TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (4) TMI 911
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2.1 For the Assessment Year 2007-08, Revenue has challenged common judgment passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad ["Tribunal" for short] dated 29th June 2012. Following questions have been presented for our consideration : "(A) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,46,66,667/= made on account of sale of Ampad Land ? (B) Whether the order of the Appellate Tribunal is not perverse in as much as it failed to take cognizance of dates of "cash receipts" mentioned in seized documents ?" 2.2 Respondent assessee along with other family members owned a land at Ampad. The assessee was subjected to search proceedings. During the course of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0.00 to be paid 18.0 Interest lumpsum also paid alongwith 504.0 } Handwritten AMPAD - KANUBHAI PATEL RECEIVED PAID Date Amount 19.06.06 2000000.00 30.06.06 6500000.00 12.08.06 1500000.00 10.08.06 2500000.00 14.08.06 2500000.00 30.09.06 4500000.00 06.10.06 5000000.00 10.10.06 4000000.00 11.10.06 1000000.00 04.01.07 8950000.00 06.01.07 1550000.00 21.01.07 2000000.00 01.02.07 2000000.00 28.07.07 4500000.00 04.08.07 1917000.00 06.01.09 2000000.00 TOTAL 52417000.00 2.4 Assessing Officer, during the course of assessment proceedings, confronted the assessee with such receipts. The assessee stated that s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment year 2009-2010 when the sale of land took place, making additions in the assessment year 2007-08 [or A.Y 2008-09] would amount to double taxation. 5. Revenue thereupon approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed the view of the CIT [A], making following observations:- '17. We have examined the facts of the case and the orders of the authorities below in the light of the compilation placed on record. A document was seized which has indicated a cash receipt of Rs. 524.17 lacs which was stated to be in receipt of transfer of AMPAD land. The transactions which were found recorded in the said seized document have mentioned the name of one Mr. Kanubhai Patel. The Assessing Officer has added the amount which was allege....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e has been treated as sales in A.Y 2009-10 and the gains arising therefrom were treated as income for AY 2009-10. e. Regarding the transaction made with Mr. Kanubhai Patel, it is submitted that Mr. Kanubhai Patel from Surat had approached the appellant in a property fair and had expressed his willingness to purchase the aforesaid Ampad Land and accordingly had paid an amount of Rs. 524.17 lacs in cash on various dates. f. Mr. Kanubhai Patel was not closely known to the appellant. As Mr. Kanubhai Patel failed to convert the land from agricultural land into non-agricultural land the transaction was cancelled and the amount received from him was returned back. g. It may be mentioned that seized material Page 1 of Ann....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iation of material on record. Though learned counsel for the Revenue contended that the documents seized during the search operation, to which we had made a reference in the earlier portion of the order, recorded only receipt of a total sum of Rs. 5.24 Crores, both these documents had handwriting entries indicating total receipt of Rs. 5.24 Crores from Kanubhai Patel and repayment of Rs. 5.04 Crores on different dates; leaving residual amount of Rs. 20 lakhs. It was this amount of Rs. 20 lakhs which the later document carried in the form of repayment on 6/1/2009. The Assessing Officer completely discarded the assessee's version of collection of such amount towards sale of Ampad land to Kanubhai Patel, which transaction ultimately did no....