No.394/Ahd/2003 The DCIT vs. Shri Suresh C.Patel "I have carefully considered the submissions made and I have gone through the copies of relevant seized documents. The documents show that the value of properties mentioned are only for stamp purposes and there is no mention of payment of any consideration in these documents. These are agreements for benami transfer between the respective owners of land and a so- ciety of which appellant was power of attorney holder. There is no mention of payment of any consideration by the appellant in these documents. Addition of Rs.10,000/- is therefore, directed to be de- leted."
3.3. On hearing the submissions of both the sides once it was an ad-
mitted position that certain agreements were discovered and those agreements have not referred any consideration and the assessee was signatory only in the capacity of a Power of Attorney holder, there- fore, in our opinion, ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition. The view taking by the ld.CIT(A) is affirmed and this ground of the Revenue dis- missed.
4. Ground No.2 reads as under:
The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.5,10,049/- made on account of unaccounted payment for purchase of land.
4.1. As per Annexure A-3, seized during the search vide pages 7 to 13, it was noticed that a land measuring 4 acres 22gunthas was sold to New Kaushivihar Co-operative Hou. in the F.Y. 1991-92 for a sum of Rs.4,60,325/-. As per AO, that land was controlled by the assessee, therefore, the entire payment was held as undisclosed income. The AO has concluded that the Society being controlled by the assessee and his son, therefore the amount for the acquisition of said land was -4- IT(SS)A No.394/Ahd/2003 The DCIT vs. Shri Suresh C.Patel out of the unaccounted money of the assessee accordingly an addition of Rs.5,,49,000/- was made.
5. After hearing the submissions, ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition as per the following observations:-
"After due consideration, I find that this addition is solely based on the fact that Chhaganbhai Patel was main partner of M/s.Ankini Corporation. As firm is a separate entity, which was also as- sessed to tax and the land was being developed for a society, the correct course of action if to take action u/s.158BD of the Act either against the firm or the society after examining the documents. So far as the appellant is concerned, merely because he was a part- ner, the liability cannot be fastened on him instead of the firm or the society as the case may be. Addition of Rs.5,10,049/- is, therefore, deleted."
6. We have heard both the sides. In the light of the explanation of- fered by the assessee before the ld.CIT(A), it was found that the said Society, namely M/s.Ankini Corporation, which had happened to be a Registered Society under Gujarat Co-op.Societies Act. This Society had maintained regular books of accounts. It was explained that the bal- ance-sheet drawn as on 31/06/1992 had disclosed the said land pur- chased for a sum of Rs.4,06,325/- plus conveyance expenses of Rs.29,440/-. An observation was also made that the purchase price was duly reflected in the book of accounts of the said Society. Duly Certi- fied copies of the balance sheet were furnished before the lower authori- ties. Once it was demonstrated through those accounts that the assets had duly been disclosed therefore in our opinion, the CIT(A) has rightly held that no action was required in the hands of the assessee and, in -5- IT(SS)A No.394/Ahd/2003 The DCIT vs. Shri Suresh C.Patel case, if any action was required to be taken by the Revenue Depart- ment, then the correct recourse was to initiate the action u/s.158BD of the Act against the said Society. Considering the totality of the of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the observations of Ld. CIT(A), hence this ground of the Revenue is also dismissed.
7. Ground No.3 reads as under:
"3. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addi- tion of Rs.49,330/- made on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account in the name of the Veenaben C Patel."
7.1. There was a bank account in the name of the assessee's daughter Ms.Veenaben C.Patel of Viznagar Nagrik Sahakarik Bank Ltd. As per AO, the peak credit in the said account was Rs.49,330/- as on 21/03/1995. It was found by the A.O.that Ms. Veenaben is not as- sessed to tax. However, assessee has explained that her daughter got married and settled in America. The AO was not convinced and the held that the amount was to be taxed in the hands of the assessee for FY 1994-95.
7.2. Before ld.CIT(A), it was contested that assessee should not be held responsible for a bank account of his married daughter who has settled in USA. On examination of certain facts and evidences, the CIT(A) has held as under.
"I find the arguments of the ld. Authorised representative to be cor- rect. This account is being maintained by appellant's daughter for a very long period and balance of more than Rs.20,000/- was ly- ing at the beginning of the block period, hence, even on merits the entire amount could not be added. There is nothing on record -6- IT(SS)A No.394/Ahd/2003 The DCIT vs. Shri Suresh C.Patel to show that any sum was deposited by the appellant in this ac- count and hence only the account holder can be made liable to explain the deposits. No addition can be made in appellant's hand for the reason that the account holder stayed in America. Addition of Rs.49,330/- is, therefore, deleted."
7.3. After hearing the submissions of both the sides, we hereby confirm the findings on facts of ld.CIT(A). It was found that the impugned bank account was maintained by appellant's daughter for a long period, who has settled abroad after marriage and there was no evidence that the appellant had a control over the said account hence deposited his unaccounted money, therefore we hereby upheld the view of the ld.CIT(A).This ground of the Revenue is as well dismissed.
8. Ground 4 reads as under:
"The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing to restrict the addition of Rs.8,52,601/- made on account of unexplained deposits to Rs.6,52,601/-"
8.1. It has been brought to our notice that for this very block period, i.e. 1.4.1990 to 19.4.2000 against the impugned orders of the Revenue Au- thorities the assessee had gone in appeal before ITAT "D" Bench Ahmedabad and vide order dated 31.3.2006 bearing appeal No.IT(SS)A No.386/Ahd/200 vide para -7, it was held as under:-
"7. The sixth ground is pertaining to Rs.6,52,601/- being differ- ence in capital account. During the assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer noticed that annexure a-1/32 is the 'floppy seized at the office premises of vishwas group. This contains the backup data of all the business concern run by vishwas group -7- IT(SS)A No.394/Ahd/2003 The DCIT vs. Shri Suresh C.Patel Vaiobhav Corporation, Vishwas Associates, Vishwas Corporation Foram Associates,etc. Various capital account filed along with the return of income shows the capital accounts is Rs.3,51,029/- (bal- ance amount with Haptagon Ltd. Is Rs.1,46,647/-, Rs.1,78,910/- with Ankini Corporation and Rs.25,472/- with Vaibhavi Corpora- tion) while the trial balance taken from the seized floppy shows the amount at Rs.10,03,630/-. In this year agricultural income shown is NIL in the return of income while in the trial balance it is Rs.1,54,211/- in the head agricultural income. In the depositor ac-
count of Rs.2,00,0000/- is shown as deposit from Veenaben c.Patel. Since the depositor is not assessed to tax, assessee was asked for furnish the particulars for credit worthiness. After con- sidering the reply of the assessee, the Assessiung Officer treated difference in capital account as unaccounted money brought to the capital account which includes income under the head agricultural income. Since the agricultural income was not shown in the re- turn of income, unaccounted income is therefore treated as parked under the head agricultural income. The assessee did not furnish the agricultural production details except showing that the land was given to small agricultural from whom assessee was used to get share of the agricultural income. The explanation of the as- sessee did not found proper by the AO so the difference in capital account of Rs.6,52,601/- is treated as unexplained amount of the assessee. He further observed that the deposit amount of Rs.2,00,000/- of Veenaben C.Patel is not considered genuine. The AO accordingly made the addition of Rs.8,52,691/- in F.Y. 94-95. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs.6,52,601/- on account of difference in capital account." 8.2 After narrating the facts and the brief background, the Respected Co-ordinate Bench made a reference of an another order dated 27/12/2004 of appeal No.IT(SS)A No.424/A/2003 wherein the identical issue was sent back to the file of A.O. re-examination. The Tribunal has then reproduced the relevant para of the cited decision and later on concluded as under:-
"7.3. We have heard the ld. Representatives of the parties and pe- rused the record. After considering the facts of the case, we find that on identical set of facts the ITAT has sent back this matter to -8- IT(SS)A No.394/Ahd/2003 The DCIT vs. Shri Suresh C.Patel the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to re-examine the whole issue afresh after allowing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In view of the fact, following the above or- der of ITAT, we are also sending back this matter to the file of Assessing officer which identical direction."
9. Since the Respected Co-ordinate Benches have consistently taken a view to restore this issue back to the file of the AO to examine afresh the difference in capital account and then to decided as per law, hence, respectfully following that view we hereby also restore the matter back to the AO for re-adjudication as per the said directions. Parties appearing before us have also given their consent to follow the past history. With these observations this ground of the Revenue may be treated as al- lowed but for statistical purposes.
10. Ground No.5 reads as under:
"5. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addi- tion 54,334/- made on account of undisclosed income introduced by way of agricultural income."
10.1. The observation of the AO was that as per the floppy seized dur- ing the course of search, there was a trial balance in which the as- sessee had shown a sum of Rs. 54,334/-as Agriculture Income. How- ever, as per the return of income, there was no such disclosure of agri- culture income. In the absence of any evidence, the AO has taxed the said agricultural income as unaccounted income in the hands of the as- sessee.
11, The CIT(A)has held that there was no denial of the fact that the assessee was having ancestral agricultural land. As per CTI(A), the -9- IT(SS)A No.394/Ahd/2003 The DCIT vs. Shri Suresh C.Patel agriculture income could be appellant's HUF agricultural income. The said agriculture income was shown in the book of accounts. It was held that since the agriculture income belonged to the HUF therefore the same could not be taxed in the hands of the assessee. The addition was deleted.
12. From the side of the Rev, Ld.DR Mr Alok Joshi has vehemently objected the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) primarily on the ground that without evidence the agricultural land was held as HUF property. We find force in the submissions of the Revenue Department. The assessee has given an explanation that there was an ancestral agricultural land at village Dhanpura which was stated to be looked after by the father of the assessee. The share received by the assessee was claimed as separately credited in the books of accounts as agriculture income. Though the assessee has made a claim of existence of agriculture land belonged to HUF, but the said claim was not supported by any piece of evidence. It has also not been corroborated that the said agriculture income belonged to the HUF. It has also not been substantiated that although the agricultural income was disclosed in the book of accounts but why it was not offered for tax purposes as per the return filed. Even before us, there is no material to show that the impugned income was not the income of the assessee but income of the HUF. In the absence of any evidence, we hereby reverse the findings of the ld.CIT()A) and af- firm the view taken by the AO. This ground of the Revenue is allowed.
13. Ground No.6 reads as under:
-10-IT(SS)A No.394/Ahd/2003 The DCIT vs. Shri Suresh C.Patel "The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.40,000/- made on account of unexplained cash deposit in the name of Veenaben C Patel and Jyotsanaben patel"
13.1. The observation of the AO was that from the residence of the as- sessee two FDs were recovered which were found to be purchased in the names of Jyotsanaben Patel and Veenaben Patel of Rs.20,000/- each. The explanation of the assessee was that the said FDs were taken out of the bank account of one Mr.Ishwarbhai Patel. However, as per AO that reply remained unsubstantiated hence the said sum of Rs.40,000/- was held as unexplained investment.
13.2. The ld.CIT(A) has taken a view that once it was an admitted posi- tion that the drafts were not in the name of the assessee but drafts were in the names of Jyotsanaben and Veenben and there was nothing to show that the drafts were purchased by the assessee, therefore the addition was wrongly made. He had held that the addition was made without examining the facts and the same was deleted.
14. From the side of the Revenue ld.DR has strongly objected the view taken by the CIT(A) on the ground that it was without any evidence and if at all without confronting to the Revenue Department. On hearing both the sides, it appears that the bank of Shri Ishwarbahi M. Patel was placed before the first appellate authority for the first time, however it was not confronted to the Revenue Department. Keeping in mind the provisions of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules,1962, we are of the view that -11- IT(SS)A No.394/Ahd/2003 The DCIT vs. Shri Suresh C.Patel no prejudice shall be caused to either side if we hereby restore this issue back to AO with the direction to the assessee to furnish the bank ac- count of Shir Ishwarbhai.M.Patel alleged to have been used for prepar- ing the two demand drafts in question and if on examination it shall be found correct, then consequential relief should be granted. With these directions, this ground of the Revenue is allowed for statistical pur- poses.
15. Ground No.7 reads as under:-
"7.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.70,080/- made on account of unaccounted cash depos- its."
15.1. As per AO, during the course of search, certain bank-slips were found from the office premises marked as Annexure A/2.3, page-58. There were three pay orders, one of Rs.30,000/- dated 21/02/1998 and other two pay orders of Rs.20,040/- each both dated 10/11/1997, ag- gregating Rs.70,000/-. As per the records, out of the cash deposited in Ahmedabad District Co-Operative Bank, those pay-orders were made. In the absence of satisfactory explanation the AO has held that the un- accounted cash was introduced in the bank. With the result the said sum of Rs.70,080/- was taxed. The matter was carried before ld.CIT(A).
15.2. Before ld.CIT(A), two fold contentions were raised. First one was in respect of pay order of the Rs.30,000/= dt. 21.2.1998. In this regard it was explained that the demand draft was in favour of appellant's son's -12- IT(SS)A No.394/Ahd/2003 The DCIT vs. Shri Suresh C.Patel wife, Ms. Harshaben S.Patel, daughter of shri Nathabhai Bapatel a re- tired school teacher who had given the said amount as a gift to his daughter. Next, in respect of the other two amounts, the explanation of the assessee was that those amounts have already been considered while deciding credit found in the name of Kamlaben Patel and Bharat Patel. The CIT(A) has held that as far as the second plank of argument was concerned it was the duplication of an earlier decision, which was already confirmed upto Rs.20,000/-. In respect of the other addition, after considering the evidences, it was deleted.
15.3. Having heard the submissions of both the sides and after consider- ing the evidences on record, we find no reason to interfere with the find- ings on facts of CIT(A). This ground is dismissed.
16. Ground No.8 reads as under;-
"8.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.4,79,050/- made on account of unaccounted gains re- ceived on the sale of land."
16.1. As per the seized documents marked as Annexure A-1 pages 3 to 5, 19 to 23, 25, and upto pages 50, it was noted that a land was sold to St.Joseph Education Trust. Undisputedly, the said land was purchased on 13/08/1987 for a consideration of Rs.3,24,000/-. The de- tails of payments for the acquisition of the said land has also been noted by the AO. The land was stated to be purchased along with other three co-owners, but, later on, they have relinquished their rights in favour of -13- IT(SS)A No.394/Ahd/2003 The DCIT vs. Shri Suresh C.Patel the assessee. There was an agreement dated 19/04/1999 with St.Joseph Education Trust wherein it was agreed upon to transact the land @ of Rs.2 lacs per Bigha. It has also been noted by the AO that a sum of Rs.3 lacs was handed over vide cheque of Dena Bank dated 11.01.1999. The final sale took place on 01/11/1999 on sale considera- tion of Rs.33,10,700/-. Thereafter, the AO has discussed that in the past the assessee has not disclosed in the balance sheet the investment in the land. It was found that a liability was shown against the said school as per the balance sheet for F.Y. 1998-99 . The AO has also noted that even at the time of search in the books of account the land was not disclosed. Then, there was a discussion of some loose-pages through which it was found that the area of land was 16.55 Bigha and the rate per Bigha was Rs.2,25,000/-. That loose paper was stated to be attached with the pages related to the trust. The AO has noted that, quote, 'it could be believed that the actual consideration of the land was Rs.37,23,750/- instead of Rs.33,10,000/- as mentioned in the deed' unquote. As per AO, the difference of Rs.4,13,750/- was the un- accounted money transferred. The explanation of the assessee was that the transaction has duly been reflected in the books of account and the school being a public charitable trust there was no possibility of un- accounted transaction. The said noting was nothing but rough noting. It was also clarified that the initial offer was reduced because there was ONGC pipe-line was passing underneath of the land. It was also ex- plained that the entire consideration was invested in agricultural land and whatever was the gain, it was exempt u/s.54B of the Act. However, the AO was not convinced and concluded as under:-
-14-IT(SS)A No.394/Ahd/2003 The DCIT vs. Shri Suresh C.Patel "5.4. The above documents clearly show that assessee was sell-
ing this land to the person who is not going to use the land for the agriculture purpose. The banakhat was clearly stating that if the permission from the Collectorate is not obtained then further sale dealing will not go through. This is why the final sale deed is based on the order of Mehsana Collectorate dated 28/07/1999 which is nothing but a permission to sell the land for non agricul- ture purepose. Therefore, it is held that the sold land is agriculture land so if the assessee is showing that it can avail the benefit u/s.54B of the IT Act then it is reasonably correct.
Regarding the claim of the assessee that this is shown in the regular return, it is stated that the dealing regarding this land transactions came into picture only at the time of search. This is evident from the seized material as discussed above. Secondly, Chhaganbhai has not shown this land in the balance sheet filed at the time of scrutiny assessment for AY 97-98. Therefore actual sale consideration would be part of block assessment proceeding. Regarding the sale consideration @ 2,25,000 per bigha, the claim of assessee is not based on any document regarding earlier nego- tiation rate. Therefore, the argument of the assessee is not ac- ceptable.
The capital gain is therefore is calculate as follows:
Total sale consideration =
Rs.37,23,750
Less Original cost of the land = Rs.3,58,073
Indexed cost of acquisition =Rs.3,58,073*389/150 = Rs.
9,28,603
=========
= Rs.27,95,147
=========
The dalali expenses incurred for effecting the sale has not been deducted as there was not evidence in the balance sheet of -15- IT(SS)A No.394/Ahd/2003 The DCIT vs. Shri Suresh C.Patel Chhaganbhai which could prove that he had paid the dalali ex- penses.
Since the assessee has shown the capital gain of Rs.23,16,097 in the assessment year 2000-2001 same will be taxed on protective basis and the capital gain calculated above of Rs.23,16,097 would be treated unaccounted capital gain in the block period. However, the benefit u/s.54B is allowed as the sale consideration is put for the purpose of agriculture land, thus the difference in capital gain so worked out is treated as unexplained consideration received by the assessee. It is Rs.27,95,147- Rs.23,16,097 = Rs.4,79,050.
[ Addition of Rs.4,79,050 in FY 1999-00] 16.2. Before CIT(A), it was vehemently contested that there was specific evidence to hold that the sale transaction as recorded in the sale deed and books of accounts was the true and correct amount of consid- eration. The Banakhat dated 19/4/1999 had clearly mentioned the de- tails of mode of payment. That Banakhat was a Registered document through which the rate of land was fixed at Rs.2 lacs per Bigha. It was also informed that a permission was obtained from the Collectorate. The Collector had granted permission on 28/7/1999 with certain condi- tions, particularly one of the condition was that the land must be used for educational purposes. It has also been contested that the search took place on 19/4/2000 but the return for AY 2000-01 was due on 31/08/2000 and the return was filed on that date. As per the regular return, full details about the sale transactions of the land was duly dis- closed. The capital gain amount was deposited under Capital Gain account scheme for the investment land towards agricultural agriculs lands to claim exempt u/.s.54B of the Act. A confirmation letter from the Trust was furnished confirming the sale price at the rate of Rs.2 lacs per -16- IT(SS)A No.394/Ahd/2003 The DCIT vs. Shri Suresh C.Patel bigha. It has also been informed that the sale price as noted in the registered document was also verified by the "Stamp authority" at the time of registration. After appreciating the evidences and the arguments CIT()A has deleted thee addition as per the following observations:-
"I have considered the issue carefully and find that the addition is based on mere notings of certain calculation. The document is undated and it is apparent from the banakhat that the conditional agreement was made at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per bigha. This fact is also confirmed by the trust which purchased this land. There is nothing to show that any amount over and above the ap- parent consideration mentioned in the registered document was paid to the appellant. The land has been purchased by a public charitable trust and no enquiry has been made by the Assessing Officer which goes to prove that the actual consideration was higher. In the circumstances addition of Rs.4,79,050/- is deleted."
17. We have heard both the sides at some length. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. We have also examined the contents of compilation filed before us containing Bhanakhat, declaration of St.Joseph Education Trust, Sale Deed, etc. As far as the acquisition of the land in question is concerned, the same was undisputedly in the year 1987 (13th August-1987), prior to the block period i.e. 1.4.1990 to 19.04.2000. Therefore the objection raised from the side of the Reve- nue in respect of the undisclosed investment do not fall within the ambits of the block assessment. Next is the question about the correctness of -17- IT(SS)A No.394/Ahd/2003 The DCIT vs. Shri Suresh C.Patel the sale consideration as disclosed by the assessee. In support of the correctness of the sale consideration, the assessee has placed reliance the Registered Bhanakhat dated 19/04/1999. It is evident from this agreement, an English Translation placed on page 28 of the paper book, that the transaction was fixed at the rate of Rs.2 lacs per Bigha. There was a description of earnest money and the mode of payment. We have also examined the contents of the sale deed, executed for a con- sideration of Rs.33,10,700/- which was registered on 1/11/1999. Undis- putedly that was also a Registered Documents. A declaration from the Managing Trustee dated 26.9.20002 has also been placed on page 18 on the compilation through which it was affirmed that the price fixed was at Rs.2 lacs per bigha and the entire consideration was Rs.33,10,700/- which was paid to the assessee. The compilation also consisted the approval of the Collector Mehsana, through which the permission was granted with the condition that the land is to be used for educational purposes. The loose paper which was found at the time of search was the only evidence which was made the basis of the impugned addition. However, the said loose paper cannot be said to be an authenticated document for fixation of sales consideration. Even the AO has used such language giving an impression of uncertainty, quote, "since this paper was attached with the pages relatable to trust it is believed that the actual consideration in this land at the time of sale was Rs.37,23,750/" unquote . There was no certainty that, in fact, the sale consideration was Rs.37,23,750/- instead of Rs.33,10,700/-. The explanation of the said noting was that there was a bargain for Rs.2,50,000 per bigha but the price was reduced when it was found that underneath the land ONGC line was passing throuh. In our opinion, this piece of paper had no other corroborative evidence. On the other hand, -18- IT(SS)A No.394/Ahd/2003 The DCIT vs. Shri Suresh C.Patel there are number of cogent evidences in support of the sale considera- tion as recorded in the registered sale-deed. Therefore, considering the entirety of the circumstances and in view of the discussion made herein- above as also on appreciation of the evidences placed on record, we hereby affirm the finding of the CIT(A). This ground of the Revenue is dismissed.
18. Rest of the grounds of the Revenue are general in nature needs no legal adjudication.
19. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed.
Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 31st day of March 2011 / Sd/- Sd/-
( G.D.AGRAWAL ) ( MUKUL Kr. SHRAWAT )
VICE PRESIDENT (AZ) JUDICIAL MEMBER
Ahmedabad; Dated 31 / 03 / 2011
T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
-19-
IT(SS)A No.394/Ahd/2003
The DCIT vs. Shri Suresh C.Patel
1. The Assessee.
2. The Department.
3. The CIT Concerned.
4. The ld. CIT(Appeals)-I, Ahmedabad
5. The DR, Ahmedabad Bench.
6. The Guard File.
BY ORDER,
स×याǒपत ूित //True Copy//
(Dy./Asstt.Registrar), ITAT, Ahmedabad
Date of dictation.......................21/03/2011 Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 21/03/2011.................. Other Member.....................
Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S......
Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement......
Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S......31/3/2011 Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk..................... 31/3/2011 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk..................................
The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order..........................
9. Date of Despatch of the Order..................