DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MADURAI vs. C NILAVATHY, TUTICORIN

आदेश / O R D E R

PER BENCH:-

These are appeals filed by the Revenue directed against different

orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19,

Chennai (hereinafter called as ‘CIT(A)’) dated 04.10.2018 in respect of

Smt. V. Nilavathy and late D. Chandran, L/H of Smt. V. Nilavathy

respectively.

Since, the identical facts and issues are involved in these 2.

appeals, we proceed to dispose the same vide this common order.

the Revenue. The Assessing Officer filed petition praying for

condonation of delay stating that delay had occurred on account of

delay in transmission of assessment records from higher authorities

and delay is neither willful nor wanton and therefore prayed for

condoning the delay. Ld. Authorised Representative did not raise any

serious objection for condoning the delay. In the circumstances, we

ITA No.124, 130-131, 164- :- 3 -: 170/19

condone the delay of thirteen days in filing the appeals and admit the

appeals for adjudication.

No.165/Chny/2019 in the case of late Shri. D. Chandran for

assessment year 2009-10 are stated herein.

The Revenue raised the following grounds of appeal: 5.

‘’1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts of the case and in law,

2.1 The learned CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the assessee had claimed that the 25 cents of land was meant for pathway and therefore a higher price was offered, but the said land had not actually been registered, whereas without registering the said piece of land the assessee could not have promoted the land project ‘Arun High Tech City” and sold plots in the project in the subsequent years.

2.2 The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessee had maintained duplicate sets of Books of Accounts and hence, excess consideration would have passed to the vendor.

ITA No.124, 130-131, 164- :- 4 -: 170/19

course of the appeal proceedings, the order of learned CIT(Appeals) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored’’.

The respondent-assessee is an individual and Director in

M/s.Nila Sea Foods Group of concerns. Search and Seizure operations

under the provisions of Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in

short ‘’the Act’’) were conducted on 17.12.2013 in the said group of

concerns and also respondent-assessee. Subsequently, notice

u/s.153A of the Act was issued to the respondent-assessee on

02.01.2014 by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I,

Tuticorin. In response to which respondent-assessee had filed return

of income admitting �,6,77,528/- which is same as the original

return of income. Against the said return of income, the assessment

was made at total income of �10,89,88,170/- vide order dated

31.03.2016 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act. While doing so,

the Assessing Officer made addition of �10,83,10,640/- on account of

alleged unexplained investment in purchase of 17.75 acres of land at

Sirudhoor Village, Madurai.

The factual background of the issue is that the respondent- 7.

assessee purchased 17.75 acres of land at Sirudhoor Village, Madurai

during the period 2008-09 to 2012-2013 and developed the same

ITA No.124, 130-131, 164- :- 5 -: 170/19

lands into plots in two phases in the name of ‘’Arun Hitech City’’.

Obviously, the lands were purchased for the purpose of its business

and the plots were sold during the financial years 2011-12, 2012-13

and 2013-14. During the course of search and seizure operations, the

Department authorities had seized material numbered

ANN/RK/NSF/B&D/D-3, dated 29.01.2014, which is a sale agreement

entered by Smt. C. Nilavathy, on 16.09.2010 for purchase of 25 cents

of land in Sirudhoor Village, Madurai from one Shri. P. Ramasamy

and others at �84,000/- per cent of land. Based on this information,

the Assessing Officer had proposed to adopt same amount of

consideration in respect of 17.75 acres of land purchased at Sirudhoor

Village. Accordingly, respondent-assessee was asked to explain vide

letter dated 17.12.2015 as to why purchase consideration at the rate

of �84,000/- per cent should not be applied in respect of entire

purchase of lands. In reply to the same, respondent-assessee filed

detailed reply to the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 15.02.2016

stating that the land in the agreement was intended for providing

passage to the land already purchased and plotted and it is further

submitted that the deal had not come through for the reason that the

land was held in the name of Minor. However, the Assessing Officer

taking into consideration the fact that respondent-assessee’s wife Smt.

C. Nilavathy had bought the land from the sons of same Shri. P.

ITA No.124, 130-131, 164- :- 6 -: 170/19

Ramasamy on 16.09.2010 vide document No.6881 of 2010 and also

prevailing practice in real estate business of paying on-money for

purchase of land, estimated cost of land at the rate of �70,000/- per

cent and worked out the consideration of land bought as undisclosed

investment at �12,42,50,000/- as against disclosed investment of

�1,59,39,360/- and the balance amount of �10,83,10,640/- was

brought to tax as unexplained investments.

before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order considering the

submissions of the assessee that no extra money was paid for

purchase of lands over and above the consideration shown in the

registered sale deed and reflected in the books of accounts and the

fact that no direct evidence was found suggesting payment of on-

money towards purchase of properties and also fact that in the hands

of group concerns which belongs to respondent-assessee, the

settlement commission determined undisclosed income of �152 Crores

pursuant to the application made before by it by the said group of

companies for settlement of Income Tax cases held that no addition

can be made on account of on-money payment for purchase of

properties. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition.

ITA No.124, 130-131, 164- :- 7 -: 170/19

Revenue is in appeal before us in the present appeal. The ld CIT-

Departmental Representative contented that the ld. CIT(A) ought not

have deleted the addition since there is a prevailing practice in real

estate business of paying on-money for purchase of land. He further

submitted that without buying the pathway to the layout plots,

cannot be sold.

that addition was made merely on surmises and presumptions and

the seized material which is only in the nature of incriminating

material found during the course of search operation u/s.132 of the

Act. He further submitted that the seized documents does not belong

to the respondent-assessee but wife of the respondent-assessee. In

any event the sale agreement was never acted upon and the

consideration mentioned in the sale agreement had no evidential

value. He also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Common Cause (Registered Society) vs. Union of

India, 394 ITR 220.

We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on 11.

record. The issue in the present appeal relates to the addition on

ITA No.124, 130-131, 164- :- 8 -: 170/19

account of alleged unexplained investments in purchase of lands.

These lands were bought by the assessee during the previous year

relevant to impugned assessment year against stated consideration of

�1,59,39,360/-. However, during the course of search and seizure

operations, the Department has found one sale agreement dated

16.09.2010 entered by wife of the assessee namely Smt. C. Nilavathy

for purchase of 25 cents of land in Sirudhoor Village, Madurai with

sons of Shri. P. Ramasamy at the rate of �84,000/- per cent. Based

on this material, the Assessing Officer extrapolated the cost for

purchase of the lands at the rate of �70,000/- per cent and

accordingly, treated the difference as unexplained investments and

brought to tax. Therefore the question that arises for determination is

whether the Assessing Officer is justified in doing so, the submission

of the assessee is that the said agreement was never acted upon and

further the subject land is situated at Main Road intended to be used

for the passage of the layout remains uncontroverted. Therefore, in

these backdrop of facts the issue that arises for determination is

whether the Assessing Officer is justified in extrapolating the cost of

investment so as to enable him to make addition as unexplained

investments. The observation made by the Assessing Officer that it is

normal practice in real estate business to pay on-money goes to

suggest that the addition made by the Assessing Officer is based on

ITA No.124, 130-131, 164- :- 9 -: 170/19

mere surmises and presumptions. The Assessing Officer had not even

attempted to bring corroborative evidence in support of the

presumption drawn by him. The assessee the land by way of

registered sale deed and the consideration shown in the sale deeds

have been duly reflected in the books of account . The Assessing

Officer not even chosen to cross examine the vendor in order to find

out the real consideration passed on in the transaction. The Hon’ble

Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Paramjit Singh vs. ITO,

(2010) 323 ITR 588 considering the provisions of Sections 91 and 92

of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 held that in case where the purchase

of the property was evidenced by duly registered written sale deed,

the same could not be disbelieved even on any oral submission made

by the assessee or any other persons. Similarly, the Jurisdictional

High Court in the case of CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram, (2006) 282

ITR 259, where the addition of income was made based on a

statement given by the seller, held that in the absence of

independent enquiry made by the Assessing Officer relating to the

value of the property purchased, the addition cannot be made. This

decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court was confirmed by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2007) 294 ITR 49. The facts of the present

case are much more on stronger footing as there was no statement

recorded from the vendor that higher consideration than shown in the

ITA No.124, 130-131, 164- :- 10 -: 170/19

sale deed was paid. Even, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

K.P. Varghese vs. ITO, (1981) 131 ITR 597 had laid down the

proposition of law that the burden of proving understatement of

consideration is always on the Revenue. Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi

High Court in the case of CIT vs. Suraj Devi, (2010) 328 ITR 604 held

that primary burden of proof to prove understatement or concealment

of income is on the Revenue. Only when such burden is discharged

it would be permissible to rely upon the external evidence like DVO

report. In the present case, no evidence was found as a result of

search operations suggesting that payment of consideration over

and above consideration shown in the registered deed. Addition

merely based on the agreement entered by third party cannot be the

basis of addition. Similar view was taken by the Punjab and Haryana

High Court in the case of PCIT VS. Kulwinder Singh, (2019) 415 ITR

account of unexplained investments if any telescoping the undisclosed

income determined by the Settlement Commission in the hands of the

group concerns belonging to the assessee remains unconverted. The

significant material that to be noted is that the seized material does

not belong to the respondent-assessee and nor it is the case of the

Assessing Officer that it was found during the course of search

operation in the case of the respondent- assessee. In the backdrop of

ITA No.124, 130-131, 164- :- 11 -: 170/19

the facts the issue that may arise for consideration is whether in the

assessment framed pursuant to notices issued u/s.153A of the Act an

addition can be made dehorse the seized material. The Hon’ble

Bombay High Court in the case of Continental Warehousing

Corporation, 374 ITR 645 held that in the absence of any

incriminating material found as a result of search proceeding no

addition can be made. Similar view was taken by the numerous High

Courts namely Pr.CIT v. Meeta Gutgutia [2018] 96 taxmann.com

468/257 Taxman 441 (SC) ; ii) Pr. CIT v. Saumya Construction (P.)

Ltd. [2016] 387 ITR 529/[2017] 81 taxmann.com 292 (Guj); iii) Pr.

CIT v. Devangi [2017] 88 taxmann.com 610/394 ITR 184 (Guj.) iv) Pr.

CIT v. Jay Infrastructure and Properties (P.) Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 740

of 2016, dated 10-10-2016] and CIT v. Kabul Chawla [2015] 61

taxmann.com 412/234 Taxman 300/[2016] 380 ITR 573 (Delhi), CIT

vs. Murali Agro Products, 49 taxmann.com 172. In the light of above

factual legal positions, the addition cannot be made on account of

alleged investment in the purchase of properties cannot be sustained

in the eyes of law. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere

with the order of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal of the

Revenue is dismissed.

ITA No.124, 130-131, 164- :- 12 -: 170/19

No.165/CHNY/2019 for assessment year 2009-2010 in respect of late

Shri. D. Chandran stands dismissed.

ITA Nos. 164 and 166 /CHNY/2019 for assessment years 2008-09 and 2010-2011 of late Shri. D. Chandran.

Since, the facts in the present appeals are identical to the facts 13.

in ITA No.165/Chny/2019, for assessment year 2009-2010, for the

reasons mentioned therein, we dismiss the appeals of the Revenue

on the above lines indicated in appeal ITA No.165/Chny/2019 supra.

Hence, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are

dismissed.

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos.164 14.

& 166/CHNY/2019 for assessment years 2008-09 and 2010-2011 of

late Shri. D. Chandran stand dismissed.

ITA Nos. 124, 130 and 131/CHNY/2019 for assessment years 2010-2011, 2011-12 and 2013-2014 of Smt. C. Nilavathy.

in ITA No.165/Chny/2019, for assessment year 2009-2010 in respect

ITA No.124, 130-131, 164- :- 13 -: 170/19

of late Shri. D. Chandran for the reasons mentioned therein, we

dismiss the appeals of the Revenue on the above lines indicated in

ITA No.165/Chny/2019 supra. Hence, the above captioned appeals

filed by the Revenue are dismissed.

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos.124, 16.

130 and 131/CHNY/2019 for assessment years 2010-2011, 2011-12

and 2013-2014 in respect of Smt. C. Nilavathy are dismissed.

Now, we take up appeal of the Revenue in ITA 17.

No.169/CHNY/2019 for assessment year 2013-14 in respect of late

Shri. D. Chandran for adjudication.

The Revenue raised the following grounds of appeal:- 18.

2.1 The learned CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the assessee had claimed that the 25 cents of land

ITA No.124, 130-131, 164- :- 14 -: 170/19

was meant for pathway and therefore a higher price was offered, but the said land had not actually been registered, whereas without registering the said piece of land the assessee could not have promoted the land project “Arun High Tech City” and sold plots in the project in the subsequent years.

2.2 The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessee had maintained duplicate sets of Books of Accounts and hence, excess consideration would have passed to the vendor.

3 The ld.CIT(A) ought to have followed decision of the Hon’ Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs.Rangroop Chand Chordia (241 Taxmann 221) that loose sheets constitute documents u/s. 132 of the Act.

3.1 The ld.CrT(A) failed to appreciate that the scribblings found during the course of search u/s.132 are incriminating documents and the assessing Officer has rightly made an addition based on the notings in the seized material and arriving at the sale price accordingly.

3.2 The Id.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that as per the scribblings the assessee himself has fixed the sale price at Rs.3,80,000/-(13.2.2013) per cent for the Asst. Year 13-14 which also seems in consonance with the purchase rate adopted by AO of Rs.60,000 for AY 2008-09, Rs.70,000/- for AY 2009-10, Rs.84,000/- per cent for Asst. Year 2011-12 to 2013-14 and the Assessing Officer has rightly adopted the same.

4.1 The ld.CIT(A) ought to have called for a remand report from the AC on the veracity of the new evidence furnished by Assessee as he has claimed that the expense was towards filling the lake and seems to have furnished the details of the extent of the lake and the expenses incurred thereon before the ld.CIT(A).

ITA No.124, 130-131, 164- :- 15 -: 170/19

individual and Director in M/s.Nila Sea Foods Group of concerns. The

return of income for the AY 2013-14 was filed on 18.06.2014

disclosing total income of �66,55,150/- Subsequently, search and

seizure operations was conducted u/s.132 of the Act in the case of

Nila group of concerns as well as respondent-assessee. Notice

u/s.153A of the Act dated 02.01.2014 was issued by the ACIT, Circle I,

Tuticorin. In response to which respondent-assessee had filed the

same return of income same as original return of income. Against

the said assessment, the assessment was completed by the Deputy

Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Madurai vide order dated

31.03.2016 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act at total income

of �1,29,57,930/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made

addition on account of alleged understatement of consideration

received on sale of plots in ‘’Arun Hi-tech City’’.

The facts leading to the addition are that during the course of 20.

search operations in the case of M/s.Nila Sea Foods Group of concern

a notebook was seized and numbered as ANN/KJ/NSF/B &D/S-4,

ITA No.124, 130-131, 164- :- 16 -: 170/19

dated 17.12.2013, wherein certain noting were made relating to the

sale of plots stated to have been made by the respondent-assessee.

Noting were extracted vide page 3 of the assessment order. Based on

this noting and statement recorded u/s.133A of the Act from the

marketing manager of Arun Hi-tech City, the Assessing Officer

inferred that the sale consideration was received over and above

what was stated in the registered sale deed which were unaccounted

and the same was utilized for the purpose of making fixed deposits of

�3,35,00,000/-, whose details were given at page 5 of the assessment

order. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer inferred that higher sale

consideration of �3,80,000/- per cent was received during the

previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration for

sale of 26 cents of land and therefore computed the difference

between the sale consideration shown in the books of accounts and

the sale consideration adopted at �3,80,000/- per cent and the

balance amount was brought to tax as suppressed sale consideration.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before the ld.CIT(A) 21.

who vide impugned order held that seized material in the form of

noting and scribbling found at the premises of M/s. Nila Sea Foods P.

Ltd has no evidential value in the absence of any corroborative

evidence. Further, he held that the fixed deposits are made out of

ITA No.124, 130-131, 164- :- 17 -: 170/19

accounted income, disclosed, and on the known source of income.

Accordingly, he directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.

Revenue is in appeal before us in the present appeal. The grounds of

appeal No.1 & 5 are general in nature therefore, does not require any

adjudication.

investments. This ground of appeal does not emanate from the orders

of the lower authorities. We find that from the assessment order that

no addition was made by the Assessing Officer on account of

unexplained investments. Thus, grounds of appeal No.2 stands

dismissed.

the addition made on account of alleged suppressed sale

consideration of �63,02,785/-. The ld. CIT-Departmental

Representative contented that the seized material found in the form

of noting and scribbling constitutes incriminating material and

therefore the ld. CIT(A) ought not have deleted the addition. Reliance

was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the

case of CIT vs. T. Rangroopchand Chordia, (2016) 241 Taxman 221.

ITA No.124, 130-131, 164- :- 18 -: 170/19

reliance on the order of the ld. CIT(A).

record. The sole basis on which the addition was made on account of

alleged suppressed sale consideration is in the form of noting and

scribbling seized in the premises of M/s. Nila Sea foods (P) Ltd in

which the respondent – assessee is a director and statement recorded

from the respondent-assessee and marketing manager of ’Arun Hi-tech

City’’. When the noting is confronted to the assessee by the

Assessing Officer during the search proceedings, respondent-assessee

now where stated that these noting represents the suppressed sale

consideration. Even from the perusal of the noting extracted at page 3

of the assessment order, we are unable to discern anything which

indicates that actual sale consideration received by the respondent-

assessee is suppressed nor is there on record to show that Assessing

Officer had brought any corroborative evidence. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of P.V. Kalyanasundaram , 294 ITR 49 held

that in the absence of any corroborative material, the loose sheets

and noting in the diaries does not form basis for making addition.

Even from the statement recorded from the director, it is clear that

fixed deposits are made out of the known sources of income as it is

ITA No.124, 130-131, 164- :- 19 -: 170/19

apparent that fixed deposits are made by debiting the bank account of

the assessee and it is not the case of the Assessing Officer that these

bank accounts are undisclosed. Thus, the findings of the Assessing

Officer that incriminating material in the form of sworn statements

from the Director establish the factum receipt of higher consideration

on sale of plots is contradictory to the evidence on record. Similarly,

the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Suraj Devi, (supra) had

held that primary burden of proof to prove understatement or

concealment of income is on the Revenue. Even, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese (supra) had laid down

the proposition of law that the burden of proving understatement of

consideration is always on the Revenue. In the light of the above

facts and legal positions, the findings of the ld. CIT(A) that there is no

evidence of suppression of sale consideration cannot be faulted and

therefore we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the

ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal No.3 of the Revenue stands

dismissed.

Ground No.4 challenges the direction of the ld. CIT (A) in 27.

allowing development expenditure claimed by the assessee. In the

return of income for the assessment year 2013-14, assessee claimed

development expenditure of �94,31,500/-. However, the Assessing

ITA No.124, 130-131, 164- :- 20 -: 170/19

Officer apportioned the development expenditure to the extent of

28.85 acres of land, which is �3,269/- per cent and the Assessing

Officer allowed proportionate expenditure. Whereas it was contended

that expenditure was incurred only in respect of 2.358 acres of land

which required filing as it was lake and substantial expenditure was

incurred during the previous year relevant to the impugned

assessment year and 26 cents of land out 2.358 acres of land was sold

and therefore a sum of �10,39,944/- was claimed as development

expenditure for the assessment year 2013-14 and balance of

expenditure shown in the closing stock. Hence, it is submitted that

this development expenditure should be allowed as deduction. The

ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions made by the assessee

held as follows:-

‘’4.3.2 I have considered the assessee’s submissions carefully. As could be seen from details of computation of income from the sale of plots in A.Y.2013-14, the assessee claimed the developmental expenses of Rs.94,31,500/-, against the land of 2.358 acres of land and not in relation to the entire 28.85 acres of land. Hence the expenses pertain to 2.358 acres only, and accordingly to be apportioned for 2.358 acres. In fact, the assessee in his return of income filed for A.Y.2013-14, claimed only Rs. 10,39,944/- as developmental expenses against the sales of 26 cents sold in the year, and balance of Rs.83,91,556/- was taken to the closing stock of 2.098 acres (i.e. 2.358 acres — 0.26 acres). Hence the Assessing Officer is not justified in spreading the expenses to the entire land of 28.85 acres of land. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow the developmental expenses as claimed by the assessee in his returns’’.

ITA No.124, 130-131, 164- :- 21 -: 170/19

And the finding of the ld. CIT(A) is based on proper appreciation of

facts and material on record. We do not find any reason to interfere

with the order of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the grounds of appeal

No.4 is dismissed.

No.169/CHNY/2019, for assessment year 2013-2014 stands dismissed.

168/CHNY/2019 for assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-2013 in

respect of late Shri. D. Chandran for adjudication.

In both the appeals, the Revenue raised following common 30.

grounds of appeal.

‘’1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts of the case and in law.

2.1 The learned CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the assessee had claimed that the 25 cents of land was meant for pathway and therefore a higher price was offered, but the said land had not actually been registered, whereas without registering the said piece of land the assessee could

ITA No.124, 130-131, 164- :- 22 -: 170/19

not have promoted the land project “Arun High Tech City” and sold plots in the project in the subsequent years. 2.2 The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessee had maintained duplicate sets of Books of Accounts and hence, excess consideration would have passed to the vendor.

3 The ld.CIT(A) ought to have followed decision of the Hon’ Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs.Rangroop Chand Chordia (241 Taxmann 221) that loose sheets constitute documents u/s.132 of the Act.

3.1 The ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the scribblings found during the course of search u/s.132 are incriminating documents and the assessing Officer has rightly made an addition based on the notings in the seized material and arriving at the sale price accordingly.

3.2 The ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that as per the scribblings the assessee himself has fixed the sale price at Rs.3,80,000/-(13.2.2013) per cent for the AY 13-14 which also seems in consonance with the purchase rate adopted by AO ofRs.60,000 for AY 2008-09, Rs.70,000/- for AY 2009-10, Rs.84,000/- per cent for Asst. Year 2011-12 to 2013-14 and the Assessing Officer has rightly adopted the same.

does not require any adjudication.

Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue in the present grounds of 32.

appeal is with regard to unexplained investments made towards

purchase of lands. This issue is decided against the Revenue in ITA

ITA No.124, 130-131, 164- :- 23 -: 170/19

No.165/CHNY/2019 for assessment year 2009-2010 in respect of late

Shri. D. Chandran at para 11 of the impugned order. Accordingly, we

dismiss the ground No.2 raised by the Revenue in both the appeals.

the addition made on account of alleged sale of land. This issue is

also decided against the Revenue in ITA No.169/CHNY/2019 for

assessment year 2013-2014 in respect of late Shri. D. Chandran at

para 26 of the impugned order. Accordingly, we dismiss the ground

No.3 raised by the Revenue in both the appeals.

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos.167 and 34.

168/CHNY/2019, for assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 stand

dismissed.

Now, we take up appeal of the Revenue in ITA 35.

No.170/CHNY/2019 for assessment year 2014-15 in respect of late

Shri. D. Chandran for adjudication.

‘’1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts of the case and in law.

2 The ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the assessing officer based on the notebook with scribbling.

2.1 The Id.CIT(A) ought to have followed decision of the Hon’ Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT

ITA No.124, 130-131, 164- :- 24 -: 170/19

vs.Rangroop Chand Chordia (241 Taxmann 221) that loose sheets constitute documents u/s.132 of the Act.

2.2 The ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the scribblings found during the course of search u/s.132 are incriminating documents and the assessing Officer has rightly made an addition based on the notings in the seized material and arriving at the sale price accordingly.

2.3 The ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that as per the scribblings the assessee himself has fixed the sale price at Rs.3,80,000/-(132.2013) per cent for the Asst. Year 13-14 which also seems in consonance with the purchase rate adopted by AO of Rs.60,000 for AY 2008-09, Rs.70,000/- for AY 2009-10, Rs.84,000/- per cent for Asst. Year 2011-12 to 2013-14 and the Assessing Officer has rightly adopted the same.

does not require any adjudication.

the addition made on account of alleged sale of land. This issue is

also decided against the Revenue in ITA No.169/CHNY/2019 for

assessment year 2013-2014 in respect of late Shri. D. Chandran at

para 26 of the impugned order. Accordingly, we dismiss the ground

No.2 raised by the Revenue.

ITA No.124, 130-131, 164- :- 25 -: 170/19

No.170/CHNY/2019, for assessment years 2014-15 stands dismissed.

Nos.124, 130, 131/CHNY/2019 for assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12

and 2013-2014 in respect of Smt. C. Nilavathay stand dismissed and

appeals of the Revenue in respect of late D.Chandran in ITA Nos.164,

165, 166, 167, 168, 169 & 170/CHNY/2019 for assessment years

2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-2015

are also stand dismissed.

Order pronounced on 31st day of July, 2019, at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एन.आर.एस. गणेशन) (इंटूर� रामा राव) (N.R.S. GANESAN) (INTURI RAMA RAO) �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

चे�नई/Chennai �दनांक/Dated:31st July, 2019. KV आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 3. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 4. आयकर आयु�त/CIT 6. गाड� फाईल/GF