Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
The Acit, Circle-8,, Surat vs Shri Rajeshkumar Kantilal Patel,, ... on 29 August, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD "SMC" BENCH AHMEDABAD
BEFORE, SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 1498/Ahd/2015
(Assessment Year: 2007-08)
Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle-3(2), Room No.410, Aayakar
Bhavan, Majuragate, Surat Appellant
Vs.
Shri Rajeshkumar Kantilal Patel
M-102, Someshwara Bunglow,
Vesu Road, Surat-395008 Respondent
PAN: ADLPP7211J
राज व क ओर से/By Revenue : Shri Om Prakash Pathak, Sr. D.R.
आवेदक क ओर से/By Assessee : None
सन
ु वाई क तार ख/Date of Hearing : 08.08.2017
घोषणा क तार ख/Date of
Pronouncement : 29.08.2017
ORDER
PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This Revenue's appeal for assessment year 2007-08 arises against the CIT(A)-3, Surat's order dated 13.03.2015, passed in case no. CAS/3/TRFD/V/99/2014-15, reversing Assessing Officer's action making Section 69 unaccounted investment addition of Rs.37,05,000/- in assessment order dated 26.12.2011, in proceedings u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act".
ITA No. 1498/Ahd/15 (ACIT vs. Shri Rajeshkumar Kantilal Patel)A.Y. 2007-08 -2-
2. Case called twice. None appears on assessee's behest. The Registry has already sent an RPAD notice dated 11.07.2017. We therefore proceed ex parte against the assessee.
3. We now advert to the Revenue's sole substantive grievance seeking to revive unaccounted on money investment addition of Rs.37,05,000/-. The Assessing Officer made the said addition in assessment order dated 26.12.2011 keeping in mind the fact that he had shown to have purchased the land in question for Rs.4,95,000/- whereas his vendor Shri Popatbhai had purchased the same on 02.01.1997 for Rs.12lacs and the same land had been sold by one Solanki family to Shri Pinakin Joshi for Rs.42lacs as on 31.08.2001. The Assessing Officer therefore adopted the impugned sale price as Rs.42lacs thereby making the impugned unaccounted investment addition of Rs.37,05,000/- being made in assessee's hands.
4. The CIT(A) reverses Assessing Officer's action as under:
"7. As regards ground no, 2 the Investigation Wing detected certain satakhats for a piece of land bearing revenue Survey no 69/2, block no. 90 Vesu, Surat. As per the assessment order, the appellant had purchased this piece of land for Rs. 4,95,000 from Mr. Popatbhai Rudabhai Dogariya vide sale deed registered on 1610.2004. However, the satakhat found by the Investigation Wing, detected that original owner Mr. Bhagabhai Solanki had executed a satakhat on 02.01.1997 with Mr. Popatbhai Rudabhai Dogariya for Rs. 12 lakhs and after that he executed another satakhat for the sale of same land with another person Mr.P.inakin V Joshi for Rs 42 lakhs, vide satakhat dated 31.08.2001.
7.1 The assessment order further mentions that Mr. Pinakin V Joshi sold the same land to Mr. Jeram Naria and Mr. Bhimabhai Patel for Rs. 60,00,000/- and Mr. Jeram Naria and Mr. Bhimabhai Patel have accepted the said transaction. In this background, it was concluded by the assessing officer that since Mr. Bhagabhai Sotanki had entered into a satakhat with Mr. Pinakin V Joshi for the same land for Rs. 42,00,000/- on 31.08.2011, the same land could not have been purchased by the appellant, from Mr. Popat R Dogaria for Rs. 4,95,000/-. The different of Rs. 37,05,000 was therefore, added by the assessing officer, in the hands of the appellant.
7.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that Mr. Popatbhai Rudabhai Dogariya purchased this piece of land, from the ITA No. 1498/Ahd/15 (ACIT vs. Shri Rajeshkumar Kantilal Patel) A.Y. 2007-08 -3- original owner Mr. Bhagabhai Solanki vide registered sale deed dated 16.10.2004 for Rs. 4, 50,000/-. The same land was purchased by the appellant vide registered sale deed dated 25.04.2006 for Rs. 4,92,000/- (the figure of Rs 4,95,000/- mentioned in the assessment order apparently includes stamp duty). The appellant sold the said land on 29.03.2008 i.e. in assessment year 2008-09 to M/s Rawani Developers for Rs.36,65,000/- and all these three registered sale deeds were executed at the jantri rate (as per the submission of the appellant). In view of the same, the so called satakhat of Rs. 42,00,000/- between original owner and Mr. Pinakin V Joshi., and then the claimed sale of land by Mr. Pinakin V Joshi to Mr. Jeram Naria and Bhimabhai Patel for Rs. 60,00,000/- has no evidentiary value in the case of the appellant.
7.3 As regards the satakhat between Mr. Popat R Dogaria and the original owner for Rs. 12,00,000/- the appellant submitted that he had purchased land from Mr. Popatbhai Rjaabhai Dogariya for Rs. 4, 92,0007-vide registered sale deed and the said satakhat has no evidentiary value, as far as purchase by the appellant, from Mr. Popatbhai Rudabhai Dogariya is concerned.
8. To summarize the appellant's contention is that when the appellant purchased the said land vide registered deed dated 25.04. 2006, from Mr. Popatbhai Rudabhai Dogariya, and the purchase was at jantry value, there should not be any addition on the presumption of 'on money' on the basis of three satakhats referred to by the assessing officer, in which the appellant was not a party. The appellant further submitted that the property under reference was subject to litigation and also filed a copy of the Order of Addl. Sr. Civil Judge in special Civil Suit no. 38 - 2005 dated 10:03.2006. Though the appellant is not a party in the said Civil Suit, and the Civil Suit is between original owners and some other parties, with whom some agreements for sale / satakhats were executed, the order in the Suit does refer to the agreement to sale/ satakhat dated 02.01.1997, in favour of Mr. Popatbhai Rudabhai Dogariya, for Rs. 12,00,000/- and the registered sale deed in favour of Mr. Popatbahi Rudabhai Dogariya for Rs. 4, 50,000/-. Though it does raise a question as to why Mr. Bhagabhai Solanki sold the said land to Mr. Popatbhai R Dogariya for Rs. 4,50,000/- when the earlier satakhat was made for Rs. 12 lakhs, this issue does not have any bearing as for as assessment of appellant is concerned, who purchase this land from Mr. Popatbhai Rudabhai Dogariya.
8.1 Since the order of the Civil Court also confirms these facts and accepts the title of Mr. Popatbhai Rudabai Dogariya and purchase by him for Rs. 4,50,000/-, the decision of the assessing officer is contrary to the said findings of the court. The validity of sale of land by original owner Mr. Bhagaphai Solanki to Mr. Popatbhai Rudabhai Dogariya for Rs 4,50,000 cannot be questioned in these proceeding. The appellant purchased this property for Rs. 4,92,000 from Mr. Popatbhai Rudabhai Dogariya and the addition on presumption of 'on money' paid by the appellant to Mr. Popatbhai Rudabhai Dogariya cannot be made without any evidence. The satakhat with Mr. Pinakin V Joshi, and the so called sale transactions between Mr. Pinakin V Joshi and Jeram Naria / Bhimabhai Patel cannot establish the transaction of 'on money' between the appellant and Mr. Popatbhai Rudabhai Dogariya, as the appellant had no connection with those persons and the; so called satakhats. This property was apparently subject ITA No. 1498/Ahd/15 (ACIT vs. Shri Rajeshkumar Kantilal Patel) A.Y. 2007-08 -4- to litigation due to multible satakhats executed by the original land owner Mr. Bhagabhai SolaAki, which led to legal disputes.
8.2 Considering the same, the addition made by the Assessing Officer at Rs.37,05,000/- is deleted and the ground no.2 of the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant."
5. We have heard learned Departmental Representative strongly arguing in favour of impugned addition. The Assessing Officer's sole reason for making addition in question is that the very land had been sold for Rs.42lacs so as to arrive at the on money conclusion in question. We find from the CIT(A)'s above extracted reasoning that learned civil court has already adjudicated the issue that assessee's vendor in fact paid purchase price of Rs.4,50,000/- only instead of Rs.42lacs. The Revenue fails to rebut this clinching finding of fact by pinpointing any cogent evidence in this regard. There is no other material in assessment order as relied upon at the assessing authority's behest apart from impugned addition being made from presumptive basis. We therefore see no reason to accept Revenue's instant grievance.
6. This Revenue's appeal is dismissed.
[Pronounced in the open Court on this the 29th day of August, 2017.] Sd/- Sd/-
(MANISH BORAD) (S. S. GODARA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Ahmedabad: Dated 29/08/2017
True Copy
S.K.SINHA
आदे श क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-
1. राज व / Revenue
2. आवेदक / Assessee
3. संबं धत आयकर आयु!त / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आयु!त- अपील / CIT (A)
ITA No. 1498/Ahd/15 (ACIT vs. Shri Rajeshkumar Kantilal Patel)
A.Y. 2007-08 -5-
5. )वभागीय ,-त-न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद /
DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. गाड3 फाइल / Guard file.
By order/आदे श से,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद ।