Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Rajkot
Dcit, Central Circle 1, Rajkot, Rajkot vs Shri Rameshbhai Virjibhai Tilara, ... on 17 March, 2026
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, राजकोट यायपीठ, राजकोट।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
DR. DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No.717 to 721/RJT/2024
िनधारण वष /Assessment Year: (2018-2019 to 2022-2023)
Mr. Rameshbhai Virjibhai Tilara बनाम The Deputy Commissioner of Income
C/o. Perfect Weigh Bridge, Vs. Tax, CC -1
National Highway 8-B, Aayakar Bhawan, Amruta Estate
Veraval (Shapar) - 360025, Gujrat Building, MG Road
Rajkot 360001, Gujarat
थायीलेखास/ं .जीआइआरस/ं .PAN NO. : ACWPP4691C
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) .. ( यथ /Respondent)
आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No.726 & 727/RJT/2024
िनधारण वष /Assessment Year: (2018-2019 to 2019-2020)
The Deputy Commissioner of बनाम Mr. Rameshbhai Virjibhai Tilara
Income Tax, CC -1 Vs. C/o. Perfect Weigh Bridge, National
Aayakar Bhawan, Amruta Estate Highway 8-B,
Building, MG Road Veraval (Shapar) - 360025, Gujrat
Rajkot 360001, Gujarat
थायीलेखास/ं .जीआइआरस/ं .PAN NO. : ACWPP4691C
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) .. ( यथ /Respondent)
िनधा रतीक ओरसे/Assessee by : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. AR
राज वक ओरसे/Revenue by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
सनु वाईक तारीख / Date of Hearing : 16/01/2026
घोषणाक तारीख/ Date of Pronouncement : 17/03/2026
आदे श/ORDER
Per, Bench:
Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-19 to 2022-23, are directed against the separate orders passed under section ITA No. 717 TO 721/RJT/2024 Rameshbhai V. Tilara 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which in turn arise out of separate orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the facts narrated in ITA No. 717/Rjt/2024 A.Y. 2018-19, have been taken into consideration for deciding the above appeals en masse.
3. Although, these appeals filed by the assessee and appeals filed by the revenue, contain multiple ground of appeals. However, at the time of hearing we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the assessee and revenue. We find that most of the grounds raised by the assessee and revenue are either academic in nature or contentious in nature. However, to meet the end of justice, we confine ourselves to the core of the controversy and main grievances of the assessee and revenue as well. With this background, we summarize and concise the grounds raised by the assessee and revenue, as follows:
"(i) The Id. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad erred on facts as also in law in dismissing ground of appeal related to validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961. That on facts as also in law, the proceedings-initiated u/s.
147 of the Act is invalid and assessment finalized on such invalid initiation deserves to be quashed and may kindly be quashed.
(This is assessee's ground No. 2 in ITA No. 717/RJT/2024 for AY 2018-19, This is assessee's ground No. 2 in ITA No. 718/RJT/2024 for AY 2019-20, This is assessee's ground No. 2 in ITA No. 719/RJT/2024 for AY 2020-21, This is assessee's ground No. 2 in ITA No. 720/RJT/2024 for AY 2021-22 and, This is assessee's ground No. 2 in ITA No. 721/RJT/2024 for AY 2022-23
(ii) The ld. CIT(A)erred on facts as also in law in retaining addition of Rs. 1,320/- by estimating profit at 12% of so called on money receipt. The addition made is bad in law as also on facts therefore the same may kindly be deleted. Alternatively, the addition Page 2 of 36 ITA No. 717 TO 721/RJT/2024 Rameshbhai V. Tilara made by estimating rate of profit is very much higher side and therefore the same may kindly be directed to be reduced and oblige (This is assessee's ground No. 3 & 4 in ITA No. 717/RJT/2024 for AY 2018-19, This is assessee's ground No. 3 & 4 in ITA No. 718/RJT/2024 for AY 2019-20, This is assessee's ground No. 3 & 4 in ITA No. 719/RJT/2024 for AY 2020-21, This is assessee's ground No. 3 & 4 in ITA No. 720/RJT/2024 for AY 2021-22 and, This is assessee's ground No. 3 & 4 in ITA No. 721/RJT/2024 for AY 2022-23) (This is also revenue's ground no. 1 in ITA No. 726/RJT/2024 for AY 2018-19 and This is revenue's ground no. 1 in ITA No. 727/RJT/2024 for AY 2019-20)
(iii) The Ld CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to tax the unaccounted profit in the year in which sale deed is executed instead of the year in which the on-money has been received, ignoring that the same is not in accordance with Accounting principles as per ICDS-3 applicable to Real Estate Developers and also not appreciating that the income on account of undisclosed on-money receipt was required to be assessed in the year of receipt.
(This is revenue's ground no. 2 in ITA No. 726/RJT/2024 for AY 2018-19 and This is revenue's ground no. 2 in ITA No. 727/RJT/2024 for AY 2019-20)
(iv) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs 6,61,53,470/ made on account of unaccounted expenses u/s 690 r.w.s 1158BE of the Income Tax Act.
(This is revenue's ground no. 3 in ITA No. 726/RJT/2024 for AY 2018-19)
(v) The Id. CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in confirming action AO in treating short term capital gain of Rs. 26,69,398/- on sale of industrial plots as business income. The action of AO in treating the same as business is totally unjustified and the AO Therefore the AO may kindly be directed to accept the gain on sale of lands as per return of income filed.
(This is assessee's ground No. 5 in ITA No. 718/RJT/2024 for AY 2019-20, This is assessee's ground No. 5 in ITA No. 719/RJT/2024 for AY 2020-21 and This is assessee's ground no.5 & 6 in ITA No. 720/RJT/2024 for AY 2021-22)
4. The relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are as follows. The assessee is an Individual. As per the Income-tax Return for AY 2018- 19 filed on 25/03/2023, the total income is declared at Rs. 62,54,570/-. A Search, Seizure and Survey action was carried out by the office of DDIT (Inv.), Unit-1, Rajkot in the case of leading real estate builders of Rajkot and their key associates on 24.08.2021. Four different groups were covered in the operation. All the four groups are in the business of real estate and are mainly concentrated in and around Rajkot. A total of forty-three (43) premises Income Tax Act 1961 and the other Page 3 of 36 ITA No. 717 TO 721/RJT/2024 Rameshbhai V. Tilara 11 premises were covered u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act 1961. The premises covered were a mix of residential and business premises of their related entities, their family members, key associates and employees. RK group is headed and managed by Shri Sarvanand Sadhuram Sonwani and his extended family. The Sonwani family is a joint unit for the purpose of business. RK Group is developing multiple projects in the nature of Commercial Residential and Industrial plotting projects. Important family members, offices, key associates and employees were also covered in the search and survey operation to get hold of important incriminating evidences. In the RK Group the main persons/partners were Sonwani family. Some projects of RK Group were developed with other groups also. The group was mainly involved in taking on-money/unaccounted cash on selling of units in its projects and giving on money on purchasing of the land. The data of on-money/unaccounted cash was being maintained in a very systematic manner in Miracle file. In Miracle files mainly unaccounted transaction has been entered with some banking transaction as well. The main/key person of the group is Shri Sarvanand Sadhuram Sonwani on whose directions and guidance the business activities are carried out. Shri Girish Vanjani was maintaining the accounts of the RK Group (including parallel unaccounted cash transactions) at the instruction of Shri Sarvanand Sonwani. The premise of Shri Girish Vanjani was also covered during the search action. It can be seen that Shri Girish Vanjani has categorically stated that he does the work of accounting as per the instructions of Shri Sarvanand Sonwani. Even Shri Sarvanand Sonwani has accepted (in his statements recorded u/s 131 of the Act at the residential premise of Girish Vanjani on 27:08 2021) that Shri Girish Vanjani does the work of accounting as per his instructions.
5. Thus, Shri Girish Vanjani is a key employee and accountant of the R K Group is an admitted and coned fact. During the course of search and seizure action at Page 4 of 36 ITA No. 717 TO 721/RJT/2024 Rameshbhai V. Tilara the residential premise of Shri Girish Vanjani, Pen Drives and Hard Discs were recovered. Forensic Mirror Imaging (Digital Data Backup) of these devices was taken and the same were Seized. The backup contained key accounting files (Miracle Files) in which unaccounted transactions and some accounted transactions of the entire group were recorded in a very systematic manner. The accounts of 1) Sale of units 2) Cost of lands 3) Expenses incurred on various projects and other miscellaneous transactions made by RK Group members with various counter parties were maintained in accounting software known as MIRACLE. Details of sale of units maintained in various expel sheets were also found and seized from the premise of Shri Girish Vanjani. Multiple miracle files have been found from the digital data that has been imaged and seized during the search operation. Many miracle files found are duplicate copies of each other or either not fully updated. Some Miracle files are more updated than the other. From the plethora of Miracle files that have been found during the post search analysis, 3 files have been isolated which when studied together cover the financial transactions of the group. The details of the three Miracle files as under-
Sr. No. Name of the file
1 Divyaraj & Co. (01/08/2009 to 30/06/2016)
2 Divyaraj & Co. (01/07/2006 to 31/03/2009)
3 R K World (01/04/2009 to...)
6. Apart from the above, various documents in the form of loose-papers, excel sheets etc. have also been recovered and seized during the search operation from the premises of the group members highlighting various kind of financial transactions accounted as well as unaccounted. All the data collected and seized during the search and survey operation has been perused and co-related with the actual transactions made by the group persons and entities. The financial transactions pertaining to sale and purchase of various kinds of properties as seized in the form of Digital Data and in the form of Hard Data were also compared and corroborated with the documentary evidences and responses Page 5 of 36 ITA No. 717 TO 721/RJT/2024 Rameshbhai V. Tilara received from the Sub-registrar office and with the data available in public domains on various government portals like garvi.gujarat.gov.in and 3) gujrera.gujarat.gov.in. Comparison of the financial 1) anyror.gujarat.gov.in 2) transactions entered in the Miracle accounting files seized during the search was also made with those reported on the regular books of various group members and entities. All this comparison and corroboration exercise has revealed following factual aspects about the seized data-
Fact 1 The seized Miracle files recovered during the search operation contain transactions that took place between (1) R K Group members and (2) various other parties (counter parties). They include the accounts of cash as well as bank transactions.
It is seen in most of the ledgers from the seized Miracle file that they contain some Bank transactions which are found recorded on the regular books and some Cash transactions which are normally not recorded on the regular books of the respective Group member. This manner of recording the transactions highlights a fact that one part (mostly in Bank) of every deal was being reported on the regular books and the other part (mostly in cash) of the deal was not being reported on the regular books.
Thus, some transactions from the Miracle files were accounted for whereas some were not accounted for in the regular books of the respective group member who owns the transaction.
Fact 2 The data entered in the Miracle software is in coded form -
(1) the entries have been backdated by 10 years i.e. 01-04-2019 is entered as 01- 04-2009, and
2) the amounts have been divided by 100 i.e. Rs. 2,50,000/- is entered as 2500.00/- Fact 3 The names of the ledgers of different projects, persons have been written in coded form. It is seen that mostly the names of the projects for which any particular transaction is recorded on the seized file were mentioned with the initials.
For example-(1) R K Residency is mentioned as RKR,( 2) R K Prime is mentioned as RKP, (3) The City Centre is mentioned as TCC, (4) R K Supreme is mentioned as SPM etc. All the above factual aspects are discussed with example in the later part of this order.
Page 6 of 36ITA No. 717 TO 721/RJT/2024 Rameshbhai V. Tilara
7. Industrial plotting project RK Industrial Zone-11 is developed on the land owned by Shri Ramesh Tilara and Mehul Bhalara. This project is divided in two parts Le Industrial Zone-11A and 11B and industrial plots in this project are being sold by Shri Mehul Bhalara and Shri Ramesh Tilara (the assessee). The data relating to the project are maintained in miracle accounting software. RK Industrial Zone 11B is an industrial plotting project. This project has been developed on plots that are owned by Shri Ramesh Tilara (The assessee). The project has been marketed under the brand name of RK Group. RK Industrial Zone 11B has been developed by Ramesh Tilara and with the help of sonwani family. Although the owner of the project land was. Ramesh Tilara but the project was being developed and managed by sonvani family under the umbrella name of RK Group. Further, on perusal of the content of the Miracle file it is found that Shri Sarvanand Sonwani is also managing the day-to-day affairs and handling sales of the parcel of plots owned by Shri Ramesh Tilara. Furthermore, during the course of search and seizure action at the residential premise (premise A-6) of Shri Deepak Purswani some loose papers were found and seized as Annexure A-
2. In Annexure A-2 on page 130 there is a summary sheet of the Industrial Zone. On verification of the summary sheet, it is found that 'RT' and SS' are distributing 50% of the profits in this project. 'RT' and 'SS' should mean Shri Ramesh Tilara and Sarvanand Sonwani respectively which implies Sho Sarvanand Sonwani is a silent partner in the project. Details of following unaccounted transactions pertaining to the project have been recovered from the material seized during the search operation.
Unaccounted receipts of Rs. 11.18.26.560/- against sale of units of the project and repayments of Rs. 66.15.900/- on account of cancellation or excess receipts as culled out from the seized Miracle data. Unaccounted expense / investment of Rs. 6,61,53,370/- made in the purchase of land for the project as culled out from the seized Miracle data.
Page 7 of 36ITA No. 717 TO 721/RJT/2024 Rameshbhai V. Tilara Unaccounted expenses of Rs. 1,19,27,006/- incurred for the project as culled out from the seized Miracle data.
8. As details regarding unaccounted transactions related to the assessee, as discussed above, have been gathered from the seized material during the search the assessee after following due procedure as per the Act and with prior approval of operation, a notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued on 22-03-2023 the specified authority as per section 151 of the Act In response to the notice issued under section 148, the assessee has filed an Income tax return on 25-03- 2023. Subsequently, a notice u/s 143(2) of the Income-tax Act has been issued and served on 07-04-2023 on the e-filing portal of the Assessee. Subsequently, notices u/s 142(1) have been issued from time to time seeking primary as well as further details from the assessee for carrying out the assessment. In view of natural justice the objections raised by the assessee against initiation of proceedings u/s 148 of the Act have been disposed of and the images of original seized material pertaining to the assessee have been supplied and discussed in the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act from time to time.
ISSUES INVOLVED Issue of receipt of On-money on units of R K Industrial Zone 11B
9. The seized material pertaining to the assessee contained details of various kinds of unaccounted transactions (as summarized earlier). These transactions were not confined only to the year under consideration but were scattered in various financial years. Industrial plotting project RK Industrial Zone-11 is developed on the land owned by Shri Ramesh Tilara and Shri Mehul Bhalara. This project is divided in two parts i.e. Industrial Zone-11A and 11B. The data relating to the project is found maintained in miracle accounting software that was seized during the search operation. The name of every project developed by the Group is in Page 8 of 36 ITA No. 717 TO 721/RJT/2024 Rameshbhai V. Tilara coded form in the Miracle files. The project "R K Industrial Zone-11" is mentioned / coded as "IJ11" in the Miracle file. The receipt against the bookings of the project are spread in FYs 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 (till the date of the search). Separate ledgers for each and every unit that has been booked are also recorded very systematically in the seized Miracle file. For better understanding of the ledgers related to "R K Industrial Zone-11". The above ledger "IJ11 B 14A to 14H" contain the details of payment received for the sale of sub plot 14A to 14H of part-2 (part B) of R K Industrial Zone-11. Here "IJ11' refer the "R K Industrial Zone-11, B for part-2 (part -B) of this industrial Zone, 14A to 14H refer the plot no. 14A to 14H. It can be seen that assessee has booked the 14A to 14H at industrial Zone -11 B for sale on 08/08/2019for total consideration of Rs. 1,18,70,593/-(in coded form, it is shown as Rs.118705.93) and out of which Rs. 12,00,000/- has been received through bank (marked inside a box) and remaining amount has been received in cash in different F.Ys. The amount received through bank is the amount that is mentioned in respective conveyance deed and same the sale consideration shown by the assessee. The total sale consideration for the above plots (plot no. 14A to 14H) has been offered by the assessee is Rs. 12,00,000/- which is exactly same the amount received through banking channel. (Highlighted in the above pasted ledger). The respective sale deeds (по.890, 892.893 8894 dated: 11.02.2021) for the above plots have also been executed for the total amount of Rs. 12,00,000/-only. To establish that 'LJ118' is the project 'R K Industrial Zone-11B and entries contained in the ledger names starting with "IJ11B" contain genuine and correct data of transactions of the project RK Industrial Zone-11B, another example is being discussed here. A snap shot of Ledger account of "IJ11 B 18 (Ok)" from the Miracle file 3 is pasted and discussed hereunder to explain the correctness of data in the Miracle files and to calculate the actual receipt of on-money in cash. The above mentioned snap shot of ledger contains the details of payment received for the sale of Plot no.B-18 of the R K Industrial Zone-11B. On perusal of the ledger, Page 9 of 36 ITA No. 717 TO 721/RJT/2024 Rameshbhai V. Tilara it is seen that the plot number B-18 has been sold for 28,77,600/- (in coded form, it is shown as 28776.00). The purchaser of plot B-18 has sent 248100/- and 66500/-through banking channel. Though the actual value of the property was 2877600/-, only 248100/-and 66500/- have been received through the banking channel and rest of the amount of 25,63,000/- has been received in cash. The cash component has not been recorded in the regular books of account. Sale deed of the above-mentioned plot has been obtained from the Sub Registrar Office. On perusal of the sale deed, it is found the plot has been sold at a price of Rs. 248100/- which is exactly same to the amount as recorded in the miracle ledger. The amounts match exactly with the entry of Miracle ledger. Thus, it is established beyond doubt that the entries in the ledger "IJ11 B 18 (Ok)" discussed above are absolutely correct and genuine. It is very clear that the total amount of sale consideration of plot no. B-18 of R K Industrial Zone-11(B/2) is 28,77,600/- instead of 2,48,100/-. Moreover, the bank entry of 66,500/- as mentioned in the Miracle ledger has been transferred in the account no.472100050300689 of TAMILNAD MERCANTILE BANK LTD of the Industrial Zone 11 Owners Association. The details of the account were called for from the bank and been placed on record. In view of the above, it is established beyond doubt that 'IJ11' in the Miracle file stands for 'Industrial Zone 11'. The entries contained in the ledger names starting with "IJ11' contain genuine and absolutely correct data of money received in the project Industrial Zone 11'. From the above discussion the following things are established:
First and foremost, it is established beyond doubt that the ledgers starting with "IJ11" in the miracle company database file are related to the Project R K Industrial Zone-11.
Shri Ramesh Tilara has not accounted the cash receipts in the regular books of account and thus need to be taxed accordingly.
The amount mentioned in miracle file is in coded form where the exact amount is calculated by multiplying the recorded entry by 100. For eg. the amount of 10000 is written as 100.00.Page 10 of 36
ITA No. 717 TO 721/RJT/2024 Rameshbhai V. Tilara The dates have also been purposely back dated by exactly 10 years.
Similarly, data of on-money receipts in cash for the other units of RK Industrial Zone-11 have also been found in the Miracle files. On the basis of the details available in the Miracle files related to project R K Industrial Zone-11 and its re- conciliation with other seized documents during the search action.
Conclusion:
10. In nutshell, the prime contentions of the assessee-can be summarized as -
1) Notice u/s 148 of the Act has been issued without following the procedure /requirement laid down u/s 148 & 149 of the Act:
It is to clarify that the assessment proceedings have been initiated after following the due procedure laid in the Act and after recording the reasons satisfying the requirement of these sections and after obtaining prior approval of the competent authority specified in this Act. The same objections have also been raised by the assessee during the assessment proceeding and the same has been disposed off with the show cause notice. Further, copy of the reasons/ satisfaction along with approval letter from competent authority has been also supplied to the assessee.
2) No unaccounted transactions took place.
This is a plain lie as the seized Miracle ledgers pertaining to the assessee clearly highlight unaccounted transactions.
3) Addition cannot be made solely based on the statement of Shri Girish Vanjani It is noted that the assessee has not disputed the fact that Shri Girish Vanjani was an accountant cum cashier of the R K Group.
Page 11 of 36ITA No. 717 TO 721/RJT/2024 Rameshbhai V. Tilara Moreover, it should be born in mind that the adverse inference in case of the assessee is not based on the statement recorded from Shri Girish Vanjani. Rather, in the show cause notice, no reference is taken from the statements given by Shri Girish Vanjani. The adverse inference is being proposed solely based on the self- explanatory seized documents in the form of accounting ledgers containing details of accounted as well as unaccounted transactions pertaining to the assessee. Besides, it is also necessary to put forth that all the relevant seized documents that pertain to the assessee and contain the details regarding accounted as well as unaccounted transactions of the assessee have already been supplied in the last show cause notice CO Therefore, the plea that the assessee is unable to check / verify the allegations made in the notice in absence of the seized material is devoid of any merits, if the department uses any material from third party opportunity of Cross be provided recovered or statement recorded examination to other partners to Since no statement recorded is relied upon for proposing adverse inference, there is no need to provide any cross-examination of any such person. The sale value has been recorded in the books as per stamp duty value / fair market value any doubt in the matter of valuation can be resolved from valuation cell. In view of the earlier remarks, it is a blatant lie if the assessee claims that it has not made any unaccounted transaction (be it a receipt or a payment). Besides, nowhere in the entire show cause notice any doubt regarding actual valuation of any property or expense is expressed because the instances of excess payments for purchase of properties are evident from the reliable seized data and as such there is no requirement for resolving any doubt regarding any valuation from valuation cell. Adverse inference cannot be taken relying on data recovered from third party i.e. Shri Girish Vanjani. The law regarding assessments based on documents seized from the domain of third party has evolved over the time. Earlier, the legal position was that to pursue assessment in case of other than searched persons it was necessary that the seized documents recovered during search should belong to the other person. Now, in present scenario, the Page 12 of 36 ITA No. 717 TO 721/RJT/2024 Rameshbhai V. Tilara assessments in case of other than searched persons (i.e. the assessee) can be pursued if their involvement in unaccounted transactions is apparent from the documents seized during search operation.
11. Hence, this contention as per outdated legal position is no more relevant in the present times Further, in support of this claim the assessee has also quoted many case laws. However, the facts of the case are differentiable from those which were subject matter of the courts Hence, they are not relevant. Shri Girish Vanjani, Shri Sarvanand Sonwani have denied the unaccounted transactions. Here, it is very critical to understand the very purpose behind authenticating /validating any seized material or document. Normally, when the contents of any seized documents are ambiguous then confirmation or approval of its author or owner or affected person is necessary in order to clear the ambiguity and understand the content. In contrast, when the contents of the seized documents are such that they can be independently corroborated with any actual event that already took place then there is no necessity for approval / validation from anyone. Denial of Shri Girish Vanjani, Shri Sarvanand Sonwani is immaterial because the contents of the seized material recovered during the search action are self-explanatory and verifiable independently from various undisputed factual events where the assessee has remained a party to transaction. The allegation leveled on the assessee has no legal sanctity. In case, confirmation from the customers / buyers required. The same can be furnished. As the seized documents in the form of Accounting ledgers are self-contained and speaking in nature there is no need for any confirmation from any other party. Further, since the interests of these other parties are also adversely affected by these ledgers, their confirmation in negative is but natural as their own self-defense. The data in Miracle is not complete and correct. Accuracy of the data in Miracle file has already been proved earlier when the bank receipt as appearing from one of the Page 13 of 36 ITA No. 717 TO 721/RJT/2024 Rameshbhai V. Tilara seized Miracle ledger has been cross-verified with the regular Bank book of the assessee-. It is seen that the unit no and banking transactions appearing on these ledger are match with those recorded on regular books of the assessee. (many ledgers have been explained in assessment order as well as in show cause notice).
12. It is also established that these entries are self-explanatory and the corroboration of these entries can be made independently with factual events that already took place and, therefore, there is no need or necessity for approval or validation from any person directly or indirectly connected with these entries. The income of the real estate builder is taxable at the time of transfer of title & possession of property in favour of customer and not at the time of booking of unit by customer. Here, the assessee is disputing the point of time for recognizing income of real estate builder contending that it is taxable at the time of transfer of title & possession of property. It is important to note that the scheme of recognizing income of real estate builder at the time of transfer of title is in place so that the interests of both the parties i.e. the builder and the purchaser remains intact. In principle, when money is received prior to transfer of title in the name of purchaser is recognized as advance for property and only at the time of transfer of title the entire receipt is recognized as income of the builder. This is so because at the time of transfer of title though registered conveyance deed the builder records the amount of income that is going to be recognized as income. Here, in the present case, it is seen that the conveyance deeds are also executed with the receipts through banking transactions only. The non-banking receipts are not being mentioned in the conveyance deed also. Thus, as far as the non-banking receipts are concerned, the builder i.e. the assessee- does not bear any risk of returning the same to the purchaser in case of any dispute as the same is not part of the documented value. Further, if dispute occurs, the purchaser is at the mercy of the builder to receive back the unaccounted payments made via non-banking Page 14 of 36 ITA No. 717 TO 721/RJT/2024 Rameshbhai V. Tilara channels. Since, the builder bears no legal obligation as far as the undocumented value any money received over and above the document value should be recognized as income of the builder at the same time when it is being received. Besides, in view of the remarks given against the contentions of the assessee with regard to the issue of payment of on-money for acquisition of the land on which the industrial plotting project has been pursued by the assessee, it can be understood that the assessee has failed to establish the veracity of the contention. Therefore, Rs. 6,61,53,370/-paid as on-money for purchase of land is treated as unexplained expense within the meaning of section 69C of the Act incurred by the assessee in order to acquire the land for development of industrial plots by the name of R K Industrial Zone 11(B). Accordingly, Rs 6,61,53,370/- is treated as deemed income u/s 69C r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Penalty proceedings as per provisions of section 271AAC of the Act are also initiated herewith with respect to the addition of Rs. 6,61,53,370/-. After considering all the objections of the assessee in its reply to the show cause notice and taking into consideration the facts and material available on records.
Rejection of books
13. After thorough examination of the response to show cause notice and dismissing various contentions raised by the assessee in its reply, it has been made clear that the seized digital data in the form of accounting entries on Miracle file is accurate, reliable and self-explanatory. Further, there is also no doubt that the accounts of the assessee where all the transactions are not reflected cannot be relied upon as they present incomplete and incorrect state of affairs of business of the assessee and requires to be disregarded invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. Accordingly, provisions of section 145(3) are invoked herewith and the assessment of total income of the assessee is being made after taking into account all relevant material gathered during the search and the assessment Page 15 of 36 ITA No. 717 TO 721/RJT/2024 Rameshbhai V. Tilara proceedings. As per the material gathered during the search and submissions available on records the assessee is found to have indulged in the practice of suppressing both receipts (on account of sale) and payments (on account of purchase) made for the projects undertaken/developed during the year. There is no uniform method that can be employed to compute income when part receipts on account of sale are not included on the books. The method differs from case to case depending upon various factors ie type of business, modus operandi of the assessee, sufficiency of data available for estimation etc. In a case where the evidence available on record contains details of corresponding unaccounted payments which are also partly included on the books, such partly recorded payments should also be taken into consideration. Taxing the receipts only has never been the motto of the Income-tax Act.
14. In this regard, the observation of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Williamson Financial Services [2007] 165 Taxman 638 (SC) is reproduced below:
"It is important to bear in mind that u/s 4, the levy is on total income of the assessee computed in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Income Tax Act. What is chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act is not the gross receipt but the income under the Income Tax Act. The tax is on income but not on gross receipts."
Where suppression of sales receipts is involved, the question is whether the entire sales or only a percentage of profit should be adopted as income. In CIT v. President Industries [2002] 124 Taxman 654 (Gujarat), the Assessing Officer had found evidence of suppression of sales. He adopted the entire receipt (sales) as income but the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has held that the entire undisclosed receipts (sales) cannot constitute income. The sales only represent the price received by the seller of the units for which the seller has already incurred the cost in order to acquire or process the inventory. Therefore, it is the realization of excess consideration over the cost incurred which should be assessed as profit or income. In other words, profit component embedded in the Page 16 of 36 ITA No. 717 TO 721/RJT/2024 Rameshbhai V. Tilara sales could be treated as income. Recently, in the case of PCIT v. Ms. Jay Kesar Bhavani Developers Pvt. Ltd. in Tax Appeal no. 267 of 2022, the Hon'ble Guj. High Court has held that only profit element embedded in the gross on-money receipts can be taxed. For this, the Hon'ble court has derived reference from its earlier decision delivered in the case of DCIT Vs. Panna Corporation reported in [2012] 74 DTR 89. Relevant part of the decision is as under -
"it has been consistently held by this court and some other courts have been following the principle that even upon detection of on-money receipt or unaccounted cash receipt, what can be brought to tax is the profit embedded in such receipts and not the entire receipts themselves. If that were the legal position, what should be estimated as a reasonable profit out of such receipts, must bear an element of estimation."
Even in those cases where no details regarding unexplained payments / investments are available on records, it has been held by the Hon'ble Guj. High Court that while dealing with addition on account of unaccounted sales, in absence of any material on record to show that there was any unexplained investment / expense made by the assessee, there could be a presumption of such expenditure. In such event also it is held that only profit on suppressed sales could be brought to tax [CIT v. Gurubachhan Singh J Juneja [2008] 171 Taxman 406 (Gujarat)]. Hence, in such cases, both the Supreme Court and the Jurisdictional High Court have consistently held that where evidences regarding unaccounted receipts are being assessed it is not reasonable to consider the entire unaccounted receipts for taxation. Rather, only profit element lying therein should be estimated keeping in mind the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case at hand. There for respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and the Jurisdictional High Court and in view of the facts of the case it would be fair if reasonable rate of profit is adopted to tax the unaccounted income of the assessee.
Page 17 of 36ITA No. 717 TO 721/RJT/2024 Rameshbhai V. Tilara Estimation of rate of profit in Industrial Projects
15. Details of 25 Industrial projects undertaken by the searched group members and their partners have been recovered from the seized Miracle File. Some projects were in completion stage whereas some were just started. Besides, in respect of some projects comprehensive details i.e. Land purchase, Project expenses, On-money receipts have been recovered from the seized data whereas in other projects very limited details i.e. only on-money receipts were recovered. Wherever, details of receipts and payments were recoverable form the seized data, it is noticed that the net surplus funds available with these projects were ranged from-37% to 51%. Reason for this vast gap between the upper and lower ends of this net surplus range was primarily attributable to the stage in which a particular project has reached since its inception. For example, if any project is just launched then its % of net surplus funds would be lower because most of the funds are spent /applied on inventory and the inflow of on-money has not started in full pace. Due to combined effect of these two aspects the availability of surplus funds remains either on lower side or sometimes in negative state. Thus, it is understood that taking reference from the net surplus/ unaccounted profits of such 'just launched projects would not give true picture of the potential profitability of such projects. In order to estimate a reasonable rate of profit, it is taken that only those projects for which maximum data is available from the seized material should be relied upon. At the same time it is also ensured that the project that almost reached its final stage (with respect to construction activity and receipt of on-money both) should only be taken as reference for adoption of an appropriate rate of profit. After considering all the above aspects, following ten projects have been identified as reference -
Sr. No. Name of the project Name of the developer/owner
1 R K Industrial Zone - 6 Shri Bharat J Sonwani
2 R K Industrial Zone - 7 Shri Bharat J Sonwani
Page 18 of 36
ITA No. 717 TO 721/RJT/2024
Rameshbhai V. Tilara
3 R K Industrial Zone - 9 (Phase 1) Smt. Vandna J Sonwani
4 R K Industrial Zone - 9 (Phase 2) Smt. Vandna J Sonwani
5 R K Industrial Zone - 9 (Phase 3) Shri Bharat J Sonwani
6 R K Industrial Zone - 9 (Phase 4) Shri Sarvanand S Sonwani
7 R K Industrial Zone - 10 Shri Bharat J Sonwani
8 R K Industrial Zone - 11 (Part 2) Shri Ramesh Tilara
9 R K Industrial Zone - 12 Smt. Vandna J Sonwani
10 R K Industrial Zone - 15 Shri Sarvanand S Sonwani
16. Net receipts of all these 10 projects have been calculated and it is seen that after considering all kind of transactions i.e. Net on-money receipts, Expenses for running the project including the Land purchase there remained average net surplus of 21% the hands of respective developer/owner Sr. Name of the project Name of the developer/owner % of net surplus No. 1 R K Industrial Zone - 6 Shri Bharat J Sonwani 22% 2 R K Industrial Zone - 7 Shri Bharat J Sonwani 23% 3 R K Industrial Zone - 9 (Phase 1) Smt. Vandna J Sonwani 22% 4 R K Industrial Zone - 9 (Phase 2) Smt. Vandna J Sonwani 22% 5 R K Industrial Zone - 9 (Phase 3) Shri Bharat J Sonwani 22% 6 R K Industrial Zone - 9 (Phase 4) Shri Sarvanand S Sonwani 22% 7 R K Industrial Zone - 10 Shri Bharat J Sonwani 17% 8 R K Industrial Zone - 11 (Part 2) Shri Ramesh Tilara 26% 9 R K Industrial Zone - 12 Smt. Vandna J Sonwani 19% 10 R K Industrial Zone - 15 Shri Sarvanand S Sonwani 12% Average = (22+23+22+22+22+22+17+26+19+12)/10=20.7% i.e. 21% Apart from this, it is also important to keep in mind violation of various other provisions of the law which are in place to discourage the practice of indulging in such unaccounted transactions. Having said that and considering the facts of Page 19 of 36 ITA No. 717 TO 721/RJT/2024 Rameshbhai V. Tilara the present case and binding judicial precedents as discussed earlier, if all the expenses / payments are disallowed then the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court with regard to not taxing all the receipts would remain on papers only. Thus, with a view to strike a proper balance between the factual vis-à-vis the legal aspects, it is decided to further enhance the aforementioned average net profit rate from 21% to 25%. Accordingly, 25% has been set as benchmark rate for the projects where details of unaccounted receipts as well as unaccounted expenses have been recovered from same set of the seized material.
Profit calculation -
As can be seen from this table, the net surplus in the hands of the assessee- is around 26% which is higher than the benchmark of 25%. Hence, it would be appropriate to adopt a higher rate of profit in view of the specific facts of this particular case. Accordingly, the net unaccounted profit for this particular project is estimated at the rate of 28%. As far as the profit for the year under consideration i.e. FY 2017-18 is concerned, the same can be computed as under-
Page 20 of 36ITA No. 717 TO 721/RJT/2024 Rameshbhai V. Tilara Thus, addition of Rs. 3,080/- being unaccounted profit embedded in the gross unaccounted receipts is made over and above the regular business income reported by the assessee in the Income-tax Return filed for the year under consideration invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act and after considering all the facts and submissions of the assessee.
17. Aggrieved by the various additions made by the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A) The learned CIT(A) dismissed the technical grounds raised by the assessee, challenging reopening of assessment under section 147/148 of the Act. On merit, learned CIT(A), estimated the profit element on the "on money", at the rate of 8%, 12%, 16% etc, in a different assessment years. Therefore, assessee, as well as, revenue, both are in appeal before us. The main contention of the revenue in these appeals are that the addition made by the assessing officer should be confirmed. Whereas, main contention in the assessee's appeals is that the profit estimation on "on -money", is on higher side, therefore, it should be reduced to a reasonable extent, by following the judgement of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in various cases such as, in the case of Ms. Jay Kesar Bhavani Developers Pvt. Ltd. in Tax Appeal no. 267 of 2022, wherein 6% addition on "on money, was upheld. In various judgements of jurisdictional ITAT Ahmedabad, (cited by assessee in legal compilation) held that the addition on "on money" at the rate of 8% is sufficient to plug the leakage of the revenue. Therefore, the solitary grievance of the assessee in assessee's appeals are that reasonable estimation may be made in the hands of the assessee. The findings of the learned CIT(A) would be discussed Page 21 of 36 ITA No. 717 TO 721/RJT/2024 Rameshbhai V. Tilara while adjudicating the relevant issue involved in concise and summarised grounds noted above.
19. Now, we shall adjudicate, summarised and concise grounds of appeal, one by one, as follows:
20. Summarized and Concise ground No.(i) is reproduced below for ready reference:
"(i) The Id. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad erred on facts as also in law in dismissing ground of appeal related to validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961. That on facts as also in law, the proceedings-initiated u/s.
147 of the Act is invalid and assessment finalized on such invalid initiation deserves to be quashed and may kindly be quashed.
(This is assessee's ground No. 2 in ITA No. 717/RJT/2024 for AY 2018-19, This is assessee's ground No. 2 in ITA No. 718/RJT/2024 for AY 2019-20, This is assessee's ground No. 2 in ITA No. 719/RJT/2024 for AY 2020-21, This is assessee's ground No. 2 in ITA No. 720/RJT/2024 for AY 2021-22 and, This is assessee's ground No. 2 in ITA No. 721/RJT/2024 for AY 2022-23)"
21. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. We have carefully considered the submission of the Learned Counsel for the assessee and ld DR for the Revenue and evidences on record. We note that issue under consideration is squarely covered against the assessee in the assessee's own group cases, M/s R.K. Group, in ITA No. 528/RJT/2024 & others in the case of M/s. R K Infralink LLP, by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Rajkot. The findings of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Rajkot is reproduced below:
"11. We have heard both the parties. We find that in the new regime/ scheme of search assessment, the proceedings for search assessment of search party as well as third- party are made under section 147 of the Act, unlike in the earlier/ old scheme of search Page 22 of 36 ITA No. 717 TO 721/RJT/2024 Rameshbhai V. Tilara assessment, wherein the search assessment of searched party was made under section 153A of the Act, whereas the assessment of third-party, was made under section 153C of the Act. Since, in the present reassessment proceedings, both of the searched party, as well as third party assessments are covered. It is observed that the initiation of reassessment proceedings in the present case is valid in law. While passing the assessment order, the assessing officer also observed that search was carried out at the assessee`s premises on 24.08.2021, and pursuant to the search, notice under section
148 of the Act, was issued in case of the assessee. As search was carried out in the case of the assessee after 01.04.2021, wherein, provisions of section 148 were amended and provides deemed satisfaction for three assessment years prior to the date of search, and even on this ground, the assessing officer has validly issued notice under section 148 of the Act. Hence, there is no defect in the reassessment proceedings, therefore, we dismiss the ground raised by the assessee and confirm the findings of the learned CIT(A)."
22. Respectfully following the above findings in assessee's own case, we dismiss the following grounds in assessee's appeals.
(i) Ground No. 2 in ITA No. 717/RJT/2024 for AY 2018-19
(ii) Ground No. 2 in ITA No. 718/RJT/2024 for AY 2019-20
(iii) Ground No. 2 in ITA No. 719/RJT/2024 for AY 2020-21
(iv) Ground No. 2 in ITA No. 720/RJT/2024 for AY 2021-22
(v) Ground No. 2 in ITA No. 721/RJT/2024 for AY 2022-23
23. Summarized and Concise ground No.(ii) is reproduced below for ready reference:
"(ii) The ld. CIT(A)erred on facts as also in law in retaining addition of Rs. 1,320/- by estimating profit at 12% of so called on money receipt. The addition made is bad in law as also on facts therefore the same may kindly be deleted. Alternatively, the addition made by estimating rate of profit is very much higher side and therefore the same may kindly be directed to be reduced and oblige (This is assessee's ground No. 3 & 4 in ITA No. 5717/RJT/2024 for AY 2018-19, This is assessee's ground No. 3 & 4 in ITA No. 718/RJT/2024 for AY 2019-20, This is assessee's ground No. 3 & 4 in ITA No. 719/RJT/2024 for AY 2020-21, This is assessee's ground No. 3 & 4 in ITA No. 720/RJT/2024 for AY 2021-22 and, This is assessee's ground No. 3 & 4 in ITA No. 721/RJT/2024 for AY 2022-23)" (This is also revenue's ground no. 1 in ITA No. 726/RJT/2024 for AY 2018-19 and This is revenue's ground no. 1 in ITA No. 727/RJT/2024 for AY 2019-20) Page 23 of 36 ITA No. 717 TO 721/RJT/2024 Rameshbhai V. Tilara
24. We have carefully considered the facts of the case, the submission of the Learned Counsel for the assessee and ld. DR for the Revenue and evidences on record. We note that assessing officer did not reach on right conclusion, based on seized material and the profit estimation sustained by the learned CIT(A), on "on money", is on very higher side, and we note that both the lower authorities, did not follow the mandatory judgement of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat (Supra) wherein, 6% addition was made on the "on-money". In all the projects of M/s R.K. Group, on the "on-money" different estimation of profit element have been made by ld CIT(A), which are, at the rate of 8%, 12%, 12.5%, 16% and 20% etc. After all, it is "on money", therefore, a uniform profit estimation on account of profit element on "on money" should be made.
25. We note that "On-money" receipts are undisclosed receipts, and only the profit element embedded in such receipts can be taxed, not the entire "on-money"
amount. However, the rate of profit is always a matter of estimation and must depend on following factors, such as, nature of project, location, type of construction, cost structure, evidence of expenses and past profit margins. We note that in R.K. Group cases, expenses and cost in every project is higher side, due to locational disadvantage, and the profit element is below 10%, as per the past audited profit and loss accounts and evidences available in search and seizure proceedings. It is settled position of law and we also note that Courts and Tribunals have emphasized that the profit rate must have a reasonable basis in each case, and cannot be arbitrarily fixed. Since "on-money" receipts represent undisclosed sales, only the profit element embedded therein can be taxed; however, the rate of profit estimation depends on the facts of each case. We have examined the seized material and past records and noted that in RK group cases, under consideration, the past profit margin as per audited books of accounts and as per seized material is 7% (average) only, this is because, due to location of the Page 24 of 36 ITA No. 717 TO 721/RJT/2024 Rameshbhai V. Tilara project and moreover, the cost and expenses are more than other similar projects. In these circumstances, we find that profit element embedded in commercial projects and housing projects should be estimated by applying the uniform rate of 10% on "on-money". Therefore, considering the mandatory judgement of the jurisdictional Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Ms. Jay Kesar Bhavani Developers Pvt. Ltd(Supra) and considering the peculiar facts of the assessee's case, narrated above, we are of the view that profit estimation on, "on money" at the rate of, 10% is fair and reasonable.
26. We note that issue under consideration is squarely covered in favour of the assessee in the assessee's own group cases, M/s R.K. Group, in ITA No. 528/RJT/2024 & others in the case of M/s. R K Infralink LLP, by the decision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT Rajkot. The findings of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Rajkot is reproduced below:
"14. In this summarised and concise ground, the plea of the assessee is that estimated profit at the rate of 16% on the so called "on money" is on higher side, considering the judgement of the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat. However, plea of the revenue is that addition made by the assessing officer at the rate of @ 35% should be sustained. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that judgements of Hon`ble jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat, in respect of addition on "on-money", should be followed. The Hon`ble jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the following cases held that profit element embedded in the "on-money" should be added in the hands of the assessee and not the entire "on-money", and estimated addition on "on money" should be at the rate of 6% or at the rate of 8%, may be made, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The relevant judgements of the Hon`ble jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat and Hob`ble ITAT Ahmedabad, are reproduced below:
(i). 2020 (4) TMI 844ITAT AHMEDABAD GREENFIELD REALITY P. LTD. VERSUS ACIT, CENT. CIR. 1 (2) AHMEDABAD AND DOIT, CENT. CIR. 1 (2) AHMEDABAD, VERSUS GREENFIELD REALITY P. LTD.
"Estimation of Income on-money received by the assessee on booking of flats and shops in "VesuProject"Income offered by the assessee at 8% of the alleged gross receipts source of payment of cash for purchase of the land-HELD THAT:- On an analysis of the record, it would reveal that during the course of search not only details of on-money received by the assessee on booking of flats and shops in "Vesu Project" was found, but details of certain expenditure, which are not recorded in the books were also found. This included cash payment for purchase of land.CIT(A) has rightly observed that the gross on-money noticed on the seized paper cannot be considered as income of the Page 25 of 36 ITA No. 717 TO 721/RJT/2024 Rameshbhai V. Tilara assessee. There are certain expenditures which were not recorded in the books. Those expenditure must have been made from this on-money.After going through the well- reasoned order of the Id.CIT(A), and in the light of judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictiona' High Court in the case of Panna Corporation [2014 (11) TMI 797 GUJARAT HIGH COURTI as well as Koshor Mohanlal Telwala [1998 (9) TMI 106-ITAT AHMEDABAD- AI we are of the view that only element of income embedded in the on-money received by the assessee for booking of flats/shops in "Vesu Project" is required to be assessed in its hand in all these years.Element of income involved in this on-money assessee is showing income at 8%, AND CIT(A) is estimating it at 20% HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has also not mentioned any attending circumstances for harbouring a belief that 20% could have been earned from this activity. Thus after taking guidance from the judgment of Kishor Mohanlal Telwala [1998 (9) TMI 106-ITAT AHMEDABAD-Al we deem it proper that the assessee has rightly disclosed the profit element embedded in the gross profit at 8%. Accordingly, we allow the ground of appeal raised by the assessee, and hold that profit which has been directed to be adopted by the Ld.CIT(A) at 20% of the alleged turnover should be taken at 8%.
(ii)Tax appeal No.267 of 2022 dated 07.07.2022 M/S. JAY KESAR BHAVANI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.( Guj-HC) "Rejection of books of accounts u/s 145(3) On money receipt estimation of income addition on account of entire construction receipts as alleged unrecorded receipts -
HELD THAT: CIT (A) was not justified in confirming the addition of entire on-money receipts amounting to 4,72,02,368. Therefore, only estimated net profit is required to be taxed. We find that the assessee has shown net profit at 4.55.% for the assessment year under consideration and 4.59% for A.Y. 2010-11. Further, the Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT V. Abhishek Corporation [1998 (8) TIMI 110 ITAT AHMEDABAD-C) has upheld the net profit at 1.31% as declared by the assessee in that case. The net profit rate disclosed at 4,55% during the assessment year under consideration by the assessee in books of accounts and considering the facts that the project undertaken by the assessee comes under deduction of section 801B(10) hence, there may not be any intention to disclose the lower rate of profit. Considering these facts, and taking into account net profit in construction business, it would be reasonable to estimate 6% of net profit on total on-money.
(iii)The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Hariram Bhambhani INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.313 OF 2013 (BOM)(HC):
"In any view of the matter, the CIT(A) and Tribunal have come to the concurrent finding that the purchases have been recorded and only some of the sales are unaccounted. Thus, in the above view, both the authorities held that it is not the entire sales consideration which is to be brought to tax but only the profit attributable on the total unrecorded sales consideration which alone can be subject to income tax. The view taken by the authorities is a reasonable and a possible view. Thus, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration."
(iv) The ACIT Central Circle - 3, Jaipur Vs Shri Nawal Kishore Soni : ITA No. 1256, 1257, & 1258/JP/2019 [ITAT] [Jaipur]:
Page 26 of 36ITA No. 717 TO 721/RJT/2024 Rameshbhai V. Tilara "23.4 It is settled law that not only from the illegal business but also the unaccounted transaction of purchase and sale only profit/ income on sales could be assessed as undisclosed income and could be subjected to tax. Case laws to the point are as under: 1. Dr. T.A. Quereshi (157 taxmann.com 514) (Supreme Court) 2. Piara Singh (124 ITR 40) (Supreme Court) 3. S.C. Kothari (82 ITR 794 (Supreme Court) 23.5 The assessee admitted such profit at Rs. 45,00,000/-
and disclosed that on said transactions income in PMGKY, 2016 and paid due tax thereon. The copy of certificate issued by PCIT is placed on record. Thus when that transactions are of unrecorded purchase and sale of gold, which Ld. assessing officer also admits in assessment order, then simply that name & address of purchasers are not provided the entire amount of sale cannot in law be treated as undisclosed income, only profit earned from said transactions which has been admitted by assessee at Rs. 45,00,000/- can only be assessed to tax more so when the assessee has disclosed in PMGKY the said undisclosed income of Rs.45,00,000/- and paid tax in accordance with scheme and received certificate there for from Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, hence the same disclosed income cannot be included as income is assessment as per Section 199-l of PMKGY. However Ld. A.O. has allowed credit of amount of disclosed income in PMKGY from total income as so the addition on this account is restricted to Rs.45,00,000/- and balance is deleted. The assessee thus gets relief of Rs.3,02,00,000-45,00,000 = Rs. 2,57,00,000/-."
(v) Greenfield Reality P. Ltd IT(SS) A No. 320,321 and 322/Ahd/2018 & 329/Ahd/2018:
"16. We have duly considered rival submissions and gone through the record carefully. On an analysis of the record, it would reveal that during the course of search not only details of on-money received by the assessee on booking of flats and shops in "Vesu Project" was found, but details of certain expenditure, which are not recorded in the books were also found. This included cash payment for purchase of land. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly observed that the gross on-money noticed on the seized paper cannot be considered as income of the assessee. There are certain expenditures which were not recorded in the books. Those expenditure must have been made from this on-money. Therefore, after going through the well-reasoned order of the Ld.CIT(A), IT(SS)A No.289 Ahd/2018 (7 Others) Greenfield Reality P. Ld. Vs. DCIT and in the light of judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Panna Corporation (supra) as well as Koshor Mohanlal Telwala (supra), we are of the view that only element of income embedded in the on-money received by the assessee for booking of flats/shops in "Vesu Project" is required to be assessed in its hand in all these years.
17. Next question arose, what is the element of income involved in this on- money. On one hand, the assessee is showing income at 8%, on the other hand, the ld. CIT(A) is estimating it at 20%. It is pertinent to observe that section 144 of the Income Tax Act provides discretion in the assessing officer to pass best judgment when an assessee failed to appear before him, and to submit requisite details. In other words, it provides power in the assessing officer to estimate an income of the assessee. We deem it appropriate to take note the relevant part of this section. It reads as under:..
"24. We have considered rival submissions and gone through the record carefully. There is no dispute that during the course of search certain Page 27 of 36 ITA No. 717 TO 721/RJT/2024 Rameshbhai V. Tilara material/loose papers were found exhibiting the fact that the assessee has received cash, over and above, the amounts stated in the booking register. This cash was not accounted for in the books. It has been treated as on-money for sale of flats/shops. Simultaneously certain loose papers were found disclosing the fact that the expenditure were incurred in cash and accounted in the books. The Ld.CIT(A) made an analysis of this, and then held that the moment assessee's income is being assessed at 8% of the gross on-money, then the remaining amount 92% could take care of unexplained expenditure. It can be explained by a simple, viz. an assessee has received Rs.100/- in cash for sale of flat. Out of that, element of income embedded in this Rs. 100/-has been determined by us at Rs.8/-. Remaining Rs.92/- must have been incurred by the assessee for developing that flat. Thus, in other words, the expenditure whose details were found being incurred in cash could be construed as coming out of these Rs.92/-. Thus, there cannot be any separate addition of unexplained expenditure. The Ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition."
15. We note that the assessee is in appeal before us and praying the Bench that estimated addition is very higher side and it should be reduced, at a reasonable level. However, learned DR for the revenue submitted that addition made by the assessing officer may be confirmed. We note that the estimation of income is based on facts and will vary from business to business and year to year, depending on the business conditions. We note that ld.CIT(A) has estimated the profit on the "on-money" at the rate of 16% but the ld.CIT(A) has failed to bring on record any comparable case in support of his estimation that too @ 16% and in some cases 8% and 12% etc. No doubt estimate of the profit can be resorted to in these types of cases but the estimate and that too at a particular percentage or fraction of percentage which ld CIT(A) has adopted has to be based on sound reasoning in comparison with the past results as well as comparable cases. Without this the estimation so made cannot be said to be valid estimation. The jurisdictional Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, in case of estimation of profit element on, "on-money" has taken the view that estimation of profit in these type of cases of "on-money" had been held between range of 6% to 8%.
16. We note that the average profit of the assessee as per audited books of accounts is 7%, therefore, profit estimation done by the learned CIT(A) at the rate of 16% on the "on-money" is higher side. Considering the nature of business and voluminous 'on- money' and taking into account, the fact that there is expenditure made by the assessee to develop the project out of the "on-money", therefore, profit margin in this type of business normally is 10% on "on-money". We proceed to work out the estimation of profit keeping in mind the following facts:
(i)The estimate is not opened up to be framed in an arbitrary manner.
(ii) The estimate by rule of thumb is absolutely infirm.
(iii)The estimation of rate of profit return must necessarily vary with the nature of the business.
(iv)There cannot be any uniform yardstick.
(v)An assessment to be best of judgement can only be based on the material available on record and past records and considering the totality of the facts.Page 28 of 36
ITA No. 717 TO 721/RJT/2024 Rameshbhai V. Tilara
(vi) Only real income and neither notional income nor astronomical income, can be taxed under the I.T. Act, 1961.
Accordingly, we note that estimation the profit element on 'on-money' at the rate of 10%, should be fair, keeping in mind the principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H. M. Esufali Abdulali that the method to be adopted must be which is approximately nearer to the truth.
17. Considering the facts and circumstances, narrated above, we find that the estimation done by the assessing officer, and re-estimated addition, sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) @ 16% is very higher side. Therefore, we are of the view that the estimated addition on "on-money" should be @ 10%, which will take care of inconsistency in the undisclosed income of the assessee. Therefore, the assessing officer, is directed to make the addition in the hands of assessee, at the rate of 10%, on "on-money". Hence, we allow above appeals of these assessee partly and dismiss all the appeals of the revenue."
27. Therefore, respectfully following the binding judgement of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Rajkot in assessee's own case (Supra), we direct the assessing officer to tax "on-money" at the rate of 10%, therefore, we partly allow the following appeals of the assessee:
(i) Ground No. 3 & 4 in ITA No. 717/RJT/2024 for AY 2018-19
(ii) Ground No. 3 & 4 in ITA No. 718/RJT/2024 for AY 2019-20
(iii) Ground No. 3 & 4 in ITA No. 719/RJT/2024 for AY 2020-21
(iv) Ground No. 3 & 4 in ITA No. 720/RJT/2024 for AY 2021-22
(v) Ground No. 3 & 4 in ITA No. 721/RJT/2024 for AY 2022-23 Whereas following appeal of the revenue are dismissed:
(i) Ground no. 1 in ITA No. 726/RJT/2024 for AY 2018-19,
(ii) Ground no. 1 in ITA No. 727/RJT/2024 for AY 2019-20.
28. Summarized and Concise ground No.(iii) is reproduced below for ready reference:
(iii) The Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the AO to tax the unaccounted profit in the year in which sale deed is executed instead of the year in which the on-money has been received, Ignoring that the same is not in accordance with Accounting principles as per ICDS-3 applicable to Real Estate Developers and also not appreciating that the income Page 29 of 36 ITA No. 717 TO 721/RJT/2024 Rameshbhai V. Tilara on account of undisclosed on-money receipt was required to be assessed in the year of receipt.
(This is revenue's ground no. 2 in ITA No. 726/RJT/2024 for AY 2018-19 and This is revenue's ground no. 2 in ITA No. 727/RJT/2024 for AY 2019-20)
29. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. We have heard learned DR for the revenue in detail and learned Counsel for the assessee also. In our considered view, it was wholly erroneous on the part of the authorities below to apply the accounting principles of ICDS-III, as it is not applicable to the assessee, under consideration. We note that issue under consideration is squarely covered in favour of the assessee in the assessee's own group cases, M/s R.K. Group, in ITA No. 528/RJT/2024 & others in the case of M/s. R K Infralink LLP, by the decision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT Rajkot. The findings of the Co- ordinate Bench of ITAT Rajkot is reproduced below:
"21. Learned DR for the revenue argued that Ld.CIT(A) ought not to have directed the assessing officer, to tax the unaccounted profit in the year in which sale deed is executed instead of the year in which the "on-money" has been received. The treatment of revenue recognition adopted by the learned CIT(A) is not in accordance with Accounting principles as per ICDS-3, which is applicable to Real Estate Developers. The learned DR, therefore, stated that the income on account of undisclosed "on- money" receipt was required to be assessed in the year of receipt.
22. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has been following the accrual basis of accounting and percentage of completion method. Therefore, revenue should be recognised in the year in which the transaction got materialised, that is, in assessee`s case, when the document is registered and executed, then only the revenue is recognised, with certainty. Hence, learned CIT(A) has rightly directed the assessing officer to recognise the revenue in the year in which the transaction/sale of flat is registered.
23. We have considered the submissions of both the parties, and we note that ICDS- 3 refers to Income Computation and Disclosure Standard-III, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes under section 145(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It deals with computation of income from construction contracts for tax purposes. It is largely based on the earlier Accounting Standard AS-7 but contains important differences relevant for income tax computation. We note that ICDS-III applies to construction contracts of contractors, however, assessee under consideration is not a contractor, but he is a contractee. A person who undertakes contract to do a job/work for others, is contractor. However, assessee under consideration is not a contractor but a Page 30 of 36 ITA No. 717 TO 721/RJT/2024 Rameshbhai V. Tilara contractee, who gets the work done from contractor and assessee pays the amount to the contractors for services rendered by them to it ( assessee), therefore, ICDS-III is not applicable to the assessee under consideration. Hence, we are of the view that ICDS- III applies to Contractors (not contractees). Fundamental Accounting Principle, as per ICDS-III is the Percentage of Completion Method (POCM). The Percentage of Completion Method is mandatory method under ICDS-III. Under ICDS-III the Revenue from variations, claims and incentives shall be recognised only when there is reasonable certainty of its ultimate collection.
24. We note that even if the addition on account of estimated profit on alleged "on- money" cash receipts is made, the same should be made in the year of actual sale when the conveyance deed is executed in the favour of buyer when the significant risk and rewards are transferred. It is observed that the assessee has consistently followed revenue recognition method whereby sale is offered to tax when registered sale deed of particular unit is executed, that is, date on which significant risk and reward has been transferred to buyer. This method of accounting has been followed consistently by assessee on year to year basis and assessing officer has not disturbed such methodology. This method of accounting of recognizing revenue has been accepted by Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of Shivalik Buildwell Pvt Ltd. [2013] 40 taxmann.com 219 wherein it is held as under:
"Section 5 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Income Accrual of [Booking amount received by builder] - Assessee was a builder and developer - He received certain amount as advance from different parties Assessing Officer added said amount to assessee's taxable income Tribunal set aside addition made by Assessing Officer holding that assessee being a developer of project, profit in its case would arise only on transfer of title of property and, therefore, receipt of any advance or booking amount could not be treated as trading receipt of year under consideration Whether on facts, impugned order passed by Tribunal deleting addition was to be upheld - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour of assessee]"
25. On identical facts, it is relevant to refer to the Decision of Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of M/s D R. Construction Vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA no. 2735/Ahd/2010, wherein Hon'ble ITAT has held as under:-
"Unaccounted expenditure-receipt of 'on money' in the present case assessee is dealing in several immovable property ie, flats and shops which he has constructed. A single flat is a capital asset for the purchaser but for the assessee all the flats together constitute stock-in- trade. HELD THAT:-it is undisputed position that out of this on money assessee has incurred various expenditure/investment. Therefore, 'on money' as such and as a whole cannot be taxed over and above the income accruing on the basis of entries recorded in the books of account on the basis of decision held in E.D, Sassoon & Co. Ltd. & Ors. vs. CIT (1954 (5) TMI 2 SUPREME COURT we hold that advance money received either by way of cheque or by way of cash will partake the character of taxable income when registered sale deed of the flats is executed in subsequent years. As a result, the sum of 10 crores will not taxable in Asst. Year 2008-09. The appeal of assessee is accordingly allowed."Page 31 of 36
ITA No. 717 TO 721/RJT/2024 Rameshbhai V. Tilara
26. On the similar facts, the learned CIT(A) relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the order passed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Happy Home Corporation [2018] 94 taxmann.com 292 wherein it was held as under:
"Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Method of accounting (Project completion method) - Assessee was engaged in construction business - It was subjected to a survey action which was conducted on business. premises - During course of survey, statement of one partner of firm was recorded in which, he admitted of firm having received a sum of Rs.26.05 crores not disclosed in books of account-While doing so, he further stated that same would be subject to registration of sale deeds When assessment was undertaken, assessee contended that firm was following project completion method of accounting and income would be offered to tax as and when final sale deeds were registered Assessee firm thus offered only a sum of Rs.1 crore during year under consideration Assessing Officer rejected assessee's stand and added entire amount of Rs.26.05 crores as income of assessee during current year Tribunal accepted assessee's contention that since firm was following project completion method for offering income to tax, same would be subjected to tax upon completion of sale, though amount may have been received earlier from buyer Revenue filed instant appeal on ground that in his statement, partner of firm had disclosed entire amount as income of relevant year - Whether in view of fact that while agreeing that sum of Rs. 26.05 crores was undisclosed income of assessee for relevant current year, said partner of firm added a clarification that same would be subject to execution of sale deeds, there was no error in impugned order of Tribunal and, thus, same was to be upheld-Held, yes [Para 5] [in favour of assessee]"
27. In the light of the above judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Happy Home Corporation (supra), and Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Shivalik Buildwell Pvt Ltd(supra) and decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal, in the case of M/s D R. Construction, we find that unaccounted profit estimated on 'on- money' receipt is required to be taxed in the year in which sale deed is executed by assessee or significant risk and rewards is transferred to buyer. As in case in hand, the assessee has been following revenue recognition method on execution of sale deed, only on-money receipt as computed in present case would be taxable in the year in which sale deed is executed and not when 'on-money' was received. Besides, we find that ICDS-III is not applicable to the assessee under consideration, therefore, we dismiss the ground raised by the revenue."
30. Respectfully following the binding judgement of the ITAT Rajkot in the assessee's, own case (Supra), we dismiss the following grounds raised by the revenue.
(i) Ground No. 2 in ITA No. 726/RJT/2024 for AY 2018-19
Page 32 of 36
ITA No. 717 TO 721/RJT/2024
Rameshbhai V. Tilara
(ii) Ground No. 2 in ITANo. 727/RJT/2024 for AY 2019-20
31. Summarised and concise ground No.(iv) is reproduced below for ready reference:
(iv) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs 6,61,53,470/ made on account of unaccounted expenses u/s 69C r.w.s 1158BE of the Income Tax Act.
(This is revenue's ground no. 3 in ITA No. 726/RJT/2024 for AY 2018-19)
32. We have heard both the parties. We note that issue under consideration is squarely covered in favour of the assessee in the assessee's own group cases, M/s R.K. Group, in ITA No. 528/RJT/2024 & others in the case of M/s. R K Infralink LLP, by the decision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT Rajkot. The findings of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Rajkot is reproduced below:
"30. The brief facts qua the above summarise ground are that during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer had found that the promissory notes seized from the premises of Shri Deepak Puruswani reveals that the assessee -firm had advanced cash loan to various persons. In this regard, the assessee- firm had objected the allegation of the assessing officer and denied of advancement of cash loan. However, without prejudice, the assessee had requested to provide benefit of telescoping as the addition had been made on account of alleged profit embedded in the unaccounted transactions from the project "R K Empire". Therefore, if any addition on account of alleged unaccounted income would be made in case of assessee- firm then application of such income in form of alleged unaccounted loans/advances is to consider to avoid duplication of addition. The submission made by the assessee has been reproduced by the assessing officer in para 13 of the assessment order. However, the assessing officer had rejected the contention of the assessee and held that benefit of telescoping cannot be given, as for claiming the benefit of telescoping, the assessee should in first place, accept the intangible addition and then claim the benefits of telescoping. However, as the assessee during the entire proceedings denied and nowhere accepted the addition, benefit of telescoping cannot be given. Therefore, the assessing officer had made addition of Rs 97,30,000/- on account of cash advanced to others, while passing the assessment order.
31. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A), who has deleted the addition made by the assessing officer by giving telescoping benefit to the assessee. Dissatisfied with the order of the learned CIT (A), the revenue is in appeal before us.
32. Learned DR for the revenue argued that Ld.CIT(A) ought not to have deleted the addition which pertains to loan given by the assessee to others, as the assessee is Page 33 of 36 ITA No. 717 TO 721/RJT/2024 Rameshbhai V. Tilara not entitled for telescoping benefit. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the assessee, defended the order passed by the learned CIT (A).
33. We have considered submissions of both the parties. We note that this ground is against the action of the ld.CIT(A), in deleting the addition of Rs.97,30,000/-, by providing telescoping benefit. This addition was made by the assessing officer on account of alleged cash loans/advances on the basis of loose papers seized from the premises of Shri Deepak Purswani at page no. 1 & 2 of Annexure A-4. The assessee, during the appellate proceedings, has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Poona vs Jawanmal Gemaji Gandhi [1983] 15 Taxman 487(Bom), which is on similar and identical facts. The ld.CIT(A) noted that benefit of telescoping, should be provided to the assessee, as the addition had been made on account of alleged profit embedded in the unaccounted transactions from the project "R K Empire" and delete the addition accordingly. The ld.CIT(A) observed that it is undisputed fact revealed from the assessment order that the assessee -firm had received net on-money amounting to Rs.13,11,88,020/- during the year under consideration and the assessing officer had made addition of Rs.4,59,15,807/-, on account of estimation of net profit @35% of total net 'on-money' receipt of Rs. 13,11,88,020/-. Further, while adjudicating the appeal of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed unaccounted profit @ 16% of total "on-money" receipt. It means that estimated unaccounted profit was more than the cash advanced by the assessee. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to get the benefit of telescoping of confirmed unaccounted profit against the cash advanced of Rs.97,30,000/-. Therefore, considering these facts, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition. We have gone through the above findings of the learned CIT(A) and noticed that there is no infirmity in the conclusion reached by the learned CIT(A). That being so, we decline to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) in deleting the aforesaid additions. His order on this addition is, therefore, upheld and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed."
33. Therefore, respectfully following the judgement of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Rajkot, in the assessee's own group case (supra), the following appeals of the revenue, are dismissed:
(i) Ground no. 3 in ITA No. 726/RJT/2024 for AY 2018-19
34. Summarised and concise ground No.(v) is reproduced below for ready reference:
(v) The Id. CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in confirming action AO in treating short term capital gain of Rs. 26,69,398/- on sale of industrial plots as business income.
The action of AO in treating the same as business is totally unjustified and the AO Therefore the AO may kindly be directed to accept the gain on sale of lands as per return of income filed.
Page 34 of 36ITA No. 717 TO 721/RJT/2024 Rameshbhai V. Tilara (This is assessee's ground No. 5 in ITA No. 718/RJT/2024 for AY 2019-20, This is assessee's ground No. 5 in ITA No. 719/RJT/2024 for AY 2020-21 and This is assessee's ground no.5 & 6 in ITA No. 720/RJT/2024 for AY 2021-22)
35. Brief facts qua the issue are that the assessee is engaged in the business activity of developing lands into industrial plots and sale them to earn profit. The assessee first purchases the land, develop it and after then sale the same after dividing it into plots. However, on perusal of the ITR as well as submission filed by the assessee, it is seen that profit or loss arising from the developing, plotting and selling of land is being offered as Capital Gain. Considering the overall nature transactions involved and frequency of the transactions, it is not appropriate to classify this profit as Capital Gain rather such profit should be charged to tax as Business Income. Vide Show cause notice, the assessee has been specifically confronted with these facts. However, in response to the show cause notice no specific objection has been raised on this issue. Therefore, the income from the business of purchasing, developing and selling the plots of land as reported under the head of Capital Gains was treated as income earned under the head of Business. Since, the income from sale of the plots of R K Industrial Zone 11 has been shown as short term capital gain by the assessee. The same is to be charged to tax under the head of business income for the year under consideration.
36. On appeal, by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee, observing as follows:
"15. The ground of appeal no. 5 is against the action of the AO in treating short term capital gain of Rs. 26,69,398/- on sale of industrial plots as business income on the ground that the purchasing of agriculture land and converting it into industrial plots are the business activities.
15.1 In this regard, it is from the above discussion that the assessee was engaged in the business activity of developing lands into industrial plots and sale them to earn profit. The assessee first purchases the land, develop it and after then sale the same after dividing it into plots. It is also a fact revealed that the appellant had shown the profit or loss arising from the developing, plotting and selling of land as Capital Gain. The AO has rightly held that considering the overall nature transactions involved and Page 35 of 36 ITA No. 717 TO 721/RJT/2024 Rameshbhai V. Tilara frequency of the transactions, it is not appropriate to classify this profit as Capital Gain rather such profit should be charged to tax as Business Income. Therefore, I concur with the view taken by the AO in treating the income from the business of purchasing, developing and selling the plots of land as Business Income instead of Short Term Capital Gain. Thus, the ground of appeal no. 5 is dismissed."
37. We have gone through the above findings of the learned CIT (A) and we do not find any infirmity in the conclusion reached by the learned CIT( A). Therefore, we dismiss the following grounds of the assessee:
(i) Ground No. 5 in ITA No. 718/RJT/2024 for AY 2019-20
(ii) Ground No. 5 in ITA No. 719/RJT/2024 for AY 2020-21
(iii) Ground no.5 & 6 in ITA No. 720/RJT/2024 for AY 2021-22
38. In the combined result, appeals filed by the assessee, are partly allowed to the extent indicated above (appeal-wise), whereas all appeals filed by the Revenue, are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17-03-2026.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Dr. Arjun Lal Saini) (Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha)
लेखा सद य/Accountant Member याियक सद य/Judicial Member
राजकोट /Rajkot
िदनांक/Date: 17/03/2026
आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :
अपीलाथ / The Assessee
यथ / The Respondent
आयकर आयु / CIT
आयकर आयु (अपील)/ The CIT(A)
िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, राजकोट/ DR, ITAT, RAJKOT गाड फाईल/ Guard File By order/आदेश से, //True Copy// सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,राजकोट Page 36 of 36