9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 936X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e been taken into consideration for deciding the above appeals en masse. 3.First, we shall take assessee's appeal in ITA No. 48/SRT/2017 for AY.2011-12, ( lead case) wherein the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: "1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the ld. A.O. in making an addition of Rs. 12,50,000/- on account of alleged payments made to Chetanbhai Chanabhai & other vide Satakhat Deed dated 09-10-2010 for purchase of land at Bamroli Block No.45 as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the ld. A.O. in making an addition of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of alleged payments made to Lakhiben Chimanbhai & Others vide Satakhat Deed dated 09-10-2010 for purchase of land at Bamroli, Block No.45 as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the ld. A.O. in making an addition of Rs.50,00,000/- on account of alleged payments made to Maniben Balabhai & Others vide Satakhat Deed dated 16-08-2010 for purchase of land at Bamroli, Block No.45 as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. 6. Brief facts, as per lead case, are as follows: The assessing officer observed that during the course of survey proceedings under section 133A on 27.12.2012 at the office premises of Turmish B. Kania, Advocate and Meera T. Kania, at A Sai Leela Associates, certain documents of incriminating nature were recovered from the office and impounded as BI-1, BI-2, BI-3 & BI-4. It includes backup hard disc of computers installed in the office. On perusal of working copy of the same hard disc, it was noticed that various satakhats/kabja Rashid/sale deed/purchase deed/promisary note/ memorandum of understanding and other documents related to land/property were prepared by Turmish B. Kania and Meera T. Kania. So with an intention to obtain hard copy of the same satakhat purchase/sale deed, Mazhernama of the impounded hard disc was done on 27.02.2013. The print results and purchase/sale deed//Kabja rasids as available in the impounded hard disc were taken. The print results so recovered were impounded as per Annexure A-l, Page Nos.1 to 149, Annexure-A-2, Page Nos. 1 to 32, Annexure-A-3, Page Nos. 1 to 102 and Annexure-A-4, Page Nos. 1 to 154. On perusal of the said files following Satakh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the said satakhat was prepared by Shri Turmish B. Kaniya after obtaining due consent of both the parties. In view of the above facts and findings, the case was re-opened u/s 148 of the I.T. Act for scrutiny. 8.The assessee has filed original return of income for on 26.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs.4,14,477/-. In response to notice u/s 148 issued to assessee on 30.12.2014, the assessee has filed copy of his return of income in response to notice u/s 148 on 13.11.2015 and requested to treat ROI filed on 26.09.2011 as ROI filed in compliance to notice u/s 148. Notice u/s 143(2) was issued for assessee on 13.11.2015 and duly served upon the assessee. Notice u/s 142(1) is issued to assessee on 13.11.2015 and duly served upon the assessee. The assessee was requested to furnish details on 23.11.2015. Further, the assessee has not filed his objection for reopening the case but the reason for reopening was provided to the assessee on 15.12.2015. Further, Assessing Officer given one more opportunity to the assessee by issuing notice u/s 142(1) dated 15.12.2015 to represent his case on 22.12.2015. In response thereto, the assessee attended the hearings from time to time and filed wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and not given any evidences of details asked till date. Satakhat is evidence & is signed only when the due amount stated is paid. You are herewith show caused to explain why Rs.40,00,000/- should, not be treated as unexplained investment in your hand as unexplained investment & balance Rs.40,00,000/-be taxed in your hand on protective basis. (b) The assessee has filed his submission before the assessing officer. The AO noted that Assessee denied signing any such Satakhat and also denied purchasing of such land. Therefore assessing officer noted that were no merits in the contentions of the assessee. (c) Thereafter, assessing officer examined relevant statement of the assessee which was given before the DDIT (Inv). Surat on 02.04,2013, is as under: "I have not made any of these deals. I don't know how these Satakhat were prepared,'' Further, he also gave his declaration on oath that "whatever stated above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The above statement has been given by me voluntarily without any coercion, threat, inducement or undue influence. The above statement is given by me. The same has been read by me, explained to me and found to be cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e money on account of lower capital gain tax buyer gets the window to invest his unaccounted money and saves tax on lower stamp duty, lower registration cost and no tax on cash / unexplained investment beyond his books of account. The only proof of transaction of unexplained Investment is Satakhat Agreements agreed mutually signed by each other. This document is destroyed after doing the Registration, which destroys any and every evidence of concealed income by the purchaser and beyond books, unexplained Investment made by the purchaser. Assessee's cash book & books of account do not show any such entry of payment. It is held that assessee has done the transaction as investor. Cash of Rs.25,00,000/- is paid as an advance by Kalpeshbhai Mafatlal Patel and Yogeshkumar Mohanlal Patel on 09.10.2010 to the seller party The half of the advance i.e. the share of assessee of Rs.12,50,000/- recorded as paid by the assessee as per the impounded satakhat is treated as unexplained investment u/s 69 of I.T. Act. Assessee has not shown this investment in his books. 11. By following the same logic and method, the assessing officer made addition in respect of other parcel of lands, as follows ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... area admeasuring 9989 Sq.Mtr., the Assessing Officer made addition observing that assessee's cash book & books of account do not show any such entry of payment. It is held that assessee has given an advance of Rs.1,00,000/- on 19.10.2010 to the sellers in respect of land mentioned at para 7(i) and an advance of Rs.1,00,000/- on 19.10.2010 to the sellers in respect of land mentioned at para 7(ii). Assessee has not shown this investment in his books. As the transaction pertains to FY 2010-11, the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- recorded as paid by the assessee as per the impounded satakhat was treated as unexplained investment u/s 69 of I.T. Act. 12. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us. 13. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, submitted before us written submission, which is reproduced below: 1) Assessee filed original ROI for A Y 2011/12 declaring income of Rs.4,14,477/- 2) Assessment was reopened on the basis of alleged incriminating documents recovered from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of persons named in Satakhat which negates plea of the assessee of having not entered into any Satakhat for the lands at Bamroli. 5. Sale deed executed with Tarabcn Ajitbhai Patel & others by Chhanabhai Prabhubhai & others on 18.03.2011 without mention of so called notarized Satakhat in Dastavej bearing # 4851 [Page 6 AO] 6. No mention of assessee in sale deed as confirming party 7. AO makes addition of Rs. 12, 50, 000/- (50% of Rs. 25 lacs) cash only though SCN issued for addition of Rs. 40, 00, 000/- (50%) 8. Addition of balance amount (Rs. 12. 50, 000/-) neither made in the hands of co-owner Shri Yogesh Mohanlal Patel nor in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. 9. Addition is made u/s 69 as unexplained investment. 10. AO concluded that direct evidence in the form of notarized Satakhat found in the notary register of Meera Kania and prevailing practice with respect to land transactions assessee made unexplained investment in the lands at Bamroli. Similar exercise was undertaken by AO in respect of other parcels of land mentioned in the table above and finally additions were made of Rs. 92, 00, 000/- on the basis of Satakhats stored in the impounded co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conducted on the premises of the assessee and from whom the incriminating documents were found relating to the assessee. There was a detail in the computer about the incriminating material. In addition to these, the assessee was associated with his advocate, and the computer CD also found in the possession of the assessee's advocate and notary has made entry in his register. The ld CIT(A) has mentioned in para no. 19 in his finding that these Satakhat were registered and the documents were found from the possession of notary public, have been registered, subsequently therefore Ld. DR contended that these were the actual incriminating documents pertaining to assessee, therefore ld. CIT(A) has rightly sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 15. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon and perused the facts of the case including the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and other material brought on record. We note that during the assessment stage, the assessee has demanded that opportunity of cross-examination should be given to him. The letter wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
