SHRI ARVIND GOTEWALA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 442 & 443/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 cuke Arvind Gotewal, Income Tax Officer, Vs. S/o- Shreeram Gotewal, Ward 3(2), B-7, Shiv Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABUPG 9494 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S.L. Poddar & Ms. Isha Kanoongo (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 24/07/2018 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 27/07/2018 vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. Both these appeals filed by the assessee emanates from the common order of the ld. CIT(A)-I, Jaipur dated 28/03/2018 for the A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. The only issue involved in these appeals are against confirming the addition of Rs. 5,68,00,000/- in the A.Y. 2013-14 and Rs. 3,78,50,000/- in the A.Y. 2014-15.

ITA 442 & 443/JP/2018_ 2 Arvind Gotewal Vs ITO

return of the A.Y. 2014-15 was filed on 28/03/2015 declaring total income

of Rs. 13,83,590/-. The assessment was finalized U/s 143(3) of the

Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) at Rs. 5,79,71,020/- in the A.Y.

2013-14 and Rs. 3,92,33,590/- in the A.Y. 2014-15 by making

disallowance U/s 69A of the Act.

carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A), who had confirmed the action of

the Assessing Officer in both the assessment years.

of income for the AY 2013-14 on 27/02/2014 declaring total income at Rs.

11,71,020/- which includes remuneration and business income from

handicraft business. A search was conducted at the residential premises of

Shri Aditya Malpani, wherein certain documents were seized and as per

these documents, various payments were made to the appellant by SNG

group amounting to Rs. 9,46,50,000/- including payments through

cheques of Rs. 3,18,00,000/- during the period 16.03.2013 to 29.09.2013

for purchase of property. A copy of these documents as well as statement

of Shri Aditya Malpani was provided to the appellant during the

assessment proceedings. Initially in his statement, the assessee has

denied any transaction as recorded on these papers. During the course of

ITA 442 & 443/JP/2018_ 3 Arvind Gotewal Vs ITO

assessment proceedings, the AO has recorded the statement of Shri S. N.

Gupta of SNG group, wherein it was stated by him that all the entries

made on these papers were not related to him, however he has purchased

a land at Ajmer Road and the purchase consideration was paid to Shri

Aditya Malpani, who in turn had paid the said money to the appellant.

However, Shri S. N. Gupta did not confirm the exact amount for such

purchase. It was also stated by Shri S. N. Gupta that the registered sale

deed for the land was executed by the appellant on behalf of Saluja group.

During the assessment proceedings, the AO has obtained two sale deeds

dated 09/05/2013, executed by the appellant as Authorized Representative

of M/s Saluja Construction Co. Ltd. and M/s Chetanya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.

The AO has further recorded the statement of Shri Aditya Malpani, wherein

it was again confirmed by him that these seized documents were related

to the sale of land to M/s SNG and M/s Yaduvanshi Lands Pvt. Ltd.

as under:

ITA 442 & 443/JP/2018_ 4 Arvind Gotewal Vs ITO

During the course of assessment proceedings statement of Shri Aditya Malpani was recorded from there the page no. 5 was seized and he was examined with reference to this paper. A copy of the statement of Shri Aditya Malpani is available on paper book page number 1 to 2. Shri Aditya Malpani is his statement recorded on 16.03.2016 deposed that this paper has recording of payments made in respect of land purchased at Garden Estate, D-Block, Mahapura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur by SNG Group and Yaduvanshi Landbase Pvt Ltd through Shri Arvind Gotewala. Similarly statement of Shri Satya Natayan Gupta of SNG Group was also recorded on 16.03.2016 u/s 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He was also examined with reference to this page. Shri S.N. Gupta deposed that this paper was in respect of payments made by him in respect of land purchased at Ajmer

ITA 442 & 443/JP/2018_ 5 Arvind Gotewal Vs ITO

Road from Saluja Group of companies and registration of land has also been completed. A copy of statement of Shri S.N. Gupta is available on paper book page number 3 to 5. Thus Shri Aditya Malpani and S.N. Gupta have confirmed that the page no. 5 of annexure A-2 was having recordings and notings of payments made by them for purchase of land from Saluja Group of companies through Shri Arvind Gotewala.

It is submitted that the assessee i.e. Shri Arvind Gotewala was authorized by Saluja Constructions Company Ltd, 30, Community Centre, Basant Vihar, New Delhi as well as by Chetanya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd, 30, Community Centre, Basant Vihar, New Delhi for executing sales or land situated at Mahapura, Jaipur to SNG Real Estate Pvt Ltd and Yaduvanshi Landbase Pvt Ltd. Copy of resolutions passed by the companies authorizing to Shri Arvind Gotewala for executing sale deeds in respect of the aforesaid land are available on paper book page number 6 to 7. Subsequently the land in question was sold as under: - Seller Purchaser Sr. Particulars of Date of Amount as per No. land registration deed/ mode of payment (i) 09.05.2013 Mahapura M/s Chetanya SNG Real Estate Pvt. Land Buildcon Pvt. Ltd Ltd through director Shri S.N. Gupta through 70600000 authorized (Amount representative transacted Shri Arvind by Cheque) Gotewala ½ share by SNG Real (ii) Mahapura Saluja 8200000 09.05.2013 Land constructions Estate Pvt. Ltd (Amount Company Ltd. through director Shri Transacted by through S.N. Gupta and Cheques) authorized Yaduvanshi Landbase Representative Pvt. Ltd. through Shri Arvind director Shri Mohan Gotewala Lai Yadav

Copies of title deeds in respect of the aforesaid transactions are available on paper book page number 8 to 22.

It is submitted that on being question by the Learned Assessing Officer regarding the aforesaid payment noted on page no. 5 the assessee submitted that he acted only as an authorized person for selling the

ITA 442 & 443/JP/2018_ 6 Arvind Gotewal Vs ITO

aforesaid lands. The land belonged to the aforesaid two companies and the consideration was also received by them. It was further submitted by him that the entire consideration as shown on page no. 5 of annexure A-2 was accounted for by the aforesaid companies. The accounting of the amounts noted on page 5 are explained as under: - Sr.No. Date Amount Remarks 1. 16-Mar 1100000 Accounted in the books of Chetanya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. on the same date 2. 18-Mar 5000000 Accounted in the books of Chetanya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. on the same date 3. 20-Mar 17700000 Accounted in the books of Chetanya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. on the same date 4. 21-Mar 1200000 Accounted in the books of Chetanya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. on the same date 5. 23-Apr 2500000 Accounted in the books of Chetanya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. on the same date 6. 25-Apr 6000000 Accounted in the books of Chetanya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. on the same date 7. 26-04-13 2500000 Accounted in the books of Chetanya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. on the same date 22-Apr 500000 It related to Shri Narayan Yadav as mentioned in the 8. paper itself. 9. 27-Apr 4500000 Accounted in the books of Chetanya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. on the same date 10. 29-Apr 3500000 Accounted in the books of Chetanya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. on the same date 11. 30-Apr 1750000 Accounted in the books of Chetanya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. on the same date 12. 01-May 250000 Accounted in the books of Chetanya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. on the same date 13. 04-May 5000000 Accounted in the books of Chetanya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. on the same date 14. 09-May 2350000 Accounted in the books of Chetanya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. on the same date 15. 25-Aug 1000000 Accounted in the books of Chetanya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. on the same date 16. 29-Aug 2000000 Accounted in the books of Chetanya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. on the same date 17. 04-Sep 1000000 Accounted in the books of Chetanya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. on the same date 18. 29-Sep 5000000 Rs. 4716000/- is accounted in the books of Chetanya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. on the same date and Rs. 2,84,00,000/- is accounted in the books of M/s Saluja Constructions Company Ltd 62850000

ITA 442 & 443/JP/2018_ 7 Arvind Gotewal Vs ITO

Copy of accounts as appearing in the books for of Chetanya Buildcon Pvt Ltd and Saluja Constructions Company Ltd for the aforesaid period are available on paper book page number 23 to 26. Thus it is submitted that the entire payments noted on this page stand fully accounted for in the books of the sellers name M/s Chetanya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd and M/s Saluja Constructions Company Ltd for which Shri Arvind Gotewala was authorized. Thus when the amount was fully accounted for nothing remained to be explained. There was no case for treating any amount as unexplained u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Moreover Shri Arvind Gotewala apparently was an authorized person. He was not the owner of the lands hence no addition could have been made his hands. The Learned Assessing Officer completely failed to appreciate the facts in the right perspective and unwantedly indulged in making addition that too in a wrong hand.

Full sale consideration disclosed by the sellers in their IT returns: - 2. It is submitted that the apparent consideration shown in the sale deeds is as mentioned above Rs. 7,06,00,000/- in the hands of Chetanya Buildcon Pvt Ltd and Rs. 82,00,000/- in the hands of Saluja Constructions Company Ltd. The perusal of the sale deeds disclosed that these amount have been received fully by cheque. In the sale deeds there is no recitation of receipt of any cash amount. However the companies have accounted for full consideration in their books of accounts which is as under: Sr .No. Name of company Consideration as per Full consideration in Consideration shown sale deed dated the books of in the IT returns 09.05.2013 accounts (i) 70600000 153166000 153166000 Chetanya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd (ii) Saluja 8200000 18262000 18262000 Constructions Company Ltd It is submitted that for purposes of stamp duty the sale consideration disclosed was less but in the accounts books and for purposes of income tax returns full consideration has been disclosed which includes the cash amount also. This full consideration disclosed by both the companies covers/includes/ accounts for the cash transactions noted on page 5 of annexure A-2 which amount to Rs. 6,23,50,000/- (excluding an amount of

ITA 442 & 443/JP/2018_ 8 Arvind Gotewal Vs ITO

Rs. 5,00,000/- which pertain to Shri Narayan Yadav as mentioned on page no. 5 itself.) It is submitted that out of this amount of Rs. 6,23,50,000/- Rs. 2,50,00,000/- pertains to Assessment Year 2013-14 and Rs. 3,73,50,000/- pertains to Assessment Year 2014-15. The Learned Assessing Officer was most unjustified in treating the amount of Rs.2,50,00, 000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the hands of the assessee. The above facts lay thread bare and make it abundantly crystal clear that the cash payments noted on page 5 of annexure A-2 stand fully accounted for by the seller companies in their books of account and the companies have offered capital gains on such total amount of sale. Copy of IT returns and computation of total income of M/s Chetanya Buildcon Pvt Ltd and M/s Saluja Constructions Company Ltd are available on paper book page number 27 to 37. For your kind perusal. Thus the addition of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- made in the hands of the assessee deserves to be deleted. The Learned Assessing Officer was wrong to hold that the assessee failed to explain the notings on page 5. The Learned Assessing Officer further erred in holding that the amount received belonged to the assessee.

Both the companies also wrote letters dated 21.03.2016 addressed to the Learned Assessing Officer to the effect that as against the sale consideration noted in the title deed dated 09.05.2013 they have booked the full sale consideration including the cash amount in their accounts books for the actual consideration. Chetanya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd has addressed letter dated 21.03.2016 that the document no. 2013397019732 on 09.05.2013 was for actual sale consideration of Rs. 15,31,66,000/- as against Rs. 7,06,00,000/- shown in the sale deed. Similarly Saluja Constructions Company Ltd have also addressed letter dated 21.03.2016 stating that document no. 2013397019746 was for actual consideration of Rs. 1,82,62,000/- as against Rs. 82,00,000/- shown in the sale deeds. Copies of these letter are available on paper book page number 38 to 39. These

ITA 442 & 443/JP/2018_ 9 Arvind Gotewal Vs ITO

papers are of the nature of conclusive evidence. There was no case for the Learned Assessing Officer to reject them without bringing any material on record to controvert these. These papers make it ample clear that the assessee was not involved in any way in the sale consideration amount. No addition could be made on account of sale of land or on account of payments noted on page 5 of annexure A-2.

In view of the above deficiency a duty was cast upon the Learned Assessing Officer to have obtained the aforesaid particulars from the purchasing party i.e. SNG Group. No effort was made by the Learned Assessing Officer Learned Assessing Officer to obtain the detail. Although statements of Aditya Malpani and S.N. Gupta was obtained. In the facts and circumstances of the case there was no basis for making addition in the hands of the assessee. In any case any amount of cheque would have to go the some bank account. The Learned A.O. has not established that any such amount was received by cheque in the bank account of the assessee. Further it is case where the assessee has acted as an authorized person for M/s Chetanya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Saluja Constructions Company Ltd. Both these companies have accounted for payments made by cheque as mentioned in their title deeds. M/s Chetanya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd has accounted for sale consideration of Rs. 7,06,00,000/- by cheques. The

ITA 442 & 443/JP/2018_ 10 Arvind Gotewal Vs ITO

details are available in the sale deed. Copy of which is available on paper book page number cited supra. Similarly M/s Saluja Constructions Company Ltd has accounted for some of Rs.82,00,000/- as mentioned in the sale deed vide cheque no. 302436 dated 26.04.2013 of SBBJ, Pital Factory, Jaipur. It is the submission of the assessee whether the amount was by cash or by cheque it did not belong to the assessee and there was no case for making any addition in his hands. Further when the transaction of cash have been fully accounted for in the hands of both the companies, how could it be that the payments by cheuqe would remain unaccounted. In these facts and circumstances the addition made in the hands of the assessee is totally misplaced, uncalled for and unwanted. The therefore deserves to be deleted.

The provisions are applicable only when the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article. In the case there was no search at the premises of the assessee and nothing like money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article was found. Therefore these provisions are not

ITA 442 & 443/JP/2018_ 11 Arvind Gotewal Vs ITO

applicable. The addition has wrongly been made and deserves to be deleted.

It is submitted that instead of dealing with the core issue and basic facts the Learned Assessing Officer has included in verbose and loquacious. It is submitted that at the initial stage being scared and under the wrong advise of the then counsel the assessee avoided stating the facts for which he should have been forthright. The Learned Assessing Officer has indulged in repeating this omission and commission of the assessee time and again which leads nowhere. The documentary evidences are superior in nature and have to be accepted. It is established position of law that verbal statements shall be subservient to registered documentary evidences. In this case the cash payments reflected on page 5 are fully accounted for by the companies who sold the land. Therefore it is of little significance that the assessee did not divulge these facts right in the beginning. But this mistake of the assessee cannot be used as a weapon by the Learned Assessing Officer for making additions. He learned Assessing Officer cannot be blind to stark broad day light facts. He supposed not to ignore the established facts and evidences put before him. The Learned Assessing Officer has just made the addition on the basis of assumption that it was the assessee who sold the land. The Learned Assessing Officer has further presumed that the cash payments noted on page 5 belonged to the assessee. Whereas the Learned Assessing Officer had no case to reject the evidences put before him i.e. the sale deeds, the copy of accounts and copy of IT returns of the companies, the statements of the purchasing parties. The Learned Assessing Officer had no case to controvert these evidences which were of conclusive nature. In these circumstances the additions made by the Learned Assessing Officer on the basis of presumption, assumption and conjecture deserve to be deleted. It is submitted that the

ITA 442 & 443/JP/2018_ 12 Arvind Gotewal Vs ITO

selling group i.e. Saluja Constructions Company Ltd Group is admitting the sale of land to SNG Group and SNG Group is admitting purchase of land from Saluja Constructions Company Ltd Group then where is the case of treating the sale in the hands of the assessee. The assessment order is nothing but a cook and bull story or just making castles in the air just devoid of any merit.

It is submitted that the assessee received a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- as commission for arranging sale and acting as authorized person for getting the sale registered on behalf of Saluja Constructions Company Ltd Group. In this regard a copy of bill raised by the assessee on 03.05.2013 is available on paper book page number 40. The assessee received payment on 07.05.2013 of Rs. 8,10,000/- after deduction of TDS of Rs. 90,000/-. The receipt of commission stands disclosed in the IT return for Assessment Year 2014-15. Copy of IT return and computation of total income and copy of account of Chetanya Buildcon Pvt Ltd reflecting the aforesaid commission of Rs.9,00, 000/- are available on paper book page number 41 to 45. The receipt of commission reflects the extent of involvement of assessee in the transactions.

Copies of submissions made before the Learned Assessing Officer are also available on paper book page number 46 to 52. Copies of submission made before the learned CIT appeal are also available on page no. 58 to 90.

The learned CIT appeal while dismissing the appeal of the assessee has observe in para IV on page 10 of the appellate order as :-

I have duly considered the submission of the appellant assessment order and the material placed on record. It is noted from the registered sale deeds dated 09.05.2013 that the appellant has sold the lands at Jaipur as

ITA 442 & 443/JP/2018_ 13 Arvind Gotewal Vs ITO

Authorised Representative of M/s Chetanya Buildcon Private Limited and M/s Saluja Construction Ltd. to M/s SNG Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (50% Share) and M/s Yaduvanshi Landbase Pvt. Ltd (50% Share) for sale consideration Rs. 7.06 Crore and Rs. 82 Lakh respectively and the said payments were made through cheques. It is further noted that vide letter dated 21.03.2016, addressed to the Assessing Officer, these two Saluja Group Companies has confirmed that higher sale consideration was booked by them in their books of accounts on account of sale of land at Jaipur. It would be appropriate to reproduce the scanned images of these two letters as under:

Thus, it could be summarized as under: Sold by Actual Sale Payment made in cash Sale consideration as per Consideration registered sale deed M/s Chetanya 15,31,66,000 7,06,00,000 8,25,66,000 M/s Saluja 1,82,62,000 82,00,000 1,00,62,000 Total 17,14,28,000 7,88,00,000 9,26,28,000

It may be mentioned that as per the copies of income tax returns for the Assessment Year 2013-14, available on record, M/s Chetanya and M/s Saluja has declared the sale consideration of the lands at Jaipur at Rs. 15,31,66,000/- and Rs. 1,82,62,000/- respectively. However, it is noted from their computation of income that a number of lands were sold at Jaipur by these companies during the Assessment Year 2013-14 and the lands sold for consideration of Rs. 15,31,66,000/- and Rs. 1,82,62,000/- were stated to be sold on 22/03/2013 whereas, the registered sale deeds were executed on 09.05.2013, which pertained to the Assessment Year 2014-15 and not to the Assessment Year 2013-14.

It is further noted that in the seized document, the payment through cheque as per registry was stated at Rs. 3,18,00,000/- and as per the details of cheques stated in the registered sale deeds, I fail to find out any single cheque of Rs. 3,18,00,000/- or a number of cheques, whose total comes to

ITA 442 & 443/JP/2018_ 14 Arvind Gotewal Vs ITO

Rs. 3,18,00,000/-. It is further noted that vide board resolutions dated 30.04.2013 of M/s Chetanya and M/s Saluja, the appellant was authorized only to sign and execute all sale related documents such as Sale Deed etc. pertaining to the land of these companies at Jaipur and the appellant was not authorized to collect payment from the buyers from these companies. However, the fact remained that the payments were collected by the appellant from SNG group, as confirmed by Shri SN Gupta and Aditya Malpani for sale of land.

It is also noted from the copy of account of M/s SNG group in the books of accounts of M/s Chetanya that 2.60 hectares of land at Jaipur was sold to M/s SNG and M/s Yaduvanshi for a sale consideration of Rs. 15,31,66,000/- and the payments amounting to Rs. 5.50 Crore, including cash of Rs. 4.50 Crore and cheque of Rs. 1 Crore, was received during the Financial Year 2013-14, against the outstanding amount of Rs. 9,81,68,000/-, the payment to the tune of Rs. 12,81,66,000/-, including cheque payment of Rs. 9.06 Crore and cash payment of Rs. 3,75,66,000/- was made. It appears that excess payment in cash was made to M/s Chetanya Buildcon P. Ltd. to explain the cash entries in the seized documents.

Similarly, It is noted from the copy of account of M/s SNG Group as appearing in the books of accounts of M/s Saluja that 0.31 Hectares of land at Jaipur was sold by M/s Saluja for a consideration of Rs. 1,82,62,000/- on 22.03.2013 and the cash payment of Rs. 50 lakh and chques payment of Rs. 1.50 Crore was received during the Financial Year 2012-13 itself i.e. a sum of Rs. 17,38,000/- was received in excess by M/s Saluja. It is pertinent to mention here that the cheque no. 302436 dated 26.04.2013 for a sum of Rs.82,00,000/- as stated in the registered sale deed dated 09.05.2013 is not appearing in the copy of account of SNG Group in the books of accounts of M/s Saluja as submitted during the appellate proceedings. It is interesting to note that during the Financial Year 2013-14, sum of Rs. 3 Crore through

ITA 442 & 443/JP/2018_ 15 Arvind Gotewal Vs ITO

cheques and Rs.. 50,62,000/- in cash was also received by M/s Saluja leaving behind excess payment of Rs. 3,68,00,000/- of M/s SNG group as on 31.03.2014.

The appellant has filed so many documents related to M/s Chetanya and M/s Saluja but did not file the copies of the documents dated22/03/2013 through which the sales amounting to Rs. 15,31,66,000/- and Rs. 1,82,62,000/- were recorded by them in their books of accounts. I fail to understand that on what basis these companies have declared the sale of land under consideration in the Assessment Year 2013-14, when the sale deed was registered on 09/05/2013 only i.e. in the FY 2013-14 relevant to the AY 2014-15. It appears that the entries in the books of accounts of the seller companies have been made to explain the cash received by the appellant from Shri Aditya Malpani as stated in the seized documents under consideration. However, the same cannot be accepted in view of the detailed reasons mentioned earlier. It is also to be noted that the appellant was also a director in a number of companies dealing in real estate. It is pertinent to mention here that as per the seized documents and as admitted by the seller companies, the total cash payment was to the tune of Rs. 8,28,50,000/-, whereas, the cash Rs. 6,28,50,000/- was stated to be paid by SNG Group/Aditya Malpani. The AO is hereby directed to inform to the AO of SNG Group (SNG Estate and Yadhuvanshi) and M/s Chetanya/Saluja accordingly. The question is when the buyer has made cash payments to the extent of Rs. 6,28,50,000/- only, then who had made the balance cash payment of Rs. 2 Crore. It is further noted that Shri S N Gupta, in his statement has not confirmed the transactions stated on the seized documents. In fact, he did not even confirm the amount of transaction for purchase of property at Ajmer Road. On the other hand, in his statement, it was stated by Shri Aditya Malpani that he has paid the sum of Rs. 9,46,50,000/- stated on the seized documents for purchase of

ITA 442 & 443/JP/2018_ 16 Arvind Gotewal Vs ITO

land for SNG Group and he did not specify that the said payments were made for purchasing land from M/s Chetnaya/Saluja.

Therefore, in view of the above discussion, conduct of the appellant and the findings of the AO as recorded in the assessment order, it is held that the AO was justified in making addition of Rs. 5.68 Crore to the income of the appellant and hence, the same is hereby sustained.

The above finding given by the Learned CIT(A) is contrary to the facts of the case as the assessee was not owner of land. The Learned CIT(A) did not consider the statement of Shri Satya Narayan Gupta as well as Shri Aditya Malpani on this account. Shri Satya Narayan Gupta and Aditya Malpani has categorically stated that they have made payments on behalf of Chaitnaya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and Saluja Construction Company for the purchase of land in Jaipur. M/s Chaitanya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Saluja Construction Company has accepted that the payment was duly accounted for in their books of accounts and the same has been received through the assessee from Shri Satya Narayan Gupta against sale of land. The assessee has also shown commission income in his return that was also accepted by the Learned Assessing Officer.

Moreover the Learned CIT(A) on page 15 of the order has also given direction to inform Assessing Officer's of SNG group and M/s Chaitnaya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd and M/s Saluja Construction Company for the discrepancies found in the statement of cash payment and receipt on this account. When the Learned CIT(A) has given direction for this and this means the transaction pertains to them. According to Learned CIT(A) the purchase and sales transactions are between Satya Narayan Gupta (SNG Group) and Yaduvanshi Group (M/s Chaitnaya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd and M/s Saluja Construction Company). Then how the addition can be sustained in

ITA 442 & 443/JP/2018_ 17 Arvind Gotewal Vs ITO

the hands of the assessee. Therefore the whole addition deserves to be deleted.”

authorities below.

on the record. A search and seizure operation was carried out at the

premises of Shri Aditya Malpani and SNG Group on 26/2/2014. Loose

papers were found and on the basis of which, additions have been made.

In these loose papers, amount of cash and cheque was written with dates.

In the statement, Shri Aditya Malpani has stated that this paper has

recording of payments made in respect of land purchased at Garden

Estate, D-Block, Mahapura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur by SNG Group and

Yaduvanshi Landbase Pvt. Ltd. through Shri Arvind Gotewala (the

assessee). Shri Satya Narayan Gupta of SNG group has also stated that

this paper is in respect of payments made by him in respect of land

purchased at Ajmer road from Saluja Group of companies. He also stated

that the registration of the land has also been completed. These

statements are filed in the paper book. The assessee Arvind Gotewala was

authorized by Saluja Constructions Company Ltd., 30- Community Centre,

Basant Vihar, New Delhi as well as by Chetanya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. at the

same address for executing the sale of land situated at Mahapura, Jaipur

ITA 442 & 443/JP/2018_ 18 Arvind Gotewal Vs ITO

to SNG Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. and Yadubanshi Landbase Pvt. Ltd.. A copy of

resolution passed by these companies authorizing the assessee Shri Arvind

Gotewala for executing the sale deed were also available in the paper

book. The land was sold by Chetanya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. to SNG Real Estate

Pvt. Ltd.. The sale deed was signed by Arvind Gotewal on behalf of

Chetanya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.. Similarly, Saluja Constructions Company Ltd.

also sold land through Arvind Gotewal i.e. ½ portion to SNG Real Estate

Pvt. Ltd. and ½ to Yaduvanshi Landbase Pvt. Ltd.. The amount reflected in

the seized material is also accounted for in the books of Chetanya Buildcon

Pvt. Ltd.. The amount of cheques and cash reflected in the seized material

also reflected in the books of Chetanya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and Saluja

construction Company Ltd.. The details of the same are in the written

reply produced (supra) of the assessee. The entire payment including the

cash reflected on these pages is fully accounted for in the books of seller

Chetanya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and Saluja Construction Company Ltd.. In

such a situation, the claim of the assessee that he was working just as a

authorized person to facilitate the registration formalities appears to be

genuine. The land towards which payments were made was owned by

Chetanya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and Saluja Construction Company Ltd.. The

amount of cash/cheque paid by buyer are reflected in books of sellers.

Thus there is no scope to make addition in the hands of assessee who was

ITA 442 & 443/JP/2018_ 19 Arvind Gotewal Vs ITO acting just as authorized agent. In such a situation, in our considered

view, there is no scope for making addition U/s 69A of the Act in the

assessee’s hand. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27/07/2018.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼fot; iky jko½ ¼Hkkxpan½ (VIJAY PAL RAO) (BHAGCHAND) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 27th July, 2018

*Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Arvind Gotewal, Jaipur. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 3(2), Jaipur. 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 442 & 443/JP/2018) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत