Honourable Mr. Justice M. R. Shah
1.00. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 7/7/2016 in ITA No.847/Ahd/2010 for A.Y. 2006- 07, by which the learned tribunal has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the revenue and has confirmed the order passed by the learned CIT(A) deleting addition made by the A.O. of Rs. 3,37,58,8900/-, made on account of undisclosed investment, revenue has preferred the present appeal with the following proposed question of law :-
"Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made of Rs. 3,37,58,8900/- on account of undisclosed investment made by Assessing Officer?"
2.00. That the assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2006-07 declaring total income at Rs. 1,58,290/-. During the year under consideration, the assessee shown income from business / profession. During the year under consideration, the assessee purchased along with one Bharatbhai Patel land bearing Survey No.787 of Konkrole, Himmatnagar for purchase shown at Rs. 5,41,200/-. That there was search at the residence of one Kalidas Patel on 7/2/2008 and some incriminating documents were seized. On the basis of the material seized during the search at the place of Kalidas Patel, A.O. made addition of Rs. 3,37,58,8900/- as undisclosed income.
2.01. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the A.O. making addition of Rs. 3,37,58,8900/- towards unclosed income being price mentioned in the sale deed/books of accounts and Rs. 3,43,00,000/- with respect to the aforesaid amount, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A).
2.02. That by detailed judgement and order and having found that even from the seized material seized at the premises of Kalidas Patel, there was no material that any amount of Rs. 3,43,00,000/- was paid by the assessee and as there was no material available with the A.O. to come to the conclusion that the assessee paid Rs. 3,43,00,000/- for purchase of the aforesaid land and considering the fact that the even the land was jointly owned and purchased by the assessee with Bharatbhai Patel and no such addition was made in the hands of the partner - Bharatbhai Patel, the learned CIT(A) allowed the appeal and deleted the additions made by the A.O. The appeal preferred by the revenue against the order passed learned CIT(A) deleting addition made by the A.O. made on account of undisclosed investment has been dismissed by the learned tribunal and confirmed the order passed by the learned CIT(A).
2.03. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned tribunal, the revenue has preferred the present appeal with the aforestated proposed question of law.
3.00. We have heard Ms.Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue.
3.01. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such the A.O. made addition as undisclosed income as if the assessee had sold the land, however, as such, the assessee had in fact, purchased the land. Apart from that even there was no material with the A.O. to form an opinion that Rs. 3,43,00,000/- was received by the said Kalidas Patel. It is required to be noted that the A.O. made additions of Rs. 3,37,58,8900/- on the basis of material seized / found from the premises of said Kalidas patel. However, as observed by the learned CIT(A) as well as the learned tribunal, the said Kalidas Patel had not made any whisper of having received consideration over and above what has been stated in the registered document. At this stage it is required to be noted that though the land was purchased by the assessee along with one Bharatbhai Patel, addition made only in the case of the assessee and no addition was made in the hands of his partner Bharatbhai Patel. Considering the above facts and circumstances, when the learned CIT(A) has deleted addition made by the A.O. of Rs. 3,37,58,8900/-, made on account of undisclosed investment and when the same has been confirmed by the learned tribunal, it cannot be said that the learned CIT(A) and learned tribunal have committed any error. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. No substantial question of law arise. Under the circumstances, present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.