Tribunal partially allows quantum appeal, orders fresh assessment; penalties deleted in penalty appeal.

The Tribunal partly allowed the quantum appeal, directing a fresh assessment by the AO due to unreliable book results and lack of basis for profit rate determination. The Tribunal set aside additions for unexplained expenditure and income enhancement, citing reliance on inconsistent statements without independent inquiry. The penalty appeal was allowed, directing the deletion of penalties under Sections 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b), and 271F due to the quantum appeal's de novo assessment.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 10,02,508/- by AO by estimating book results at 8% on sale of plots.
2. Addition of Rs. 5,49,00,000/- by AO under Section 69C for unexplained expenditure.
3. Enhancement of income by Rs. 9,68,00,000/- by CIT(A).
4. Initiation of penalty under Sections 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b), and 271F of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs. 10,02,508/- by AO by estimating book results at 8% on sale of plots:
The assessee contended that the authorities erred in confirming the addition without properly appreciating the facts. The CIT-DR supported the orders, arguing the book results were unreliable due to undisclosed transactions detected during the survey. The Tribunal noted that the assessee admitted to receiving 'on-money' not recorded in the books. The AO was justified in rejecting the book results but failed to provide a basis for the 8% profit rate. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication with a directive to pass a speaking order on the profit rate.

2. Addition of Rs. 5,49,00,000/- by AO under Section 69C for unexplained expenditure:
The assessee argued that the addition was based solely on statements recorded during the survey, which is not permissible. The Tribunal reviewed the material and noted inconsistencies in the statements. The AO made the addition based on a statement that the assessee received Rs. 6.60 Crores as 'on-money' and incurred unaccounted expenses, resulting in a net profit of 15%. The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) based their findings on different statements without independent inquiry. The Tribunal set aside the orders and directed the AO to make a de novo assessment, considering the actual number of plots sold and the profit element.

3. Enhancement of income by Rs. 9,68,00,000/- by CIT(A):
The CIT(A) enhanced the income based on a different statement from the survey, which indicated a higher number of plots sold and 'on-money' received. The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) relied on inconsistent statements and did not conduct independent inquiries. The Tribunal set aside the enhancement and directed the AO to reassess the matter, considering the actual facts and judicial pronouncements.

4. Initiation of penalty under Sections 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b), and 271F of the Act:
The Tribunal noted that no effective argument was made regarding the initiation of penalties under Sections 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b), and 271F. Consequently, these grounds were rejected. However, since the quantum appeal was set aside for a de novo assessment, the penalty levied by the Revenue did not survive. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the penalty.

Conclusion:
In the quantum appeal (ITA No.4207/Ahd/2007), the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing a fresh assessment by the AO. In the penalty appeal (ITA No.1732/Ahd/2010), the Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the deletion of the penalty.

---