JAGDISHCHANDRA KANTILAL TRIVEDI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

आदेश/ORDER

PER T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Jagdishchandra Kantilal Trivedi vs. ITO Asst.Year 2013-14

:2: Galsingbhai Baria purchased four pieces of agricultural land as follows:

Land Survey Document Date of Total Stamp Duty No. Regn.No. Registration consideration paid 38/4, Memar,Bavla 392/2013 1/02/2013 44,04,000 2,16,000 38/1 390/2013 11/02/2013 52,32,000 2,56,500 38/2 391/2013 11/02/2013 52,47,000 2,57,500 38/3 389/2013 11/02/2013 1,30,95,000 6,42,000 Grand Total 2,79,78,000 13,72,000

Jagdishchandra Kantilal Trivedi vs. ITO Asst.Year 2013-14

:3: and also calling for a Remand Report from the Assessing Officer and Rejoinder from the assessee and also in the absence of any further details confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under:

“3.8. Facts of the case, submission of the appellant and remand report from the AO are considered. After verification of additional evidence of the appellant it is found that, said part of bank statements reflects only payment of Rs. 8,00,000/- by clearance of four cheques of Rs. 2,00,000/- each and appellant has not furnished any evidences regarding payment of balance amount. Appellant has evasive in furnishing the details and explanation of source of investment. As per point (20) of the reeds it is clearly mentioned even if the name of the buyers are not changed in the revenue records, the sellers cannot claim any ownership in the land. The ownership of the land is lying with the appellant and other persons from the date of registration of the deed on 11.02.2013. At point (19) of the deeds, it is mentioned that the sellers have not entered into any banakhat with any other party (including Ruchi Nirman Pvt. Ltd.), which shows that the trust has sold the land directly to the appellant and three others and the name of Ruchi Nirman is not mentioned anywhere in the documents. As per point (14) of the registered deeds, the title of the lands clear and saleable. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the payment is subject to title clearance of the land is not correct. Therefore, claim of the assessee that the payments mentioned in the deeds were subject to conditions of title clearance and changes of use of the lands are baseless and not supported by evidences. The appellant has not furnished any details to show that it has made any effort to change the name of owners in revenue records. It is also found that the said company M/s. Ruchi Nirman Pvt. Ltd. has not accounted in his books of account. The appellant had however failed to substantiate the source and genuineness of the purchase consideration by the so called company. Therefore, it remained a fact that for date of execution of the deed on 11.02.2013 the appellant is the legal owner of the land and the same is also in possession of the appellant and other three person and provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act are clearly attracted in the case as appellant has received a property, the value of which exceeds Rs.50000/-, without payment of consideration or the payments made is exceeds less than the stamp duty value of the property.

3.9. Facts of the case and submissions are considered. During the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings,

Jagdishchandra Kantilal Trivedi vs. ITO Asst.Year 2013-14

:4: the appellant has not substantiated its claim. Considering the above facts, I am of the view that the A.O.is justified in making the addition and accordingly, the same is confirmed. Thus the Ground No.1 of appeal is dismissed.”

1. On the facts and circumstances of the cases as well Tax effect as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming addition 29,83,730/- of Rs. 72,77,390/- as unexplained investment made by the Appellant.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the cases as well as Tax effect law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming addition N.A. of Rs.72,77,390/- u/s 56(2)(vii) even though the said section is not applicable for the year under consideration.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the cases as well as Tax effect law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming 28,794/- disallowance of expenses of Rs.70,229/- being 50% of total expenses incurred by the appellant towards commission income.

4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any Tax effect ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal. N.A.

5. At the outset, Ld.Counsel Mr. Hardik Vora appearing for the assessee submitted that he is not pressing ground No.3. Thus, ground No.3 is dismissed as not pressed.

6. Regarding Ground Nos.1 & 2: The Ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the other co-owners; namely, S/Shri Nanjibhai

Jagdishchandra Kantilal Trivedi vs. ITO Asst.Year 2013-14

:5: Galsinhbhai Bariya and Paras Chinubhai Jani for the very same assessment year regular assessment order u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 22/01/2016 were completed by ITO Ward-7 (2)(3) Ahmedabad and by the DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad vide assessment order dated 08/01/2016 respectively. Wherein in the case of Shri Nanjibhai Galsinhbhai Bariya, the Assessing Officer accepted the returned income and completed the assessment without making any addition. In the case of Shri Paras Chinubhai Jani, the DCIT made addition u/s.50C of the Act relating to purchase of the Bungalow by the assessee and another land in Survey No.921 of Prantij and assessed 1/3rd share income as the income of the assessee. Whereas in the present case, the Assessing Officer made 1/4th share as the undisclosed income of the assessee, which is legally not correct and requested to set aside the same to the file of Assessing Officer for verification and passing a fresh order on merits of the case.

:6: further time. We do not find any valid ground in granting further time to the Revenue. The assessee has produced before us copies of the assessment order passed in the case of Shri Nanjibhai Galsinhbhai Bariya and Shri Paras Chinubhai Jani. In none of the cases, the entire addition is made as unexplained income in the hands of the respective assessees. Therefore, to have harmonial consistency of assessments in the case of the co-owners; namely, the assessee hereinabove, the assessment made by the Assessing Officer is hereby set aside with a direction to pass fresh assessment order in accordance with law by providing further opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee should co-operate by producing all required details before the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for passing fresh assessment order.

Jagdishchandra Kantilal Trivedi vs. ITO Asst.Year 2013-14

:7: