TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 675
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Hon. Supreme Court, Gujarat High Court, other High Courts and the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench, thereby rejecting these contentions and the case-law relied upon by the appellant in a blatantly arbitrary manner and without assigning any reasons whatsoever. 3. The learned CIT (A) has further erred in law and on facts in holding that the legal contention challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings going to the root of the matter based on facts available on record cannot be considered ignoring the fact that the addition made by the AO was contested as erroneous not only on facts but also in law. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) ought to have quashed the reassessment proceedings, annulled the assessment made in pursuance thereto and ought to have deleted the addition of Rs. 1,05,51,219/-. 5. It is therefore prayed that the reassessment proceedings may be quashed, the assessment may be annulled and the addition of Rs. 1,05,51,219/- may be deleted. 6. Your appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal at the time of hearing. 3. The interconnected issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) erre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upon the revenue to establish based on the documentary evidence that the assessee has made any unaccounted investments. 3.6 However, the AO disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing that seized documents showing the receipt in cash and cheque against the sale of impugned land. The transaction of cash was duly admitted by the key persons of Himalaya Group namely Shri Rohit Modi and Kamlesh Modi by offering the same to tax. Furthermore, the seller being Smt. Pareshben D Modi belongs to the same Himalaya group. Therefore, the evidence in the form of seized paper and the statement furnished by the person namely Shri Rohit Modi and Kamlesh Modi who are son of seller cannot be ignored merely on the reasoning that the land was sold by Smt. Pareshben D Modi. 3.7 Likewise, there was no request made by the assessee for the cross verification of the statements recorded under section 132(4) of the Act of the persons namely Shri Rohit Modi and Kamlesh Modi which was used for making the addition in the hands of the assessee. Thus, the conduct of the assessee suggests that he had no explanation for having made investment of his unaccounted income in the impugned land. Thus the AO,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of addition. In the case of co-owner, the addition was deleted by the ld. CIT-A. 8. On the contrary the learned DR before us contended that there was not made any request by the assessee for the cross examination of the statement and seized documents. The ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 9. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The facts of the case are undisputed which have been elaborated and discussed in the preceding paragraph. For the sake of brevity and convenience, we are not inclined to repeat the same. 9.1 Admittedly, the entire basis of the addition in the hands of the assessee on account of unaccounted investment in the land was based on the documents seized from the premises of 3rd party in the course of search wherein the person namely Shri Rohit Modi and Kamlesh Modi have also accepted to have received the unaccounted money in cash from the assessee and other co-owner which was also offered to tax. First of all, we note that the land was sold by Smt. Pareshben D. Modi to the assessee and other co-owner and not by the parties as discussed aforesaid. Indeed, the vendor ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the co-owner by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. Thus it is transpired that the revenue in the hands of one party has accepted the transaction for making the investment of Rs. 3 Lacs only but in the case of other party being the assessee it has not been accepted. Thus, it appears that the Revenue has adopted different approaches for the similar transactions with respect to different assessee. In our considered view, the Revenue is not expected to pick and choose the particular assessee for the purpose of the assessment with respect to the common transactions carried out by the parties. 9.4 Before parting, it is also important to bear in mind that there was the search proceedings with respect to the co-owner namely Kanchanbhai Baldevbhai under the provisions of section 132 of the Act. As a result of search proceedings, assessment order was framed under section 153A of the Act where addition was made on account of unaccounted investment in the land as discussed above which was subsequently deleted by the learned CIT (A) by observing as under: 9.1 We see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the coordinate bench. Respectfully followin....