TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the premises of Shri Kalidas Patel but surprisingly the said Shri Kalidas Patel did not even made a whisper of having received consideration over and above what has been stated in the registered document. In our considered opinion, the impugned additions made by the A.O. does not have any basis - Decided against revenue - IT(SS)A. No. 847/Ahd/2010 - - - Dated:- 7-7-2016 - Rajpal Yadav (Judicial Member) And N. K. Billaiya (Accountant Member) For the Appellant : Rajeev Agarwal, CIT/DR For the Respondent : K. C. Thaker, A.R. ORDER N. K. Billaiya (Accountant Member) 1. This appeal by the Revenue is preferred against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-III, Ahmedabad dated 19.10.2010 pertaining to A.Y. 2006-07. 2. The subst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee was having an area of 11 acre and the rate per acre was ₹ 62.50 lacs. The A.O. was of the opinion that the purchase cost of the land was ₹ 3.43 crores. Since, the assessee has shown the purchase cost at ₹ 5,41,200/-, the A.O. made an addition of ₹ 3,37,58,800/- as undisclosed investment. Assessee vehemently agitated the assessment before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the facts and the submissions, the ld. CIT(A) observed as under:- 4. In my view, there was no evidence against the appellant showing that he has paid ₹ 3.43 crores for the purchase of land at Kankrol, Himmatnagar. The page number 8 of Annexure A- 16 and back cover of Annexure A-12, on which the AO has relied upon was seized from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ratbhai Patel jointly. This agricultural land was converted by them into non-agricultural. The N A order dated 7/2/2007 is also issued by the authorities in their joint names. This land was subsequently developed by them jointly and was sold in smaller plots in subsequent assessment years. The sale proceeds and the purchase price however, was received and shared by them in equal proportion. In my view, this amounted to a joint-venture undertaken by the appellant along with Shri Bharatbhai Patel. The assessable entity in this case should have been the AOP of the appellant and Shri Bharatbhai Patel. Since there is no mention in the seized paper regarding the payment of ₹ 3.43 crores by the appellant, there is no mention regarding the na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
