TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 686
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riation of Parental Agriculture Income from Parental Land Situated at Masan Gaon - Harda. 2. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ) erred in confirming for invoking the provisions of Section 145(3 ) of the Income Tax Act by making Hypothetical and arbitrary estimation of the Receipt by multiplying the Total Credits in the Bank Account by Two or Three times and considering the Profit on Estimation Basis with out any reasonable basis and evidence brought in to record and addition in net profit is on mere guess work and the same have not any nexus with the material on record and the same is on presumption basis. 3. That the Assessee craves leave to add / alter any of the grounds of Appeal before or at the time of Hearing" Assessment Year 2004-05 "1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals) erred in the law as well as on the facts while confirming the addition of Agriculture Income shown by the Appellant as Income from Undisclosed Sources and Treating the same as Income from Other Sources, where it is simply appropriation of Parental Agriculture Income from Parental Land Situated at Masan Gaon - Harda. 2. That the Learned Commissioner of In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the Profit on Estimation Basis with out any reasonable basis and evidence brought in to record and addition in net profit is on mere guess work and the same have not any nexus with the material on record and the same is on presumption basis. 3. That the Assessee craves leave to add / alter any of the grounds of Appeal before or at the time of Hearing" Assessment Year 2007-08 "1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ) erred in confirming for invoking the provisions of Section 145(3 ) of the Income Tax Act by making Hypothetical and arbitrary estimation of the Receipt by multiplying the Total Credits in the Bank Account by Two or Three times and considering the Profit on Estimation Basis with out any reasonable basis and evidence brought in to record and addition in net profit is on mere guess work and the same have not any nexus with the material on record and the same is on presumption basis. 2. That the Assessee craves leave to add / alter any of the grounds of Appeal before or at the time of Hearing" Assessment Year 2008-09 "1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals) erred in confirming for invoking the provisions of Section 145....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Two or Three times and considering the Profit on Estimation Basis with out any reasonable basis and evidence brought in to record and addition in net profit is on mere guess work and the same have not any nexus with the material on record and the same is on presumption basis. 2 That the Assessee craves leave to add / alter any of the grounds of Appeal before or at the time of Hearing" 3. As the issues raised in these seven appeals are mostly common they were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order for sake of convenience and brevity. 4. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the appellant is an individual engaged in the business of purchase and sale of land on commission basis. The appellant had also undertaken development work of land and other related construction activities as proprietor of M/s Narmada Construction Company. Search and seizure operations u/s 132(1) were carried out on 30/05/2008 at the premises of Shri Vinod Sharma at M-31, Kotra Sultanabad, Bhopal. During the course of search, certain documents belonging to the appellant were also found and seized. The Learned Assessing Officer (In short 'Ld.AO') issued....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ey and sale consideration was paid to land owners in cash out of unaccounted income and on paper it was shown that the land had been taken on power of attorney without any consideration. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO confronted the appellant with all the loose papers and documents seized during the search and asked to offer his explanation. He was also asked to produce those documentary evidences relying on which he had -filed returns of income. He was further asked to explain how net commission income from supply of building material/property consultancy income and net receipt against construction work/petty contract work/land development work/profit on sale of land was arrived at and also to produce documentary evidence available in respect of various expenses debited in trading and profit & loss account. The Ld. A.O stated that the appellant had not offered any satisfactory explanation. The appellant mostly relied on withdrawals made from bank account to justify the expenses and deposits in bank account as receipts of business. However, it was seen by the Ld. AO that the withdrawals from bank account were made in cash and could not be co-related with th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal before Ld.CIT(A) and partly succeeded. 10. Now before us the assessee is in appeal for all the seven assessment years raising various grounds of appeal but the common issue emanating out of these grounds are as follows; (i). As regards Assessment Year 2003-04 to 2009-10 assessee has commonly challenged the action of the Ld.A.O invoking the provision of section 145(3) of the Act thereby rejecting books of accounts and also challenging the finding of Ld.CIT(A) sustaining the addition of twice/thrice of gross receipts as well as application of net profit rate on such estimated receipts. (ii) Challenging the treatment of agriculture income as income from other sources for Assessment Year 2006-07. (iii) Challenging the addition of unexplained investment for purchase of agriculture land at Gram Kal Kheda at Rs. 5,00,000/-. (iv) Challenging the unexplained cash investment of Rs. 34.50 lakhs for land at Mindori. 11. We will first take up the common issue challenging the rejection of books of accounts, invoking provision of Section 145(3) of the Act as well as estimation of gross receipts and estimation of net profit. 12. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... well settled law that Undisclosed Income assessed if any must invariably be matched with the unrecorded assets found/seized during search, hence estimation of Receipts by 5,3,2 times of Banking and considering 8% as Net Profit or Actual Percentage of Net Profit is bad in the eyes of law of Justice. Considering the nature of Business of the Assessee and Banking and other related record estimation of such huge Receipt and Net Profit is very excessive and against the law of the natural justice. 14. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further referring to its ground challenging the rejection of book results and invoking provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act made following written submissions; "1. Hon'ble CIT-Appeal/Learned Assessing Officer has wrongly invoked the provisions of section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act by making Hypothetical and arbitrary estimation of the Receipts and Profits on a very higher side by just Multiplying the Bank Deposits by 5,3,2 times and considering Net Profit on Assumption basis of the estimated receipts without any reasonable basis and evidence brought in to record by Making Assumption that Bank Account are just Like Tip of the Ice Berg in the Ocean....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... out of the times Sale Consideration directly received by the Assessee and they routed to the Land Owner on Account of the Purchase Price. 4. It is a well settled law as per Supreme Court in its decision in 219 ITR 330(SC) that there cannot be tax on Income on Presumptive Basis. Income in act earned is only taxable and not the One Presumed to have been earned. Hon'ble CIT - Appeal / Learned Assessing Officer has consider various papers in which there is no Monetary Transactions involved as unaccounted part of the Business, which is totally unjustified at the end of the Assessee . As Assessee engaged in Construction Work and development work for various Land Owners. Learned Assessing Officer has considered various Non Monetary items as Unaccounted Part of the Business which has no relevance with the Business of the Assessee like land papers of the Panch Sewa Graha Nirman Sanstha . So many contractors comes to the Assessee premises just for the sake of discussion on various matter with preparation of the Project Reports . The same has already been explained to the Assessing Officer on the various dates of hearing and there was no monetary transactions involved in this as in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reference to the seized documents, the Assessing Officer was not in a position to identify, specify and quantify the exact amount of unrecorded receipts and opted estimation of the receipts at five times of the bank deposits and considered 8% net profit which could not be substantiated and Co-related with the material evidence found / seized during search. Assessing Officer has presumed excessively high turnover of the Assessee which is away from the Practicality, Without considering the Nature of the Business, Necessary Explanation offered , Necessary Papers and submissions 'offered to the Assessing Officer with necessary supporting / evidences. / Confirmations , Learned Assessing Officer has presumed that the Actual transaction of the Assessee is 5 times of the Banking of the Assessee. Learned Assessing Officer has no reasonable cause for such estimation except that Assessee deals with Property / Real Estate and their some of the Business transactions are in cash, But Learned assessing Officer has assumed based on some papers that banking of the Assessee is only like tip of ice berg in the ocean, Which is a mere assumption of the assessing Officer, which is not reasonable and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hi Rs. 64.30/- Lacs/Other Development Work 2009-2010 4731214/- Sale of Land of Shri. Vinod Sharma, Anchit Goyal Rs. 25 Lacs/ Development work/Petty contract work. Where as Assessing Officer has Consider the Turnover of the Assessee for the last Seven Years as Follows: Assessment Year Turnover in Rupees as per A.O Turnover in Rupees as per CIT-A A.Y - 2003-2004 Rs.02004700/- Rs. 801880/- A.Y - 2004-2005 Rs.01332800/- Rs. 533120/- A.Y - 2005-2006 Rs.01972850/- Rs.789140/- A.Y - 2006-2007 Rs. 04964950/- Rs. 1985980/- A.Y - 2007-2008 Rs. 57175140/- Rs.22870056/- A.Y - 2008-2009 Rs.37461220/- Rs. 14984488/- A.Y - 2009-2010 Rs.23656070/- Rs. 8038410/- In the year of Appeal - Turnover of the Assessee is Assumed on presumption basis which is being a Property Dealer/ Broker/ Civil Contractor is very High and beyond the limit of Hypothecation . As per the law of Justice , it can be twice of the Banking of the Assessee in all the assessment year if assumption thumb rule is applied by the Hon'ble CIT - Appeal or Learned Asseessing Officer , But Learned Assessing Officer has made such imagination of Tu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar along with their Source of Purchase and sale contribution received during the year and non of the Other Registry of Land obtained during Search at the Assessee premises , which can be treated as undisclosed property or land which has not been taken in to the account . Assessee has given a detailed chart of the Land Owned by the Assessee and Sale of the Land in piece to various parties along with their mode of payment from the Buyer and Seller ( As per Details of the Land / Sale of the Land during the year under Block Assessment enclosed) with Cost of development / Commission received / paid on them along with all the Bank Statements / Bank Book / Cash Book. Apart from them there are no hidden transactions or substantial receipt during any of the financial year which justifies that Assessee is having 5 times cash transactions over and above the Bank transactions in any of the financial year, H nee for estimating profit in the Block Assessment years just by multiplying 5 times , 2 Times or 3 Times of the Banking of the Assessee and opting assumption rate of Profit as Net Income is totally wrong and against the law of the Natural Justice. 8. Mere Guess Work / Estimation of the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cer has wrongly interpreted the Power of Attorney as indirect purchase of Land with consideration , If it is so why most of the payments as shown in the Bank Book of the Assessee is routed to the Original Land Owners directly from the buyers or through the assessee Account . Learned Assessing Officer while framing his order wrongly interpreted the Power of Attorney as Purchase of Land by Assessee with Consideration, Where as there is no evidence available with the Assessing Officer that POA acquired by the Assessee is a Purchase of Land by Assessee with Consideration, Hence mere assumption could not need to the basis of Estimation of the Income by multiplying the Banking and considering Net Profit on Assumption basis is not justifiable and erroneous in nature. 09. Assessing Officer has wrongly invoked the provisions of section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act by making Hypothetical and arbitrary estimation of the receipts and Profits on a very higher side without any reasonable basis and evidence brought in to record. It is clear that Section 145 of the IT Act 1961 , only provides the basis on which computation of Income is to be made for the purpose of determining the amount of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gful exercise to surface the instances of suppression in the sales/receipts or inflation in purchase/expenses as also the undisclosed investment made by the assessee if any and should have also appraised the assessee with the justification for rejection of the books for invoking provisions of section 145(3). It is a well settled law that undisclosed income assessed if any must invariably be matched with the unrecorded assets found/seized during search, hence estimation of receipts by five times of banking and considering 8% as Net profit is bad in the eyes of law of justice. .Because the learned AO has wrongly assumed the Gross Receipt of the Business as 5 , 3 ,2 Times of the Banking of the Assessee by making wrong estimation that Banking of the Assessee is only just like tip of the ice berg in the ocean of the Business Transactions of the Assessee and based on such wrong interpretation Assessed the Income of the assessee in all the Block of Assessment Years on Assumption basis of the hypothetical Gross Receipt. 14. Assessing Officer has no Power / Jurisdiction to Summarily reject the Books and to Choose a Short Cut Method or estimating the Receipts and Profit Margin. Because wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ious incriminating material/documents were found and the assessee was unable to explain/correlate them with the entries in the regular books of accounts and therefore in this given facts and circumstances, we find no infirmity in the action of the Ld.A.O rejecting the books of accounts by invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. We therefore dismiss this common issue of the assessee challenging the action of the Ld.A.O invoking the provision of Section 145(3) of the Act and rejecting the book results. 19. Now coming to the estimation of income by the Ld.A.O as well as relief given by Ld.CIT(A), we find that the Ld.A.O did not received any satisfactory reply from the assessee for the alleged 42 entries appearing in the loose papers LPS-3/1 Page No.22 to 74 even after giving various opportunities which paved the way for the Ld. A.O to take a view that the assessee is transacting mostly in cash and very few transactions were routed through banking channel and the deposits appearing in the bank account were just like the tip iceberg in the ocean of business transaction of the appellant. Considering this the Ld.A.O estimated actual profit earned by the appellant from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fied in holding that books of account maintained by the appellant were not correct and complete and had rightly invoked provisions of section 145(3) of the IT Act. However, it is noticed that the AO had made estimation of gross receipts at five times of the total deposits in his bank accounts, which is on a higher side. It is noticed that normally in real estate business, the actual amount of consideration is normally around double of the consideration declared for the purposes of registration of deeds. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice if the gross receipts of the appellant are estimated at two times of the gross deposits appearing in the bank accounts of the appellant for A.Ys 2003-04 to 2008-09. In case of A.Y. 2009-10, it is noticed that the appellant had shown very less deposits in the bank accounts as compared to the actual gross receipts earned by him and, therefore, it would be reasonable if the gross receipts are estimated at three times of the total gross receipts declared by the appellant during the year relevant to A.Y. 2009-10, as the total turnover on the basis of two times of deposits in bank accounts in earlier two years works out at about 3.5 times ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ddition in net profit is disposed of accordingly." 21. From perusal of the above finding of both the lower authorities as well as the detailed submissions given by the assessee, we find that the assessee has nowhere given specific reply for each of the loose paper as well as the entries mentioned therein which have been reproduced by the Ld.A.O in the impugned assessment order referring to 42 entries. Undoubtedly the assessee has not disclosed the total business receipts in the regular books of accounts and when the assessee himself was unable to explain the entries there remains no option before the lower authorities except to estimate the income. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has heavily relied on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of ACIT V/s Vinod Sharma ITA No.227 to 231/Ind/2012 order dated 10.1.2017 who was the main person subjected to search on 30.5.2008 and from his business premises various documents belonging to the assessee were found and seized. In the case of Shri Vinod Sharma same issue came up for adjudication regarding estimation of profits. However we find that the facts are not similar because in the case of Shri Vinod Sharma Ld.A.O has not disput....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me 64150 42650 63131 158878 1829604 1198759 468715 Actual income declared by the assessee 76240 82413 96213 142360 399850 460756 497516 Addition to be confirmed Nil Nil Nil 16518 1429754 738003 Nil 23. In view of our discussion above and table mentioned, we delete the addition for estimated profits for Assessment Year 2003- 04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2009-10 and sustain the addition at Rs. 16,158/-, Rs. 14,29,754/- and Rs. 7,38,003/- for Assessment Year 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively. 24. In the result this common issue raised by the assessee in Ground No.2 for Assessment Year 2003-04 to 2006-07 and in Ground No.1 in Assessment Year 2007-08 to 2009-10 are partly allowed. 25. Now we take the second common issue raised for Assessment Year 2003-04 to 2006-07 for treating the agriculture income of Rs. 71,620/-, Rs. 56,854/-, Rs. 2400 and Rs. 3410/- for Assessment Year 2003-04 to 2006-07 as income from undisclosed sources. 26. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee received the share of agriculture income from parental agriculture land measuring 10 acres situated at Masan Gaon, Ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Presentation. 27. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and supported the orders of lower authorities. 28. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. 29. Assessee has challenged the action of both the lower authorities treating the agriculture income for Assessment Year 2003-04 to 2006-07 at Rs. 71,620/-, Rs. 56,854/-, Rs. 2400 and Rs. 3410/- respectively as income from other sources. We find that the assessee has filed necessary evidence to show that there exists an ancestral parental land measuring approximate 10 acres at Masan Gaon, Harda which is the part of the Hindu Undivided Family. This land is regularly cultivated. Agricultural produce is sold which is duly evidenced by Rin Pustika giving details of various items sold. We are satisfied with the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the alleged agricultural income is share of the assessee out of the net profit from sale of agricultural produce after deducting all incidental expenses which is being distributed to the members of the Hindu Undivided Family. We accordingly set aside the findings of both the lower authorities and direct the Ld.A.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owever, the AO had made addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- only, whereas the actual addition should have been Rs. 5,74,9501-. Accordingly, the AO is directed to make an addition of Rs. 5,74,950/- on account of unexplained investment in the purchase of land at Kalakheda in A.Y.2008-09. 32. Examining the facts in the light of the submissions given by the assessee as well as the findings of Ld.CIT(A), we find that undisputedly there is a transaction for purchase of agriculture land. Cash of Rs. 5 lakhs has been paid. Controversy has arised for the alleged date of payment. As per the purchase deed the cash payment of Rs. 5 lakhs has already been given on and before 28.3.2008 because the purchase deed is prepared on the stamp paper dated 25.3.2008 and it has been registered on 28.3.2008 whereas the assessee has shown the withdrawal of Rs. 5,60,000/- on 29.3.2008 in order to make the payment for purchase of the land. Revenue authorities are not disputing this fact that cash amount was withdrawn on 29.3.2008, meaning thereby that there was sufficient cash balance on 29.3.2008 which could explain the cash payment made by the assessee. Merely for the reason that the purchase deed was registered ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by Shri Vinod Sharma and Shri Harish Patel. As the assessee was unable to explain the source of the alleged cash payment and merely claimed that no such transaction ever happened because the alleged agreement was not signed by all the parties. Submissions of the assessee were not sufficient to satisfy the Ld.A.O and he made addition of 50% of Rs. 69 lakhs (Rs.44 lakhs + Rs. 25 lakhs) and made addition of Rs. 34,50,000/- in the hands of the assessee. The above addition of Rs. 34,50,000/- was confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). 36. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 37. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Learned Assessing Officer / Learned CIT Appeal had treated 50 % of the Cost of Land at Rs. 34.50 Lacs appx area of Land 3 Acres at Village Mindori as unexplained Investment without Considering the followings facts and submissions of the Assessee:- (i). Assessment Order of Hon'ble CIT-Appeal and Learned DCIT is totally based on Unverifiable Facts without making confirmation from various parties and when the agreement was not signed by other parties nor it was executed or enforced and it was not materializes whereas subsequently advance returned through ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The issue raised through this Ground No.3 for Assessment Year 2008-09 relates to unexplained investment of Rs. 34.50 lakhs towards purchase of land at Mindori. There is an agreement for purchase of land which was not fully signed by all the parties nor it was executed or enforced. However in this alleged agreement for purchase of land few parties have signed and details of transaction of receiving the cash as well as cheque is mentioned. Assessee has nowhere disputed the fact that cheque amount were given as an advance for purchase of agriculture land along with Shri Vinod Sharma and all the advanced cheques were finally received back from the four owners on account of cancellation of the agreement. Now the dispute relates to the cash advance of Rs. 44 lakhs mentioned in the alleged agreement as well as the payment paid to Shri Ashok Goyal relating to Mindori land. We find that Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 34.50 lakhs observing as follows; "6.3 I have carefully considered the submission of the appellant and facts of the case. As mentioned by the AO, during the course of search, an agreement to sale entered on 22.03.2008 by the appellant, Shri Harish Patel, and Sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was also actually paid by the purchasers i.e. the appellant and Shri Vinod Sharma to the sellers as part payment. Thus, the appellant and Shri Vinod Sharma had actually paid Rs,44,00,000/- in cash on 22.03.2008 to the sellers i.e. Rs. 11,OO,OOO/- each to Shri Vijit Raj Patni, Shri Hukum Chand, Shri Kishore Kotwani and Shri lawaharlal. Further, as mentioned by the AO in the assessment order, the purchasers have also made payment of Rs. 25,00,000/- through Shri Ashok Goyal in cash as admitted by Shri Vinod Sharma in his statement that Rs. 25,00,000/- was paid to Shri Ashok Goyal as part payment on account of transaction of Mandori Land. This fact was also shown in loose papers seized as page no. 39 of LPS- 3/20. Thus, the appellant and Shri Vi nod Sharma had made total cash payments of Rs. 69,00,OOO/- (Rs.44,00,000 + Rs. 25,OO,000) for the transaction of purchase of 3 acres (130680 sq. ft.) of land at village Mandori. Here it may also be mentioned that the provisions of section 292C provides that where any books .of account or other document is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of search, it may be presumed that the contents of such books of account and o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rely taken a plea that the alleged document is dump and has no legal sanity. However with regard to the payment of Rs. 25 lakhs to Shri Ashok Goyal Revenue Authorities are unable to bring any other evidence on record to prove the connection of Shri Ashok Goyal with the alleged transaction of purchase of property. 43. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed heavy reliance on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Shri Vinod Sharma (supra) wherein similar issue on the same facts relating to addition of Rs. 34.50 lakhs was adjudicated and the addition was deleted. From perusal of the order of the Co-ordinate Bench we find that in para 17 of the order the tribunal while referring to the alleged sale agreement mentioned that "the aforementioned agreement was not signed by the other parties nor was it executed or enforced". We respectfully submit that a material fact seems to have escaped the kind attention of the Co-ordinate Bench because the alleged sale letter has been signed by two of the proposed sellers namely Shri Vijit Raj Patni and Shri Hukum Chand and one of the buyer Shri Vinod Sharma which makes it amply clear that a transaction certainly took place wherein ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....°à¥€ जवाहलाल पà¥à¤¤à¥à¤° शà¥à¤°à¥€ टेकचंद कोटवानी समसà¥à¤¤ वà¥à¤¯à¤¸à¥à¤• समसà¥à¤¤ निवासी - शहर à¤à¥‹à¤ªà¤¾à¤², म०पà¥à¤°à¥¦ । उकà¥à¤¤ अनà¥à¤¬à¤‚ध में इनà¥à¤¹à¥‡à¤‚ पà¥à¤°à¤¥à¤® पकà¥à¤·à¤•à¤¾à¤° के नाम से संबोधित किया जायेगा। विकà¥à¤°à¤¯ अनà¥à¤¬à¤‚ध में विकà¥à¤°à¥‡à¤¤à¤¾à¤—णों के समसà¥à¤¤ उतà¥à¤¤à¤°à¤¾à¤§à¤¿à¤•à¤¾à¤°à¥€à¤—ण सà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤¨à¤¾à¤ªà¤¨à¥à¤¨ à¤à¤µà....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... गà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤® मिडोरी प.ह.नं. 33. रा.ज.नि.नं. 03 रातीलà¥, विकास खणà¥à¤¡ फनà¥à¤¦à¤¾ तह. हà¥à¤œà¥‚र जिला à¤à¥‹à¤ªà¤¾à¤² जो कि नगर निगम की सीमा के अंदर यारà¥à¤¡ कà¥à¤°. में आती है। उकà¥à¤¤ à¤à¥‚मि के खसरा कà¥à¤°à¤‚. 50271 à¤à¤µà¤‚ 50212 रकबा 0.00 है à¤à¤µà¤‚ 0.400 है. 120 है, = 3.00 à¤à¤•à¤¡à¤¼ 130680 है. वरà¥à¤—फिट à¤à¤°à¤¿à¤¯à¤¾ निरंतर.... समरà¥à¤ªà¤¿à¤¤ दिनांक 132008 à¤....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....‹à¤ˆ à¤à¥€ सीठआज दिनांक à¤à¤• नहीं है। उकà¥à¤¤ संपतà¥à¤¤à¤¿ पर कही किसी à¤à¥€ संसà¥à¤¥à¤¾, बैंक पà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤¯à¤µà¥‡à¤Ÿ शासन आदि से लोन नहीं लिया है न ही उकà¥à¤¤ संपतà¥à¤¤à¤¿ कही जमानत में लगाई है। उस संपतà¥à¤¤à¤¿ का विकेतागणों ने आज तक किसी से कोई बेधने का सौदा, अनà¥à¤¬à¤‚ध आदि नही कियà¤....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ार हजार à¤à¤• सौ साठ) रूपये कà¥à¤² मूलà¥à¤¯ हà¥à¤†à¥¤ जिसमें से अरà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤¤ कà¥à¤² विकà¥à¤°à¤¯ मूलà¥à¤¯ में से केतागण ने विकà¥à¤°à¥‡à¤¤à¤¾à¤—णों को नीचे लिखे अनà¥à¤¸à¤¾à¤° नगद व चैक के रूप में à¤à¥à¤—तान किया। 1. नगद à¤à¥à¤—तान किया कà¥à¤°à¥‡à¤¤à¤¾à¤—ण ने विकà¥à¤°à¥‡à¤¤à¤¾à¤—ण में से पà¥à¤°à¤¤à¥à¤¯à¥‡à¤• को 11,00,000/- 2. 3. शà¥à¤°à....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....बंध 'दनांक से चार माह के à¤à¥€à¤¤à¤° अरà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤¤ 22.07.2009 के पूरà¥à¤µ अदा करेंगे तथा पंजीयत विकà¥à¤°à¤¯ पतà¥à¤° निषà¥à¤ªà¤¾à¤¦à¤¿à¤¤ करवायेंगे। यह सà¥à¤ªà¤·à¥à¤Ÿ किया जाता है कि के विकà¥à¤°à¥‡à¤¤à¤¾à¤—ण को अनà¥à¤¯ à¤à¥‚मि ततà¥à¤•à¤¾à¤² कà¥à¤°à¤¯ करना है इसलिये इस अनà¥à¤—ंध में समय संविदा का सार है तथा कà¥à¤°à¥‡à....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....®à¤¿ यदि कम निकलती है तो जितनी à¤à¥‚मि कम निकलेगे, उतनी à¤à¥‚मि का à¤à¥à¤—तान केताविकेतागण को करेंगे । यह कि उस à¤à¥‚मियाठका सà¥à¤µà¤¤à¥à¤¯ जानने के लिये कà¥à¤°à¥‡à¤¤à¤¾ दैनिक समाचार पतà¥à¤°à¥‹à¤‚ में जाहिर सूचना का पà¥à¤°à¤•à¤¾à¤¶à¤¨ करायेगा । यदि जाहिर सूचना के पà¥à¤°à¤•à¤¾à¤¶à¤¨ में à....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....¥‹ जानने के लिये यह सà¤à¥€ पà¥à¤°à¤•à¤¾à¤° से सरà¥à¤š करा लें डà¥à¤¯à¥‚ डेलीजेंसी सरà¥à¤ª में विकà¥à¤°à¥‡à¤¤à¤¾à¤—ण पूरà¥à¤£ सहयोग देने का वादा करते हैं । यह कि दोनों पकà¥à¤·à¤•à¤¾à¤°à¤—ण उकà¥à¤¤ विमतà¥à¤¯ अनà¥à¤¬à¤‚ध में लिखी समसà¥à¤¤ शरà¥à¤¤à¥‹ का पालन करेंगे और विकà¥à¤°à¥‡à¤¤à¤¾à¤—ण केलागण से à¤à¥à¤—ता....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....¹ के समय पर रजिसà¥à¤Ÿà¥à¤°à¥€ नहीं कराई तो यह अनà¥à¤µà¤£à¤¿ रामापà¥à¤¤ कर सकेंगे जिसने तागणों की कोई आपतà¥à¤¤à¤¿ गाय नहीं होगी और अपनी किसी अनà¥à¤¯ वà¥à¤¯à¤•à¥à¤¤à¤¿ संसà¥à¤¥à¤¾ इतà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¦à¤¿ को विकà¥à¤° 2014 Shri Harish Patel -33- CIT(A)-I/BPL/IT-559 10 564 & 51 अनà¥à¤ª दोनों पटाकारों की आपसी सहमति से राजीखà¥à¤¶à¥€ शर की दशा म....