TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 590
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ri S.N. Divatia, A.R. For the Respondent : Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER : These six appeals pertain to the same assessee, involve some common issues, are filed against different orders passed by the CIT(A), Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad for different assessment years, and were heard together. As a matter of convenience, therefore, all these six appeals are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. 2. We are taking up the appeal filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2009-10 i.e. ITA No.1512/Ahd/2013 as the lead matter and the grounds raised in this appeal are reproduced as under :- "1.1 The order passed u/s.250 on 01.04.2013 for A.Y. 2009-10 by CIT(A), Gandhinagar u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....turn of income was filed on 29.06.2009 declaring total income of Rs. 5,01,950/-. The assessee is deriving income from salary and income from other sources during the present assessment year. Survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 17.09.2010. Summon under section 131(1) of the Act was issued on the assessee for recoding statement of the assessee. As per the observations of the Assessing Officer in assessment order, the statement recorded on oath of Shri Natwarlal Haribhai Patel states that the assessee paid Rs. 45,00,000/- with document value plus Rs. 0.50 lakhs as stamp duty and registration charges. On verification of copy of Banakhat dated 05.02.2009, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee and the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....khat dated 04.02.2009 which was allegedly notarised on 05.02.2009. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the said Banakhat was found during the course of survey in the case of Shri Bhupendra M. Trivedi and handed over to ITO, Ward-3, Gandhinagar by Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Mehsana. The said Banakhat shows consideration at Rs. 41,00,000/- per bigha and the assessee paid Rs. 41,00,000/- over and above the consideration stated in the final sale deed. Even survey under Section 133A was conducted on 17.09.2010 at Juna Chora Pase, Kalol, based on the contents of the tax evasion petition. The statement of the assessee was recorded on 17.09.2010 by issuing summons under Section 131(1), but his statement remained un-concluded and the assessee wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e regular assessment on 27.12.2011 thereby making addition of Rs. 45,50,000/- as unexplained investment. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has denied/retracted the statement made during the proceedings under Section 131(1A) of the Act. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee was suffering from kidney problem and, therefore, was not in a proper mind to give his statement and, therefore, the assessee retracted the statement. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that no opportunity of cross examination was provided to the assessee to examine the Notary as well as complete statement of the assessee was not given by the Revenue. The Ld. A.R. submitted that there was no evidence with the Revenue as to on what basis the consideration was for Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng VISA at the end of the owner of the land. Afterwards the said transaction never took place and, therefore, the addition cannot be sustained. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee is an employee of Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Limited. The assessee has entered into a Banakhat with Shri Manilal Tribhovandas Trivedi and others but the same Banakhat was understanding between the parties as per the submissions of the Ld. A.R. during the hearing. The contentions of the Ld. A.R. that the consideration at Rs. 41,00,000/- per bigha is exorbitant consideration and the said page or the document was never signed by the assessee at any point ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... being ITA No.1512/Ahd/2013. 9. In respect of A.Y. 2010-11, the grounds remain the same. A.Y. 2010-11 is identical to A.Y. 2009-10 and, therefore, ITA No.09/Ahd/2014 is allowed. 10. As regards A.Y. 2011-12, the Ld. A.R. made additional statement that no co-owners were examined in the present case by the Assessing Officer. There is no evidence for adapting exorbitant price in respect of per bigha/per sq. mtr. In fact, section 50C of the Act did not entitle any value consideration in respect of the said transaction which was never finalised. As regards Short Term Capital Gain of Rs. 46,000/-, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the same is presumptive basis and, therefore, should have not been added. In respect of A.Y. 2011-12 the contentions o....