TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 1379
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rounds of appeal are as under: 1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer in respect of unexplained investment in purchase of land at Hathijan amounting to Rs. 79,36,580/-. 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 1,06,204/- claimed as expenditure incurred relating to agricultural income. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....related to same land. According to this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), sale consideration of the said land is Rs. 5,29,10,533/- at the rate of Rs. 1,901/- per sq.yd. According to the said MOU, part payment of Rs. 1,32,27,633/- (25% of total consideration) was already done by First Party to Second Party. Remaining amount of Rs. 3,96,82,809/- to be paid in three equal installments of Rs. 1,32,27,633/-. Thus, the assessee along with Shri Kanubhai Dhulabhai Patel paid Rs. 5,29,10,533/- to the sellers of the land. The source of such payment was not known and not reflected in the return of income. The assessee was having 60% share in the land. Therefore, considering that the undisclosed amount of Rs. 3,17,46....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nducted on 26/10/2012. Survey proceedings in case of Shri Paresh Hiralal Modi and loose-paper file was found and impounded. The said file was related to pieces of land in various survey numbers at Hathijan Village. Draft Memorandum of Understanding related to pieces of land at Hathijan Village was found. Accordingly, the sale consideration of the said land is mentioned at Rs. 5,29,10,533/-. As per said draft MOU, the part payment of Rs. 1,32,27,633/- (25% of total consideration) was already made. Remaining amount of Rs. 3,96,82,899/- to be paid in three equal installments of Rs. 1,32,27,633/-. Registered Banakhat No. 3178/2010 dated 26/03/2010 of the same land was made between (i) Shri Rameshbhai Nagjibhai Savaliya ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry value as relating to survey proceedings in case of third party. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the following decisions: (i) C IT vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) (ii) Principal CIT vs. Saumya Construction P.Ltd. (2016) 387 ITR 529 (Guj.) (iii) DCIT (Asst.) vs. Prarthana Construction Pvt. Ltd. (Tax appeal No. 79 of 2000 dated 25/03/2011 (High Court of Gujarat) (iv) Kishanchand Chelaram vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) 5.2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that during the course of survey, in the statement recorded from Shri Paresh Hiralal Modi, the said person stated that work of documentation of land purchased by Thakkar Group of Kerala and Rupal Vil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submitted that the CIT (A) totally ignored that the assessee was incurring these expenditures in the earlier assessment year as well and, therefore, the Assessing Officer should have allowed these agricultural expenses. 7. As regards Ground No. 3, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is not pressing this ground. 8. The Ld.DR submitted that the document found on third party and the final registered documents are on the similar terms and, therefore, the same cannot be treated as done document, but are very much incriminating documents. The Ld.DR further submitted that the notings on page No. 42 of 'Annexure A-2' clearly reveals that the assessee was part of the said MOU and the transaction has taken in that manner itself. Th....