TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 1357
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of appeal, certain facts for both the assessment years are common, therefore, both the appeals were clubbed, heard and are decided by a consolidated order. The assessee raised following grounds of appeal for the A.Y. 2011-12 as under: "I. The learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Assessing Officer of making assessment of the project of "M/s. Sai Ashish Residency" in the status of "AOP" without appreciating the facts that this project is already assessed in the case of Bhaveshbhai Arvindbhai Buha in his Individual capacity as per the Returns of Income filed with Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, CC-2, Surat. The Status of "AOP" be held as null and void as the same is determined by Assessing Off....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n account unexplained investment. On appeal before the ld.CIT(A), the action of AO was upheld. The ld. CIT(A) also upheld the status of assessee as AOP. The addition of Rs.40 lakhs was also upheld by taking view that the assessee has filed copy of Satakhat (agreement to sale) dated 04.04.2011, which was never filed before the AO and the same was treated as additional evidence. The additional evidence was not admitted for the want of proper application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. Further aggrieved, the assessee filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 3. We have heard the submission of ld. Authorised Representative (ld.AR) of the assessee and the ld.CIT-DR for the Revenue. Initially, this appeal was heard on 14.10.2021 at leng....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....14 was made simultaneously by the same AO. No additional evidence or additional document was filed by assessee before ld CIT(A), which were not filed before the AO. The appeal for AY 2012-13 is still pending before CIT(A). The ld.CIT (A) treated the same as additional evidence of same was not considered and ultimately due to non-consideration of material evidence, the additions were upheld. The ld.AR further submits that no activity during the year under consideration was carried out by the assessee. The ld.AR for the assessee further submits that in case of Ground No.III is held in favour of assessee that consideration was paid in individual capacity by Bhavesh Bunha, the substantial ground no.1 [I &II] will automatically lead to the concl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....afresh by considering the Satakhat dated 04.04.2011 and pass the order in accordance with law. In the result the ground No. III is allowed for statistical purpose. 6. Considering the fact that we have remitted the substantial Ground No. III to the file of ld.CIT(A), therefore, substantial Ground No. I & II are also restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) to determine the status of assessee after considering the source of investment in project. In the result the ground No. I & II are also allowed for statistical purpose. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. ITA No.1151/AHD/2016 for A.Y. 2013-14: 8. The assessee raised following grounds of appeal for the A.Y. 2013-14 as follows: "I. The learned CIT....