THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. LATE VIKAS A. SHAH (BY HIS WIFE L/H. SMT. CHHAYA VIKAS SHAH), AHMEDABAD

The Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal:-

The brief facts in relation to this Ground of Appeal are that the Assessing Officer (AO) made addition of Rs. 11,86,64,000/- as unaccounted income in connection with the transfer of membership rights to Shri Umang Thakkar for land located at Survey No. 188 and 189 in Village Vasana.

In appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that the sale agreement for the land was finalized in December 2003, at a rate of Rs. 5,600 per square yard for a plot measuring 21,190 square yards. As a result, the total sales consideration amounted to Rs. 11.86 crore. The assessee also provided information regarding the payments received till the time of his statement, which was approximately Rs. 3.68 crore. Of this, Rs. 1.25 crore was directly received by the assessee, and the remaining Rs. 2.43 crore was paid towards clearing the land. The assessee submitted that the remaining amount of Rs. 8.18 crore was still pending and had not yet been received. In addition, the assessee contended that the land in question did not belong to him personally, but rather to M/s. Mansi Builders Ltd., a company in which the assessee was

After reviewing the documents and considering the ongoing litigation over the ownership of the land, Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that the amount of unexplained income should be reduced to Rs. 3.68 crore, rather than the full Rs. 11.86 crore initially added by the AO. The revised amount of Rs. 3.68 crore reflected the total payments received by the assessee up to that point. However, it was further noted that only Rs. 1.25 crore of this amount could be considered as part of the assessee's cash flow, as the remaining funds had already been utilized for clearing the land. Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that the fact that the balance of Rs. 8.18 crore had not been received and that the

Before us, the Ld. DR placed reliance on the observations made by the assessing officer and the counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the observations made by Ld. CIT(Appeals) in the appellate order.

On going to the records of the case and the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals), we are of the view that CIT has correctly observed that till date, the assessee has only received a sum of ₹3.68 crores and further, the fact that there is on- going litigation with respect to the impugned land has also not been doubted by the assessing officer. Therefore, in the given facts, in our view, CIT has correctly observed that when the matter is under litigation, it is reasonable to accept that no further payment was received by the assessee. Also, in our view, Ld. CIT(Appeals) has correctly observed that the assessing officer has also not brought on record any other corroborative evidence in support of the fact that the assessee has received the entire amount of ₹11,86,64,000/-. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) restricting the addition to ₹3,68,00,000/-, so as to call for any interference.

In the result, Ground Number 1 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed.

The brief facts in relation to this Ground of Appeal are that the AO made an addition of Rs. 4,50,00,000/- as unaccounted investment based on the information noted in seized material.

The assessee contested this addition before Ld. CIT(Appeals) and submitted that this addition was made by the AO solely on assumptions and presumptions, without properly considering the facts of the case, the notings in the seized material, or the assessee's full statement. The AO's reasoning for the addition was that a sum of Rs. 7.54 crore was received by others, from which Rs. 3.04 crore was to be paid, resulting in a net amount of Rs. 4.50 crore. However, the assessee clarified that only Rs. 3.68 crore had been received in total, of which Rs. 2.43 crore had been spent on various expenses, leaving a net balance of Rs. 1.25 crore that was received by the assessee. This amount of Rs. 1.25 crore had already been acknowledged by the assessee in his statement recorded under section 131(1A) of the Income Tax Act.

Upon reviewing the facts and evidence available on record, Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that the addition made by the AO was overlapping. The net unaccounted income of Rs. 1.25 crore had already been addressed, which was the difference between the total receipts of Rs. 3.68 crore and the expenses of Rs. 2.43 crore, as noted in the seized documents. Given that this matter had already been dealt with, the addition of Rs. 4.50 crore as unaccounted investment or expenses was deemed unnecessary. Therefore, the

Looking into the instant observations made by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) to the effect that the addition made by the assessing officer is overlapping and considering the fact that the Ld. DR has also not pointed out to any infirmity in the observations made by Ld. CIT(Appeals) in his order with respect to this ground of appeal, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) so as to call for any interference.

In the result, Ground Number 2 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed.

The brief facts in relation to this Ground of Appeal are that the AO made an addition of Rs. 3,43,00,000/- as unaccounted income/receipts from the sale of land at Survey No. 286 of Village Memnagar to Shri Umang Thakkar. According to the AO, the assessee had received Rs. 4,00,00,000/- for the sale of the land, but the assessee had only acknowledged receiving a sum of Rs. 1,78,00,000/-. The AO noted that the assessee admitted to completing the sale transaction in April 2003 for a total consideration of Rs. 4,00,00,000/-, but claimed that only a portion of this amount had been received. The AO further observed that out of the amount received, Rs. 2,22,00,000/- was noted as expenses, which he treated as unaccounted investments/expenses. After deducting the purchase price of Rs. 57,00,000/- for the land, which the assessee had disclosed under the Voluntary Disclosure

In appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that the notings on pages 30 and 45 of Annexure A/62 did not provide sufficient detail to support the AO's conclusions. The assessee argued that these notings consisted of figures and names without dates, context, or indication of whether they referred to receipts or payments. Moreover, the notings did not specify any details about the land transaction, making it impossible to draw any conclusions based solely on the seized material. The assessee further argued that the AO’s interpretation of the seized material was flawed, as it relied heavily on the assessee's statements rather than corroborative evidence or material. The assessee contended that the entire explanation provided by him should have been accepted, particularly since the notings on the seized material did not provide any concrete details about the land transaction. The assessee submitted that he had received a total of Rs. 1,78,00,000/- in connection with the sale, which included a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- received in years prior to the assessment year 2004-05, and Rs. 1,38,00,000/- received during the relevant year. The assessee also explained that out of the Rs. 1,38,00,000/-, a deduction of Rs. 57,00,000/- (the cost of acquiring the land, which had been disclosed under VDIS-97) should be allowed, leaving the net receipt of Rs. 79,00,000/-. The assessee further argued that since the AO considered the total receipt as Rs. 4,00,00,000/-, he should have also allowed a set-off for the expenses of Rs. 2,22,00,000/-, which had been claimed by the assessee and had the same level of evidentiary support, i.e., the assessee’s statement.

The Department is in appeal before us against the aforesaid addition made by Ld. CIT(Appeals). On going through the observations made by Ld. CIT(Appeals), we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has correctly observed that there is no specific mention of any land transaction in

In the result, Ground Number 3 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed.

The brief facts in relation to this Ground of Appeal are that the AO made an addition of Rs. 2,22,00,000/- as unaccounted investment/expenses, relying on the same set of facts previously used for the addition of Rs. 3,43,00,000/- i.e. in the previous ground of appeal.

In appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee reiterated the detailed arguments which were previously discussed in the context of the Rs. 3,43,00,000/- addition made by the AO. The assessee highlighted that while the expenses of Rs. 2,22,00,000/- had been incurred in relation to the sale of the property in Village Memnagar, it was clear that the AO had considered the entire gross amount of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- as unaccounted income/receipts. However, the assessee submitted that, in doing so, the AO was required to allow a deduction for the expenses incurred, which amounted to Rs.

After considering the assessee’s arguments, the facts of the case, and the evidence presented, Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that the AO's addition of Rs. 2,22,00,000/- was unjustified, since the expenses were directly related to the sale transaction and had already been factored into the overall financial calculations. As a result, the addition of Rs. 2,22,00,000/- made by the AO was directed to be deleted.

On going through the facts of the case, we observe that CIT(A) observed that it is not in dispute that expenses of ₹2,22,00,000/- had been incurred by the assessee in relation to sale of such property. Further, since the assessing officer has already taken into consideration the gross amount of consideration of ₹4 crores as having been received from Shri Umang Thakkar as unaccounted income, Ld. CIT(A) has correctly observed that the assessing officer is also bound to give deduction of Rs. 2.22 crores which are the expenses incurred in relation to the said land deal transaction. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) in which it is held that no separate addition of ₹2,22,00,000/- is warranted again in the hands of the assessee.

In the result, Ground Number 4 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed.

The brief facts in relation to this Ground of Appeal are that the AO made an addition of Rs. 2,30,00,000/- as unaccounted investment / expenses based on seized material, in relation to the payment for land at Survey Nos. 183/1, 183/2, 185, and 186 of Village Sughad.

The assessee submitted before Ld. CIT(Appeals) that he had only paid a sum of Rs. 60,00,000/- out of the total purchase price. In his written submission dated 22/02/2017, filed on 23/02/2017, the assessee clarified that he had paid Rs. 60,00,000/- by cheque and cash, as stated in his answer to Question No. 12(2) of his statement dated 10/03/2005. He further explained that the remaining amount had not been paid due to the seller's inability to obtain the necessary title clearance certificate. The land in question involved ongoing litigation, with various civil suits filed by the owners and counter-suits by parties to whom the owners had sold the land. These disputes had prevented the assessee from making further payments, and the assessee had submitted copies of litigation papers in support of his claim. In the Remand Report dated 02/05/2018, the AO reiterated the findings of the original assessment and noted that the assessee had not provided the relevant litigation documents. In response, the assessee submitted a rejoinder reiterating his earlier submissions. To further support his claim, the assessee provided a copy of the 7/12 extract for Survey Nos. 183/1, 183/2, 184, 185, and 186, which showed that the land was still in the name of the original owners, and not in the assessee's name. The AO, however, dismissed the 7/12 extract as insufficient evidence of ownership.

After considering all the evidence, including the seized material and other submissions, Ld. CIT(Appeals) accepted the assessee’s argument that only Rs. 60,00,000/- had been paid. Ld. CIT(Appeals) was of the view that the assessee had provided credible evidence to demonstrate that the transaction had not been finalized due to the ongoing litigation and lack of title clearance. Therefore, he held that the addition made by the AO of Rs. 2,30,00,000/- was incorrect, and the correct amount of addition should be only should be Rs. 60,00,000/-.

On going through the records of the instant case, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has correctly observed that looking into the facts of the instant case and that on account of ongoing litigation, and the fact that the ownership of the land had still not been transferred in the name of the assessee, it would be reasonable to conclude that the addition should be only should be for a sum of Rs. 60,00,000/- being the amount of unaccounted investment made by the assessee.

In the result, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) so as to call for any interference.

The brief facts in relation to this Ground of Appeal are that the AO made an addition of Rs. 23,00,000/- as unaccounted investment/expenses concerning the purchase of land at Survey No. 242/2 in Village Motera, which admeasured 2020 square yards. This addition was based on answer No. 12(2) of the assessee's statement dated 28/02/2005.

Before Ld. CIT(Appeals), in his written submission, the assessee clarified that the actual cost of the land was Rs. 57,95,000/- and that the total payment made towards this land was Rs. 23,91,000/-, which included various payments. Specifically, Rs. 1,96,000/- was paid in cash as per the conveyance deed dated 29/11/2003, an additional sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- was paid in cash to various hut owners, and the remaining Rs. 16,95,000/- was paid by cheque to these hut owners. The assessee contended that the cash payments totaling Rs. 6,96,000/- (comprising Rs. 1,96,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/-) should be considered as unaccounted investment, but the cheque payment of Rs. 16,95,000/- should not be treated as unaccounted since it was made from a bank account, thereby indicating an explained source of funds. The assessee further submitted that due to litigation over the ownership of the land-since the original owners had sold the same land to other parties-the assessee had not paid the remaining amount to the landowners. To support his claims, the assessee submitted the relevant evidence of the payments

After considering the facts, the seized materials, and the other evidence presented by the assessee, Ld. CIT(Appeals) agreed with the assessee’s submission and held that the total payment for the land at Survey No. 242/2 was Rs. 23,91,000/-, which included the cash payment of Rs. 6,96,000/- and a cheque payment of Rs. 16,95,000/-. The cheque payment was acknowledged as legitimate and disclosed for income tax purposes, meaning it could not be considered unaccounted. Therefore, only the cash payment of Rs. 6,96,000/- was considered as unaccounted investment/expenses. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 23,00,000/- made by the AO was deemed incorrect, and the correct unaccounted investment/expenses amount was determined to be Rs. 6,96,000/-.

The Department is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals) with respect to this ground of appeal. On going through the contents of the order passed by CIT, in which he has given a reasonable basis for restricting the addition to Rs. 6, 96,000/-, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) so as to call for any interference.

In the result, Ground Number 6 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed.

The brief facts in relation to this Ground of Appeal are that the AO made an addition of Rs. 57,95,000/- as unaccounted investment/expenses concerning the purchase of land at Survey No. 242/1 in Village Motera, based on notings found on page No. 3 of seized Annexure A/174 and the assessee’s answer No. 67 given during his statement recorded on 09/03/2009.

However, in appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee clarified in his submission that the correct survey number for the land is 242/2, not 242/1. To support this, the assessee provided a copy of the 7/12 extract for Survey No. 242/2, which shows that the land is in the possession of the Government, and there is no mention of the assessee’s name in the document. Furthermore, the assessee submitted that he had made a total payment of Rs. 23,91,000/- for the purchase of this land, as per the details provided in his submission. The assessee pointed out that the AO had already made a separate addition of Rs. 23,00,000/- for the same land, Survey No. 242/2, which had been discussed previously. In the remand report dated 02/05/2018, the AO did not address the assessee’s contention that a duplicate addition had been made for the same land-once for Rs. 23,00,000/- and again for Rs. 57,95,000/-.

After considering the overall facts, the evidence available in the seized material, and the assessee’s submissions, Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that the addition of Rs. 57,95,000/- related to the same land, Survey No. 242/2, for which a previous addition of Rs. 6,96,000/- had been upheld. Since the

The Department is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals) with respect to this ground of appeal. On going through the contents of the order passed by CIT, in which he has given a finding that the addition of Rs. 57,95,000/- was based on an incorrect appreciation of the facts and involved a duplicate addition, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) so as to call for any interference.

In the result, Ground Number 7 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed.

The brief facts in relation to this Ground of Appeal are that the AO made an addition of Rs. 21,00,000/- as unaccounted income/receipts in connection with the sale of land at Survey No. 434/2 in Village Zundal. This addition was based on the notings found in pages 1 to 21 of seized Annexure A/221 and pages 1 to 37 of seized Annexure A/65. The AO's observations regarding this addition were similar to the observations made earlier in relation to the addition of Rs. 14,00,000/- as unaccounted investment/expenses.

The Department is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals) with respect to this ground of appeal. On going through the contents of the order passed by CIT, in which he has given a finding that since the assessee had already paid Rs. 14,00,000/- for the purchase of the land, the addition was required to be adjusted for this amount. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) so as to call for any interference.

In the result, Ground Number 8 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed.

The brief facts in relation to this Ground of Appeal are that the AO made an addition of Rs.11,86,64,000/- on account of unaccounted investment / expenses, based on the notings found on pages 73 and 74 of seized Annexure A/256. These notings pertain to a Banachitthi dated 28/04/2003, which was an agreement entered into between the assessee and Shri Kanaiyalal Dadaji Thakore, along with others, for the purchase of land at Survey No. 151 of Village Acher, Taluko City, Ahmedabad, for a total amount of Rs.1,01,00,000/-. The AO observed that this transaction had not been disclosed by the assessee, which led to the addition of Rs.1,01,00,000/-.

In appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that according to the Banachitthi dated 28/04/2003, a cash payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- was made at the time of executing the agreement, and the payment schedule for the remaining amount was also outlined. In his statement recorded under Section 131(1A) of the Income Tax Act on 28/02/2005, the assessee admitted to making a payment of Rs. 1,01,00,000/- for the land purchase, which included both cash and cheque payments. The assessee further clarified the details of this transaction in his statement, particularly in response to questions 20, 21, and 22, which were cited in the assessment order. The assessee stated that the payment consisted of Rs. 88,00,000/- in cash and Rs. 13,00,000/- via cheque payments. The payment of Rs. 13,00,000/- made by cheque was accepted by the AO as being from an explained source, while the Rs. 88,00,000/- paid in cash was considered to be

Based on the available facts and the assessee's statements, Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that the payment of Rs. 88,00,000/- in cash was from unexplained sources and, therefore, treated it as unaccounted investment in the land deal. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 88,00,000/- was made to the assessee's income as unexplained investment.

On going through the decision of CIT with respect to this ground of appeal, we observe that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has correctly observed that source of investment of ₹88 lakhs, having been made in cash remains unexplained and accordingly, Ld. CIT(Appeals) has correctly restricted addition to ₹88 lakhs and gave relief with respect to amount paid/investment by way of cheque for a sum of ₹13 lakhs. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) so as to call for any interference.

In the result, Ground Number 9 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed (we also observe that there seems to be some factual error in the ground raised by the Department, in which it has been stated that the addition was restricted ₹13 lakhs, whereas for the reading of the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) we observe that the addition had be restricted to Rs. 88 lakhs).

The brief facts in relation to this Ground of Appeal are that the AO made an addition of Rs. 2,91,09,220/- as unaccounted investment / expenses concerning the purchase of land at Survey No. 60 of Village Dholakuva. This addition was based on various seized documents, including page 16 of Annexure A/157, answer no. 98 from the assessee’s statement, and pages 167 to 170 of Annexure A/155, along with page 37 of Annexure A/62. According to the AO, the assessee admitted to making a total payment of Rs. 2,79,21,220/- for the land, but did not explain an additional payment of Rs. 11,80,000/- for obtaining Banakhat rights. Based on this, the AO made a total addition of Rs. 2,91,09,220/- as unexplained investment/expenses.

In appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that the addition made by the AO was based on various seized materials and his statements, which he had already explained in detail. The assessee contended that he had never stated the total cost of the land purchase to be Rs. 2,91,09,220/-, as mentioned by the AO in the assessment order. He pointed out that the figures cited by the AO to arrive at this total were primarily based on the word "Dholakuva" found in the seized materials. The assessee further submitted that the AO had failed to verify whether the figures were related to payments or receipts, and that many of the documents cited lacked dates, making it unclear whether they pertained to the relevant assessment year (AY 2004-05). Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that the assessee also pointed out that the amounts referenced by the AO from Annexure A/195 and other diaries were problematic because these amounts had already been used in the

On going to the facts of the instant case, we observe that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has correctly observed that there is a double addition in the instant case since there are separate additions of ₹3,76,46,160/- and ₹4,14,40,272/- which can be verified from the assessment order. Further, in

In the result, Ground Number 10 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed.

The brief facts in relation to this Ground of Appeal are that the AO made an addition of Rs. 7,50,000/- as unaccounted investment/expenses concerning the purchase of land at Survey No. 308 in Village Chandkheda from Shri Amrut T. Desai. This addition was based on relevant contained in MOU dated 21/10/2002, and page 37 of seized Annexure A/62, which detailed the payment of Rs. 7,50,000/- made to Amrut T. Desai on 05/04/2003. The AO observed that the assessee had admitted the authenticity of the transaction and the payment of Rs. 7,50,000/-. The seized document, Annexure A/69 contained an agreement entered into by the assessee, along with another person named Shri Abhebhai A. Jadeja, with Shri Amrutbhai Talibhai Desai. According to the agreement, the total consideration for the land at Survey No. 308 was fixed at Rs. 1,65,73,410/- with a joint payment

In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) verified the assessee’s claim, and it was observed that the reference to Rs. 7,50,000/- pertained to a different land deal. Additionally, the assessee pointed out that since the agreement (Karar) for Survey No. 308 was signed on 21/10/2002, the Rs. 5,00,000/- payment, including the assessee's share of Rs. 2,50,000/-, belonged to the Financial Year 2002-03, relevant to assessment year (AY) 2003-04. Therefore, no addition could be made for AY 2004-05. Considering the facts, the assessee’s payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- (his share of the joint payment of Rs. 5,00,000/-)

The Department is in appeal before us against the above relief granted by Ld. CIT(Appeals). On going through the contents of the order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals), the observe that CIT has correctly observed that since the agreement entered into between the parties was dated 21-10-2002, wherein payment of ₹5 lakhs had also been stated, the same could not be considered for the purpose of addition for the impugned assessment year. Further, on appreciation of facts, Ld. CIT(Appeals) was also of the view that the reference of the amount of ₹7,50,000/- was with respect of another land deal and the same could be verified from the seized material. Accordingly, it was in light of these facts that Ld. CIT(Appeals) granted relief to the assessee. Even before us, nothing has been brought on record to controvert the findings made by Ld. CIT(A) in his order. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) so as to call for any interference.

In the result, Ground Number 11 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed.

The brief facts in relation to this Ground of Appeal are that the AO made an addition of Rs. 85,50,000/- as unaccounted investment/expenses in relation to the purchase of land at Survey No. 168 of Village Acher. This addition was based on relevant pages of Annexure A/123, which contained an agreement dated 27/03/2004 between the assessee (as the purchaser) and four sellers. According to the agreement, the total consideration for the land was agreed upon at Rs. 85,50,000/-. The AO added this amount as unexplained investment/expenses, on the reasoning that the seized documents clearly indicated that the assessee had paid the full amount, but it had not been disclosed.

In appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that the full payment of Rs. 85,50,000/- had not been made. The assessee clarified that only Rs. 40,50,000/- had been paid to the landowners, with the balance remaining unpaid. The assessee explained that the remaining payment would be made only after receiving approval for the land's development plan from the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA), as the land was situated in a green belt. To support this claim, the assessee provided the latest 7/12 extract of Survey No. 168, which was printed on 24/01/2017, showing that the land was still in the name of the original owners and had not been transferred to the assessee. Ld. CIT(Appeals) called for the remand report from the Assessing Officer and in the remand report dated 04/04/2018, the AO observed that the agreement on pages 61 to 64 of Annexure A/123 clearly indicated the payment details, including the payment mode and based on this,

After considering the facts and the available evidence from the seized materials, Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that during the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2004-05, the assessee had made a total payment of Rs. 42,75,000/- (as stated by the AO in the remand report). However, since the assessee had not established that this payment was made through banking channels or from disclosed sources, the payment was deemed to be unexplained. Consequently, the unexplained investment/expenses were held to be a sum of Rs. 42,75,000/- instead of the full Rs. 85,50,000/- originally considered by the AO in the assessment order.

The Department is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals) restricting the addition to ₹42.75 lakhs. In our considered view, Ld. CIT(Appeals) has correctly observed that even in the remand report submitted by the assessing officer, he has stated that the assessee had made total payment of ₹42.75 lakhs and accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) while granting relief to the assessee with respect to the balance amount. Accordingly, in view of the

In the result, Ground Number 12 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed.

The brief facts in relation to this Ground of Appeal are that the AO made an addition of Rs. 5,65,81,400/- on account of unaccounted investment/expenses related to the purchase of land at Village Bhat. This addition was based on various seized annexures, on the basis of a detailed chart prepared by the AO. The chart included particulars such as the survey numbers, total land area, acquired land area, free land area, and payment details from the seized annexures.

In appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that the addition made by the AO disregarded the facts already available in the seized annexures themselves. The assessee submitted that the majority of the dates in the chart prepared by the AO pertained to the previous year 2002-03, which was relevant to Assessment Year 2003-04, and not to the year under dispute, which was AY 2004-05. Furthermore, it was highlighted that most of the land in Village Bhat had been acquired by the Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. (SSNNL), as evidenced by the information in the chart. The assessee highlighted that the SSNNL’s land acquisition had not been disputed by the AO, and that the Banakhat agreements indicated that the

After considering the facts and the evidence provided, including the seized materials and the details of the payments made, Ld. CIT(Appeals) held

The Department is in appeal before us against the order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals). On going through the facts of the instant case, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has given a categorical and detailed finding that only payment amounting to ₹41,000/- were paid by the assessee during the impugned year under consideration and the balance payments did not pertain to the impugned year under consideration but to earlier assessment year. These facts have also been disputed by Ld. D.R. before us. Accordingly, looking into the observations made by Ld. CIT(Appeals), we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) so as to call for any interference.

In the result, Ground Number 13 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed.

The brief facts in relation to this Ground of Appeal are that the AO made an addition of Rs. 27,76,000/- on account of unaccounted investment

In appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee contended that the AO had failed to correctly interpret the seized documents and verify the facts. The assessee submitted that the addition was based solely on notations related to the Chandkheda land, without properly considering the larger context of multiple land purchases made by the assessee in the same village. The assessee further pointed out that the AO had added several amounts, claiming they were payments for the Chandkheda land, without verifying the relevant documents, which were already available in seized Annexure A/143.

Upon reviewing Annexure A/143, Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that it contained several important documents, including a Banakhat, Power of Attorney, Possession Agreement, and Sale Deed dated 03/09/2003, concerning the land at Survey No. 48/2 of Village Chandkheda, which had an area of 5666 square yards. A detailed examination of these documents revealed that a significant portion of the land, specifically 5100 square meters, was under the acquisition of the Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. (SSNNL), meaning that no payment could have been made by the assessee for that portion of the land. The only payment made by the assessee, as per the Sale Deed dated 02/09/2003, was Rs. 1,10,000/-, which

The Department is in appeal before us against the order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals). On going through the facts of the instant case, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has given a categorical and detailed finding that only payment made by the assessee, as per the Sale Deed dated 02/09/2003, was Rs. 1,10,000/ and even the Remand Report dated 04/04/2018 submitted by the Assessing Officer also confirmed this fact, with the AO acknowledging that the assessee had purchased only 566 square meters of land for a payment of Rs. 1,10,000/-. Accordingly, looking into the observations made by Ld. CIT(Appeals), we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) so as to call for any interference.

In the result, Ground Number 14 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed.

The brief facts in relation to this Ground of Appeal are that the AO made an addition of Rs. 5,15,600/- on account of unaccounted investment or expenses concerning the purchase of land at Block No. 221 of Village Ganpatpura, based on the verification of certain seized annexures, specifically pages 24 and 25 of Annexure A/159. The AO further referred to pages 96 of Annexure A/195, page 22 of Annexure A/62, and page 1 of Annexure A/174, which collectively amounted to Rs. 5,15,600/- (Rs. 11,000/- + Rs. 4,94,600/- + Rs. 10,000/-). In a statement recorded on 14/03/2005, the assessee admitted to having paid Rs. 11,000/- but denied making any additional payments. Based on this, the AO added Rs. 5,15,600/- under Section 132(4A) of the Income Tax Act, noting that the assessee had failed to submit documentary evidence to support the claim of only paying Rs. 11,000/-.

In appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee explained that pages 24 and 25 of seized Annexure A/159 contained a Banakhat dated 21/06/2003 concerning the land at Block No. 221 in Village Ganpatpura. The Banakhat demonstrated that the total consideration for the land was fixed at Rs. 13,80,000/-, with the assessee having paid Rs. 11,000/-, which was specifically mentioned in the document. This payment was further corroborated by a reference on page 96 of Annexure A/195, which also noted Rs. 11,000/- for the Ganpatpura land on 19/07/2003. The Banakhat drew a payment schedule, indicating that the remaining payment was due over time, but no payment had been made beyond the Rs. 11,000/- since the

After considering the facts, the available evidence, and the assessee’s explanation, Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that the assessee’s response was reasonable and could not be disregarded. The evidence of the Rs. 11,000/- payment was clearly available in the seized material, but no evidence was given by Department for any additional payments made by the assessee, especially as ownership had not transferred. Therefore, Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that the unaccounted investment or expenses in respect of the land at

The Department is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals). On going to the contents of the order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals) and the detailed factual aspects taken into consideration by him while passing the order, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) so as to call for any interference.

In the result, Ground Number 15 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed.

The brief facts in relation to this Ground of Appeal are that the AO made an addition of Rs. 10,87,850/- on account of unaccounted investment or expenses concerning the purchase of land at Survey No. 145 of Village Sughad, based on the review of pages 69 and 70 of seized Annexure A/30 and pages 7 to 10 and 14 of the same annexure. The AO observed that the assessee’s claim that the balance payment had not been made due to the land being under litigation could not be accepted, as the assessee had not disputed the evidentiary value of the seized documents. Consequently, the AO held that the assessee had made a payment of Rs. 10,75,850/- and added this amount under Section 132(4A) of the Income Tax Act. Furthermore, the AO noted that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence supporting the claim that only Rs. 2,75,000/- had been paid.

The Department is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals). On going to the contents of the order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals) and the detailed factual aspects taken into consideration by Ld. CIT(A) while passing the order, we are of the considered view that there

In the result, Ground Number 16 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed.

The brief facts in relation to this Ground of Appeal are that the AO made an addition of Rs. 9,92,500/- on account of unaccounted investment related to the purchase of land at Survey No. 163 in Village Sughad. This addition was based on page 84 of the seized Annexure A/233 and the answer provided by the assessee to question no. 116 during the statement recorded. The AO observed that the assessee had admitted to making a payment of Rs. 6,47,500/- in the statement, and according to page 84 of the seized Annexure A/233, a cash payment of Rs. 3,45,000/- was also mentioned. Thus, the AO held that the total unexplained investment or expenses amounted to Rs.9,92,500/-. The AO further noted that the assessee’s argument, which claimed that the remaining payment had not been made due to litigation on the land, could not be accepted. This was because the assessee did not challenge the evidentiary value of the seized documents. Therefore, according to Section 132(4A) of the Income Tax Act, the AO held that it could be presumed the assessee had made the payment of Rs.9,92,500/-.

In appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals), he submitted that that the addition was based on page 84 of the seized Annexure A/233. The assessee submitted

After considering the overall facts and reviewing the seized materials, Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that the assessee’s contention was acceptable. Therefore, the unaccounted cash payment made by the assessee for the land purchase was restricted to Rs. 6,47,500/- instead of Rs. 9,92,500/- that had been originally considered by the AO.

The Department is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals). On going to the contents of the order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals) and the detailed factual aspects taken into consideration by him while passing the order, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) so as to call for any interference.

The brief facts in relation to this Ground of Appeal are that the AO made an addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- as unaccounted income/receipts in connection with the sale of land at Survey No. 656/1 of Village Uvarsar, based on the seized materials in Annexure A/13, specifically pages 108 to 121. According to the AO, the land was purchased for Rs. 11,86,998/- as indicated on pages 105 to 107 of the same Annexure, and this amount was confirmed by the assessee in his statement. The AO noted that the assessee admitted that the purchase price of the land was Rs. 11,86,998/- and the sale price was Rs. 15,00,000/-. Based on this, the AO added Rs. 11,00,000/- as unaccounted investment and Rs. 15,00,000/- as unaccounted income for the assessment year under appeal.

In appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that the total purchase price of the land was indeed Rs. 11,86,998/- and it was sold for Rs. 15,00,000/- to Shri Bhadreshbhai Dahyabhai Patel. However, the assessee pointed out that neither during the assessment proceedings nor in the statement recorded under Section 131(1A) of the Income Tax Act had he mentioned the date of the transaction. The assessee further stated that the date of the transaction could be verified from the seized materials. According to the sale deed found in pages 108 to 121 of Annexure A/13, the sale occurred on 04/02/2005, which falls in the Financial Year (FY) 2004-05, relevant

After considering the assessee’s contentions, the facts, and the available evidence, including the seized materials, Ld. CIT(Appeals) held

The Department is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals). On going to the contents of the order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals) and the detailed factual aspects taken into consideration by him while passing the order, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) so as to call for any interference.

In the result, Ground Number 18 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed.

The brief facts in relation to this Ground of Appeal are that the assessee was involved in the purchase and sale of land from Survey No. 655/1 and Survey No. 656/1, both located in the village of Uvarsar and the Assessing Officer made additions on account of unexplained investments in these land. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals), upon thorough review of the facts and the evidence, including the seized materials, observed that the assessee contended that the payment in question, which involved two cheques of Rs. 3,95,666/- each, totaling Rs. 7,91,332/-, was made during the Financial Year (FY) 2004-05, relevant to Assessment Year (AY) 2005-06. Given that

In light of these facts, Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that the addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unaccounted investment or expenses is incorrect. Consequently, the addition was directed to be deleted, as the payments are either explained or fall outside the scope of the relevant assessment year.

The Department is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals). On going to the contents of the order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals) and the detailed factual aspects taken into consideration by him while passing the order, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) so as to call for any interference.

In the result, Ground Number 19 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed.

The brief facts in relation to this Ground of Appeal are that the AO made an addition of Rs. 8,55,000/- as unaccounted income/receipts regarding

In appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee explained that the addition was based on the answer given to Question No. 45, which addressed the contents of page 5 of seized Annexure A/78. This page contained a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 18/01/2002, between the assessee and Shri Jayesh R. Shah. The MOU was for the settlement of accounts and dues between the two parties, and the assessee argued that since the MOU was dated 18/01/2002, the relevant assessment year for the transaction should be AY 2002-03, not AY 2004-05. The assessee further submitted that other than the MOU, no additional evidence was brought on record by the AO to establish that the transaction took place in the previous year relevant to AY 2004-05. Moreover, the assessee contended before Ld. CIT(Appeals) that the transaction was not simply the sale of land at village Khoraj, as stated by the AO, but rather part of a larger settlement of dues between him and Shri Jayesh R. Shah, as outlined in the MOU. The assessee also clarified that the addition was based on the submissions made by Shri Jayesh R. Shah in his case, and not on the basis on any evidence found in the possession of the assessee, apart from the clarification

Upon reviewing the facts and submissions, including the MOU's date of 18/01/2002, Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that the assessee's contention was valid. The transaction was indeed related to FY 2001-02, relevant to AY 2002-03, and not to the previous year 2003-04, relevant to AY 2004-05, as suggested by the AO. Since no additional evidence was brought on record to support the claim that the land sale took place in FY 2003-04, the addition of Rs. 8,55,000/- made by the AO for AY 2004-05 was deemed unsustainable. Therefore, Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that no addition could be made in AY 2004-05 concerning the sale of the land at village Khoraj.

The Department is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals) deleting the aforesaid addition. On going through the contents of the order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals), we observe that on appreciation of facts placed on record before him, Ld. CIT(Appeals)

In the result, Ground Number 20 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed.

The brief facts in relation to this Ground of Appeal are that the AO made an addition of Rs. 3,76,46,160/- as unaccounted income/receipts, which was based on the cash report prepared from the seized materials, as well as the assessee’s answers to questions 152 and 153 of his statement. In these answers, the assessee allegedly confirmed the Trial Balance derived from the seized materials. The AO further noted that during reassessment proceedings in the case of Jivraj Desai for Assessment Year (AY) 1998-99, the assessee had confirmed the transactions recorded in the seized documents. From this, the AO concluded that the assessee had received Rs. 3,76,46,160/- and paid Rs. 4,14,40,272/-, leading to the addition of Rs. 3,76,46,160/- as income derived from trading in land, development, and construction activities, and another addition of Rs. 4,14,40,272/- as unexplained investment/expenses.

The Department is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals). On going to the contents of the order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals) and the detailed factual aspects taken into consideration by him while passing the order, wherein he noted that in the absence of a detailed explanation for each entry, the peak credit method was the most suitable approach to ascertain the real income, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) so as to call for any interference.

In the result, Ground Number 21 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed.

The brief facts in relation to this Ground of Appeal are that the AO made an addition of Rs. 4,14,40,272/- on account of unaccounted investment/expenses, basing this addition on the same reasoning as provided for the earlier addition of Rs. 3,76,46,160/-. The assessee's submissions in relation to the addition of Rs. 4,14,40,272/- are similar with those made for the addition of Rs. 3,76,46,160/- and the same have been reproduced earlier in the order.

In appeal Ld. CIT(Appeals), after taking into consideration the written submissions of the assessee, Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that the peak credit method was the most appropriate approach for calculating the real income. The peak credit balance of Rs. 57,05,688/-, derived from the trial balance and cash reports, was confirmed by Ld. CIT(Appeals). Ld. CIT(Appeals) accordingly held that no separate addition of Rs. 4,14,40,272/- could be made as unaccounted investment or expenses.

The Department is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals). On going to the contents of the order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals) and the detailed factual aspects taken into consideration by him while dealing with Ground Number 21, wherein he noted that in the absence of a detailed explanation for each entry, the peak credit method was the most suitable approach to ascertain the real income, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) so as to call for any interference.

In the result, Ground Number 22 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed.

In the combined result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed. This Order is pronounced in the Open Court on 16/01/2025