JUDGMENT

K.S. Jhaveri, J. - In all these appeals, common questions of law and facts are involved, hence they are decided by this common judgment.

2. By way of these appeals, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the department and allowed the appeal of the assessee.

3. While admitting the appeals, this court framed the following substantial questions of law:-

Income Tax Appeal No. 197/2012 admitted on 12.08.2015.

(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,07,00,000/-made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A), being on money'' received with respect to subject land of the assessee from Unique Group, which was evidence by the document seized during search under section 132 of the Act?

(ii) Whether on the premises that Ravindra Singh Thakkar on whose testimony the present assessee was also fasten the tax liability supposed to be afforded opportunity of cross-examination in the facts of the instant case and what would be the effect of the opportunity of cross-examination if not been afforded?"

Income Tax Appeal No. 199/2012 admitted on 30.08.2016.

(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,50,00,000/-made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT (A), on substantive basis, being on money received with respect to land of the assessee from Unique Dream Builders Pvt. Ltd. (UBD), which was evidenced by document seized during search under section 132 of the Act.

Income Tax Appeal No. 198/2012 admitted on 30.08.2016

"(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,50,00,000/-made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A), on substantive basis, being ''on money'' received with respect to land of the assessee from Unique Dream Builders Pvt. Ltd. (UDB), which was evidenced by document seized during search under section 132 of the Act?"

4. Counsel for the appellant taken us to the order of CIT(A) and contended that the order passed by the A.O is required to be restored inasmuch as both the authorities committed serious error in relying on the documents and the material which was found by the A.O. The A.O., after considering the matter has rightly came to the conclusion that on the basis of the document which was recovered from Mr. Thakkar, the income ought to have been added in the account of the assessee. However, CIT(A) and Tribunal after considering the same allowed the appeal of the assessee.

5. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the following judgments :-

"1. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, ITA No. 14/2005 decided on 24.04.2017 holding as under:-

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

4.1 However, the Tribunal while considering the case, held as under:-

7. By considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the lower authorities presumed that the above mentioned properties belong to the assessee. But they have not verified in whose name these properties are recorded in the record of the Municipal Council/JDA or any other agency of the Government. It appears that the lower authorities made the addition by adopting short-cut method in the name of the assessee without verifying the record. No case is made out about the benami transactions by the lower authorities. In these circumstances, we deem it fit to set aside both the orders of the lower authorities and restore the matter back to the AO to examine the issue from the record of the Municipal council/JDA or any Government agency. If the properties stand in the name of the assessee, only then the addition can be made in the hands of the assessee. However, the AO will be at liberty to examine the case for making the addition in the hands of the persons in whose name the property is recorded in the record of the Municipal Council/JDA etc., if need be. With this direction, the issue is set aside to the AO who will adjudicate in t