Loading judgment…
Facts
A search and seizure operation was conducted on the assessee, an individual engaged in real estate brokerage. During the search, incriminating documents related to property transactions and brokerage income were found. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions based on these documents, estimating unaccounted brokerage income.
Held
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were based on assumptions and presumptions, as there was no credible evidence to link the seized documents to actual brokerage income earned by the assessee. The Tribunal noted the lack of corroborative evidence and the absence of details like property names, buyer-seller information, and signatures in the seized material.
Key Issues
Whether additions for alleged unaccounted brokerage income can be made based on seized loose papers and inquiry registers without corroborative evidence of actual transaction execution and income earned by the assessee.
Sections Cited
147, 143(3), 132, 148, 69A, 28, 115BBE, 133(6), 142[1]
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH
Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar
Pravin Nagjibhai Bavadiya The DCIT, F/F Sankalp Square, Central Circle-1(4), Opp. Abhinav Colony, Vs Ahmedabad Drive-in-Road, Memnagar, Ahmedabad-380054 PAN: AETPB2507C (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No: 1896/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 The DCIT, Pravin Nagjibhai Bavadiya Central Circle-1(4), F/F Sankalp Square, Ahmedabad Vs Opp. Abhinav Colony, Drive-in-Road, Memnagar, Ahmedabad-380054 (Appellant) PAN: AETPB2507C (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri Vartik Chokshi, Shri Biren Shah, A.Rs. Revenue Represented: Shri Atul Pandy, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 24-04-2025 Date of pronouncement : 09-05-2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- These appeals are filed by the Assessee and Revenue as against the common appellate order dated 16.08.2024 passed by to 1691/Ahd/2024 and ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 to 2022-23 Page No 2 Pravin Nagjibhai Bavadiya Vs. DCIT the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad arising out of the reassessment orders passed under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2019-20 to 2022-23. Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, for the sake of brevity and convenience, the same are disposed of by this common order.
Assessment year 2021-22 is taken as the lead case. Brief Facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in real estate brokerage through his proprietary concern namely City Estate Management. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 28.09.2021 in the case of B Safal Group and City Estate Management Group. During the course of the search, various incriminating documents were found from the premises of the assessee and associated individuals, notably Shri Divyang Vyas. The seized documents primarily included:
“Inquiry Registers” (Annexure A/8 to A/11) containing property details such as plot numbers, rates, and broker details. Loose papers indicating brokerage receipts on high-value property transactions. Rough jottings of brokerage-sharing arrangements with associates. 2.1. These documents related to various transactions of lands, commercial buildings and plotting schemes carried out during Asst. Years 2019–20 to 2022–23. Based on the seized materials reassessment proceedings were initiated by issuing notice under sections 148 of the Act. In response assessee filed Returns of to 1691/Ahd/2024 and ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 to 2022-23 Page No 3 Pravin Nagjibhai Bavadiya Vs. DCIT Income and the Ld AO concluded the reassessments by observing that the assessee was the key person orchestrating brokerage deals on behalf of his concern City Estate Management. Unaccounted brokerage income was estimated at 1% of total transaction value based on entries found in the seized Inquiry Registers. Inference was drawn that 75% of total transactions recorded in Annexures A/8 to A/11 were routed through the assessee. Accordingly, the AO made the following additions:
Section Asst Yrs. Nature of Addition Amount (₹) Invoked 2019-20 Brokerage on Real Estate Deals 1,02,10,179 28 2020-21 Brokerage on Real Estate Deals 85,56,408 28 2021-22 Brokerage on Real Estate Deals 4,98,30,739 69A 2021-22 Unaccounted Cash Deposits 43,50,000 69A 2022-23 Brokerage on Real Estate Deals 41,50,298 28 3. Aggrieved against the reassessment orders the assessee filed appeals before CIT(A) and contended that the AO’s estimation of 1% brokerage income was arbitrary and without evidence. The Inquiry Register and rough jottings from Divyang Vyas were not incriminating evidence against the assessee. Cash deposits were from business transactions and not unexplained income. The Ld CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal by making the following modifications:
* Restricted the brokerage income to 0.075% instead of 1%. * Treated the brokerage income as business income under section 28, not as unexplained cash under Section 69A. * Deleted the addition of ₹43.5 lakh under Section 69A. to 1691/Ahd/2024 and ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 to 2022-23 Page No 4 Pravin Nagjibhai Bavadiya Vs. DCIT
Aggrieved against the common appellate orders the Grounds of Appeal raised by the Assessee in for A.Y. 2021-22 are as follows:
“1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have quashed the assessment being void ab-initio, illegal, without jurisdiction and not following the principle of natural justice.
2. In law and in facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the appellant had received brokerage on estimated basis from the total deal value on the basis of inquiry register (data bank) particularly when no evidence relating to alleged earing of brokerage or any other incriminating material was found during the course of search and relied upon by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order.
3. In law and in facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding that the action of the Assessing Officer in respect rough jottings found from Divyang Vyas in the name of Shri Nirav Shah when no evidence relating to alleged brokerage or any other incriminating material was found during the course of search from the possession of the appellant.
4. The appellant craves leave to add alter amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”
4.1. The Grounds of Appeal raised by the Revenue in A.Y. 2021-22 are as follows:
“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in observing that AO was not justified in taxing brokerage income on entire deal value recorded in the documents found during the course of search at assessee's premises ignoring the detailed reasoning given by the A.O.
2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition of Rs.4,96,30,739/- made by the AO u/s. 69A on account of undisclosed brokerage income calculated at 1% of the total transaction value to mere Rs.12,40,768/-, i.e. to 1691/Ahd/2024 and ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 to 2022-23 Page No 5 Pravin Nagjibhai Bavadiya Vs. DCIT 0.075% of the total transaction value, and further confirming 80% of the same in the assessee's hands that too 28 of the Act without any basis.
The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in considering the addition on account of undisclosed brokerage income u/s. 28 of the Act instead of section 69A of the Act, which is contrary to the facts and law.
4. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.43,50,000/- u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on account of unexplained and unaccounted brokerage income ignoring the seized material & statement recorded during/post search proceedings.
The Revenue craves leave to add/alter/armed and/or substitute any or all of the grounds of appeal
5. Ld Counsel appearing for the Assessee Sri Varthik Choksi submitted that the Assessee is not pressing ground nos. 1 & 3 which are on jurisdiction. Recording the same Ground nos. 1 & 3 raised by the assessee are hereby dismissed. Ld Counsel further submitted that the ground no. 2 filed by the assessee and ground nos. 1 to 3 filed by the Revenue are interconnected and required to be adjudicated together. Learned Counsel invited our attention to page numbers 14 to 16 of the assessment order in which the relevant extract of the enquiry register have been reproduced. This enquiry register was unearthed during the search conducted at the office premises of City Estate Management and seized. The enquiry register/notings are essential for a broking firm so that they can take leads for the purpose of their broking or facilitation business. However, the enquiry register has neither been signed or dated by any of the proposed buyers or sellers, nor any evidences that the assessee broker is having exclusivity for the deals as noted therein. Thus, the enquiry register is merely a record preliminary enquiries made by the prospective customers for the purchase of units and I.T.A Nos. 1688 to 1691/Ahd/2024 and ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 to 2022-23 Page No 6 Pravin Nagjibhai Bavadiya Vs. DCIT that no material evidence was found during the course of search to demonstrate that any inquiry had culminated into transaction through the assessee acting as a broker.
5.1. Further, the AO during examination of the enquiry register Attempted to ascertain how many of the enquiries recorded has resulted in actual seals But they even failed to bring single transaction evidencing that any such enquiry has converted into an actual sales through the SSC further is sued notice under section 133 to various buyers who had purchased huge properties However, none of the parties admitted or having transacted through the associate as a broker. And accordingly, the year old has also not pointed out any such instances in any of the assessment orders, including the assessment year 2021-22. Substantial brokerage income in the return of income on year to year basis. And accordingly, all final transaction that has been transacted through the ssc has been offered and disclosed in the return of income Therefore, if the answer for evidence that has earned brokerage income, the presumption made by the land seven point percent, 5% of the total encourage resulting in sales were attributed to the ssc. And 100% of the executed deals for the associated 2122 are accordingly estimated at what percent brokerage income on such transactions was incorrect and without any legal cases.. Whereas let us take a pe estimated brokerage income from executed deals was estimated at 1% of the 2.5% of the entire day for all the years. Therefore, based on the above arguments submitted the lower authority, despite their odd possible efforts, could not corroborate any cinema transaction, to 1691/Ahd/2024 and ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 to 2022-23 Page No 7 Pravin Nagjibhai Bavadiya Vs. DCIT haven’t been executed through the SSC as a broker. An arbitrary estimation of brokerage income should not be perpetuated as it is not sustainable in law.
5.2. Further learn at CIT appeal. At para #5.3 helped that. There are instances where there is substantial gap of six to seven years between the inquiry and actual transaction, which make the loss cheats are nothing but an inquiry sheet and unreliable document from which no income could be estimated. Thus, in a nutshell, the Ld. Counsel submitted that both the law authorities made additions merely based on estimation and arbitrary corroborating evidence on record. And the transaction is executed through transfer c. The set estimated additions are not sustainable and should be and liable to be deleted.
5.3. Ld Counsel further pointed out that the AO also erred in invoking provisions of section 69A of the Act and taxing the brokerage income u/s.115BBE of the Act. In any event, brokerage income is to be estimated and addition made is confirmed that the addition should be made only u/s.28 of the Act. In this respect, he referred to several instances beginning from the notice issued u/s.142[1] of the Act that the Assessing Officer has categorically accepted the business of the assessee and discussed about the nature of income earned by him. He also pointed out that even in the return of income, the assessee was offering brokerage income. Therefore, the brokerage income cannot be characterized as unexpected money under section 69A of the Act. to 1691/Ahd/2024 and ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 to 2022-23 Page No 8 Pravin Nagjibhai Bavadiya Vs. DCIT
Per contra Ld Senior DR appearing for the Revenue in support of ground nos. 1 to 3, submitted that the assessee is a renowned broker? Therefore, Diego has not yet in computing the brokerage income from the enquiry register Thus, the addition made by the Asian officer Is liable to be upheld.
We have heard rival submissions at length and the relevant facts of the case, perused the assessment order as well as the order of the CIT(A). The findings given by the Ld. AO at Para 3.4.5, of the assessment order, it is clearly noticed that the AO in the initial part of the discussion is convinced that no deals as mentioned in the diary/inquiry register have been taken through the assessee broker which is again contrary to his own discussion subsequently in the same para. Further the Ld AO has stated that "had the parties to whom notices u/s 133(6) were issued filed any strong documentary evidence, it could have been dealt on merits and facts of the case and assessee's contention could have been verified and accepted either fully or partially". This clearly shows that the Ld AO could have accepted assessee's transaction either fully or partially on merits, if reply to the notice u/s.133(6) of the Act would have been received. Further, it is also seen in para 3.4.2. of the assessment order that the Ld AO had tabulated 41 lands/plots. But it is beyond comprehension as to why the AO failed to verify even a single transaction. It is also not clear that out of total transactions of brokerage, to how many parties, notices u/s.133(6) of the Act were issued for this assessment year. Further, the assessment order is silent about the fact when such notices were issued and why other recourse available with the Revenue were not resorted to, to 1691/Ahd/2024 and ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 to 2022-23 Page No 9 Pravin Nagjibhai Bavadiya Vs. DCIT for the verification of the deals, whether executed through the assessee as the broker or not. Needless to say, that it was the onus of the Revenue to make proper verification as no evidence of execution of deals through the broker was found during the course of search. When no credible evidences of unaccounted investments/earning of brokerage income was unearthed during the search proceedings, the question of making addition of brokerage on presumptions and assumptions should not survive.
7.1. The addition made by the Ld AO is clearly based of non- response to the notice u/s.133(6) of the Act which itself shows that no proper enquiry/verification was made by him. Further the Assessing officer as well as the CIT(A) have failed to highlight any instances in their order suggesting earning of brokerage income from the diaries maintained by the assessee. Further the assessee has offered commission/brokerage income of Rs.54,42,076/- for this asst. year. This clearly indicates that there is no corroborative evidence found during the search proceedings which could suggest that the assessee had actually earned brokerage income from transaction mentioned in such inquiry register and which was not recorded in the books of account. It is a settled position in law that no additions can be made on conjectures and surmises. Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jeet Construction Company [2021] 124 taxmann.com 527 (SC) (20-11- 2020).
I.T.A Nos. 1688 to 1691/Ahd/2024 and ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 to 2022-23 Page No 10 Pravin Nagjibhai Bavadiya Vs. DCIT 7.2. Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT -Vs- Ajay Surendrabhai Patel [2016] 69 taxmann.com 309 (Gujarat) [06-11- 2015] held as follows: In appellate proceedings, the Tribunal found that the assessee was not a party to the seized agreement of sale which was the basis of making the entire addition. Further, nowhere in the statement recorded of sellers, it was stated that they had received any money from the assessee which was more than the amount they acknowledged to have received from the assessee in respect of sale of land in question from the assessee. The sellers in their statements had claimed that they received the money from 'V' only and not from the assessee. The revenue could not bring any material on record to show that the assessee paid actually any amount more than the amount stated in the registered deed of sale. In absence of any such material, the additions were made only on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. In the light of the above discussion, it is evident that the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is based upon findings of fact recorded by it upon appreciation of the evidence on record. The revenue, despite strenuous efforts, is not in a position to point out any perversity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Under the circumstances, in the absence of any material to the contrary being brought to the notice of the court so as to dislodge the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal, the impugned order of the Tribunal being based upon concurrent findings of fact recorded after appreciating the evidence on record, does not give rise to any question of law, much less, a substantial question of law so as to warrant interference. The appeals, therefore, fail and are accordingly dismissed. [Para 14] 7.3. In light of the above facts as well as discussion we are inclined to agree with the arguments advanced by the Ld. AR and direct the Ld AO to delete the entire addition made based on the inquiry registers unearthed during the course of search to 1691/Ahd/2024 and ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 to 2022-23 Page No 11 Pravin Nagjibhai Bavadiya Vs. DCIT proceedings. In result the Ground No 1 to 3 of Revenue appeal is dismissed and Ground No 2 filed by the assessee stands allowed.
Coming to ground no.4, raised by the Revenue, namely deleting the addition of Rs.43,50,000 u/s.69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on account of unexplained and unaccounted brokerage income ignoring the seized material & statement recorded during/post search proceedings.
8.1. It is noted that the Department has challenged the deletion of addition of Rs.43.50 lacs u/s.69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on account of unexplained and unaccounted brokerage income. It has already been discussed at length in the foregoing paragraphs that the assessee is a broker and any income determined on the basis of seized material unearthed during the course of search proceedings should be added as unaccounted business receipts earned from the activity of rendering brokerage services to its clients/customers. Therefore, this ground raised by the revenue fails. Any income earned by a real estate broker can be taxed only as unaccounted business receipts of the assessee and not section 69A of the Act. Coming to the merits of the case, the learned A.R. has pointed out during the course of hearing invited our attention to the facts as reproduced by the learned CIT(A) in para 27 onwards on page 74 of the appellate order. It is noted that the addition was made based on a loose paper found from the premises of Mr. Divyang Vyas which has been reproduced at para 27.1 of the order of the CIT(A). It is noted that the addition of Rs.43.50 lacs has been made on the basis of instances mentioned at page No.55 of the seized material, to 1691/Ahd/2024 and ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 to 2022-23 Page No 12 Pravin Nagjibhai Bavadiya Vs. DCIT Annexure A-3, sr. No. 1 to 9. The items which have been mentioned in the above list do not indicate the name of the property, the details of purchaser - seller and, therefore the question of making any addition based on such loose paper is uncalled for. At most, the notings which have been made on pages 54, 55, 56 & 57 of Annexure A-3, are merely instances reproduced in the loose paper and do not indicate or lead to a conclusion that the assessee could have earned unaccounted brokerage income from any of the deals. Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition of Rs.43.50 lacs made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, we are inclined to agree with the findings given by the CIT(A) and we hereby uphold deletion and the Ground no.4 raised by the Revenue is devoid of merits and dismissed.
In result, Appeal field by the assessee in in is Partly Allowed and the Revenue appeal in in is dismissed.
Now coming to Assessee's appeal for AY 2019-20 in ITA No. 1688/Ahd/2024. Grounds of Appeal
raised by the assessee are as follows:
1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have quashed the assessment being void ab initio, illegal, without jurisdiction and not following the principle of natural justice.
2. In law and in facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the appellant had received brokerage on estimated basis from the total deal value on the basis of inquiry register (data bank) particularly when no evidence relating to alleged caring of brokerage or any other incriminating material was found to 1691/Ahd/2024 and ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 to 2022-23 Page No 13 Pravin Nagjibhai Bavadiya Vs. DCIT during the course of search and relied upon by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order.
3. In law and in facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred that the appellant had received alleged brokerage on the basis of rough jottings found from Divyang Vyas when no evidence relating to alleged brokerage or any other incriminating material was found during the course of search from the possession of the appellant.
4. In law and in facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred that appellant has received alleged unaccounted Brokerage income merely on the assumption that 50% of the total transactions of the project were carried out through appellant and further allocated such brokerage income into two assessment years and confirm the value of the scheme at the rate of Rs 7000 per sq. feet (including all the charges).
5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal wither before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.
11. Ld. AR appearing for the assessee has Not Pressed Ground No1, therefore the same is dismissed. Regarding Ground no 2, Ld. AR submitted that addition made by Ld. AO is based on the same inquiry book found during the course of search at the premises of the assessee. The contents of the inquiry book have been extensively discussed in paragraph 7 to 7.3 of this order. The Ld. AR of the assessee further stated that in this AY the Ld. AO himself had restricted the addition of brokerage income of 1% on the total value of the units to only 7.5% of the total inquiries found in the inquiry book, unlike in AY 2021-22 in which 1% brokerage income was estimated by the AO of all the inquiries (i.e. 100% of the inquiries) found in the inquiry book, which has been restricted to I.T.A Nos. 1688 to 1691/Ahd/2024 and ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 to 2022-23 Page No 14 Pravin Nagjibhai Bavadiya Vs. DCIT 2.5% by CIT(A) on further appeal by the assessee. Ld DR fairly agrees with the above position.
We found that, facts of this Ground of appeal raised by the assessee is identical to Ground no 2 of the assessee for the AY 2021-22, which has been dealt with and adjudicated by us extensively at para no 7 to 7.3 above, since there is no change facts, respectfully following the same ratio, we hereby direct Ld. AO to delete the entire addition and thus the Ground No.2 raised by the assessee stands allowed.
13. Now coming to Ground no 3 filed by the assessee, which is reproduced as under “3. In law and in facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred that the appellant had received alleged brokerage on the basis of rough jottings found from Divyang Vyas when no evidence relating to alleged brokerage or any other incriminating material was found during the course of search from the possession of the appellant.” 13.1. Regarding Ground No. 3, Ld. Counsel for the assessee, Shri Vartik R Choksi submitted that based on loose paper A-3 page 57 found during the course of search at third party premise namely Shri Divyang Vyas, Ld. AO has made addition of Rs.63,70,000 which has been restricted to Rs.14,00,000 by CIT(A). Ld. Counsel invited our attention at page no 54 of the assessment order where the copy of seized material found from the premise of Divyang Vyas has been extracted. However, Ld. Counsel has objected that such seized material cannot be relied upon for making addition as it is dumb document. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the details to 1691/Ahd/2024 and ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 to 2022-23 Page No 15 Pravin Nagjibhai Bavadiya Vs. DCIT which have been mentioned in seized material do not indicate the name of the property, the details of purchaser/seller and therefore, question of making any addition based on such loose paper is uncalled for. Further, such seized material is not signed and not specifically dated. At most the notings which have been made on pages 57 of Annexure A 3 are merely instances reproduced in the loose paper and do not indicate or lead to a conclusion that the assessee could have earned unaccounted brokerage income was from any of the deals. Further, Ld. Counsel submitted that both the lower authorities were failed to bring any corroborative evidence that notings referred in seized material are actually dealt through the assessee as a Broker. Further, Ld. Counsel also submitted that, Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of Rs.14,00,000/- based on the merely word "RECEIVED" written besides the total amount, assuming such amount is received without any corroborative evidence. However, such observation is again based on assumption and surmises without any corroborative or link with actual deal executed. Therefore, Ld. Counsel pleaded that the addition confirmed by CIT(A) should be deleted.
14. On the other hand, Ld. DR could not counter the arguments of the assessee and also failed to bring any corroborative evidence on record.
15. We found that addition made by Ld. AO and partially confirmed by CIT(A) are without any corroborative evidences and during the course of hearing Ld. DR could not bring any evidence on record that notings mentioned in seized material has nexus with to 1691/Ahd/2024 and ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 to 2022-23 Page No 16 Pravin Nagjibhai Bavadiya Vs. DCIT any corroborative evidence. Therefore, we are inclined with the arguments raised by the assessee Counsel that no addition can be made based on loose material found during the course of search unless revenue brings on record corresponding corroborative evidence that the assessee has actually earned brokerage, which the Revenue has failed. Therefore, such loose material found during the course of search is mere dumb document and cannot be relied upon for making addition. Hence, we direct Ld. AO to delete the entire addition made based on such loose paper and therefore, this Ground No.3 raised by the assessee stands allowed.
16. Now coming to Ground no 4 raised by the assessee, Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that, based on excel sheet found from the premise of City Estate Group. Ld. Counsel for the assessee invited our attention to page nos.71 to 97 assessment order where the seized material i.e. excel sheet relied upon by Ld. AO for making addition is extracted. Ld. Counsel submitted that, nowhere in such excel sheet (seize material), name of the assessee is mentioned. Further, Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A), both failed to bring any corroborative evidence that any of the deal executed by the Buyer and Seller are through the assessee as a Broker. The Ld Counsel in the course of hearing also pointed out the excel sheet had also captioned "These figures are based on current available rate and subject to actual rates as and when applicable”. Thus these figures have been provided to serve as a reference rates/figure only. Therefore, no estimation of Brokerage income can be made in the hands of the assessee. Id. AR of the assessee has relied upon his extensively arguments made in AY 2021 22 of his Ground no 2 to 1691/Ahd/2024 and ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 to 2022-23 Page No 17 Pravin Nagjibhai Bavadiya Vs. DCIT where also, Ld AO and CIT(A) were failed to bring single evidence of any execution of deal through the assessee and therefore addition cannot be made merely based on assumption and presumption. On the Other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the order of CIT(A).
We have heard rival submissions at length. Ld. DR could not bring any evidence on record to justify that any of the unit sold by the SKZ developer LLP are through the assessee as a Broker. We also found that none of the lower authorities could bring evidence of any deal is executed through the assessee. Therefore, based on our extensive finding given supra, we hereby direct Ld. AO to delete the entire addition and therefore this Ground No.4 stands allowed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in for AY 2019-20 is Partly allowed.
Now coming to Assessee's appeal for AY 2020-21 for ITA 1689/Ahd/2024. Grounds of Appeal raised by the assessee is reproduced as under:
1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have quashed the assessment being void ab initio, illegal, without jurisdiction and not following the principle of natural justice.
2. In law and in facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the appellant had received brokerage on estimated basis from the total deal value on the basis of inquiry register (data bank) particularly when no evidence relating to alleged earing of brokerage or any other incriminating material was found to 1691/Ahd/2024 and ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 to 2022-23 Page No 18 Pravin Nagjibhai Bavadiya Vs. DCIT during the course of search and relied upon by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order. 3. In law and in facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding that the action of the Assessing Officer in respect jottings in the name of Shri Nirav Shah when no evidence relating to alleged brokerage or any other incriminating material was found during the course of search from the possession of the appellant. 4. In law and in facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred that appellant has received alleged unaccounted Brokerage income merely on the assumption that 50% of the total transactions of the project were carried out through appellant and further allocated such brokerage income into two assessment years and confirm the value of the scheme at the rate of Rs 7000 per sq. feet (including all the charges). 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal
wither before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.
20. Ld. AR appearing for the assessee has Not Pressed Ground No1, therefore the same is dismissed. Regarding Ground no 2, is identical to Ground no 2 of the assessee for AY 2021-22, which has been dealt with and adjudicated by us extensively at paragraphs no 7 to 7.3, respectfully following the same, we hereby direct Ld. AO to delete the entire addition and therefore the Ground No.2 stands allowed.
21. Now coming to Ground no 3 of the assessee, Ld. Counsel invited our attention at page no 67 of CIT(A) order, where the copy of seized material being page no 2 and 9 of A-3 found from the premise of Divyang Vyas is extracted. Ld. Counsel submitted that, to 1691/Ahd/2024 and ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 to 2022-23 Page No 19 Pravin Nagjibhai Bavadiya Vs. DCIT cost details in such loose sheet is co-related by AO with seized material G-64 found during the course of search at the office of B Safal Group, being excel sheet extracted at page no 68 of CIT(A) order. Ld Counsel submitted that, AO has comparted A-3 page no 2 and 9 found from the premise of Divyang Vyas with the excel sheet G-64 found from the premise of B Safal group and came to the finding that as the cost details are nearly matching in the seized material found from the premise of Divyang Vyas and from the premise of B Safal, made addition of brokerage income in the hands of assessee based on page no 9 of A-3, where noting of Rs.9,47,900 is jotted below the 2% written in such loose sheet. Ld AR the assessee submitted that, area mentioned in the both loose sheets are different. Further, nowhere commission or brokerage word is mentioned in loose sheet relied by AO for making addition. Ld. AO himself has assumed that Rs.9,47,900/- is amount of brokerage and the share of the assessee is 80% amounting to Rs.7,58,320/-. Ld. Counsel also submitted that, none of the party has accepted in his statement that 2% amount of Rs.9,47,900 is brokerage amount. Hence, addition made by AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is without any basis and therefore the same shall be deleted.
22. On the other hand, Ld. DR has relied upon the order of CIT(A).
23. We found that, Ld. AO could not bring any evidence that amount of Rs.9,47,900/- represents brokerage income. Revenue has merely relied upon the loose sheet found during the course of search without any efforts that income has been earned. It has also been mentioned that document has been executed but there is no evidence that has been brought by authorities that the deal has to 1691/Ahd/2024 and ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 to 2022-23 Page No 20 Pravin Nagjibhai Bavadiya Vs. DCIT been executed through the assessee and in the absence of record or evidences that the same been executed through the assessee, brokerage income cannot be stated to have been earned. There is also no evidence that, 80% of Rs.9,47,900 has been actually received by the assessee as observed in the assessment order or for that matter entire noting of Rs 9,47,900. Further in the assessment order, statement of Mr Divyang Vyas has also been referred which again for the reasons stated in the hereinabove, has no value since there is no evidence to substantiate that the brokerage income has been earned. Addition cannot be made merely on the basis of statement without any evidences. Hence, without any evidence that amount represents Brokerage income as well as its actual receipt by the assessee, the addition cannot be made on assumption and conjecture basis. Therefore, this Ground No.3 is hereby allowed and AO is directed to delete the addition.
Ground no 4 of the assessee appeal is identical to the Ground no 4 of the assessee appeal for AY 2019-20. Therefore, respectfully following the finding of AY 2019-20, which is at para no 16 & 17, we hereby allow the Ground of appeal of the assessee and therefore Ld. AO is directed to delete the addition.
In result, appeal of AY 2020-21 in is partly allowed.
Now, coming to filed by the assessee for AY 2022-23. Grounds of appeal
s raised by the assessee is reproduced as under: to 1691/Ahd/2024 and ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 to 2022-23 Page No 21. Pravin Nagjibhai Bavadiya Vs. DCIT
1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have quashed the assessment being void ab initio, illegal, without jurisdiction and not following the principle of natural justice.
2. In law and in facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the appellant had received brokerage on estimated basis from the total deal value on the basis of inquiry register (data) bank) particularly when no evidence relating to alleged earing of brokerage or any other incriminating material was found during the course of search and relied upon by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal
wither before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.
27. Ld. AR appearing for the assessee has Not Pressed Ground No1, therefore the same is dismissed. Regarding Ground no 2 is identical to Ground no 2 of the assessee for AY 2021-22, which has been dealt with and adjudicated by us extensively at paragraph no 7 to 7.3, respectfully following the same, we hereby direct Ld. AO to delete the entire addition and therefore the Ground of appeal raised by the assessee stands allowed.
In result, appeal filed by the assessee in the is partly allowed.