JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. As common question of law and facts arise in both these appeals, but with respect to different assessee - co-purchasers of the same land, both these appeals are decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 26/2/2016 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "C" Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the learned tribunal"), passed in ITA No. 290/AHD/2012 for A.Y. 2008-09, revenue has preferred Tax Appeal No. 898 of 2016 with the following proposed substantial question of law :- "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of investment in purchase of land at Adalaj of Rs. 74,50,000/-?" 2.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned tribunal in ITA No. 291/AHD/2012 for A.Y. 2008-09 with respect to another assessee but co-purchaser, revenue has preferred Tax Appeal No. 904 of 2016 with the following proposed question of law :- "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of investment in purchase of land at Adalaj of Rs. 74,50,000/-?" 3. For the sake of convenience facts of Tax Appeal No. 898 of 2016 arising out of ITA No. 290/AHD/2012 are narrated. 3.1. The assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 declaring total income at Rs. 46,02,780/-. Assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was passed on 16/12/2010 determining total income at Rs. 2,00,31,830/- making after following additions :- "(1) Investment in purchase of land at Adalaj - Rs. 74,50,000/- (2) Disallowance of interest - Rs. 73,05,794/- (3) Disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act - Rs. 06,73,251/-" 3.2. Feeling aggrieved by the order of assessment, more particularly making addition of Rs. 74,50,000/-, made on account of investment in purchase of land at Adalaj, assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A). 3.3. The assessee also preferred appeal against disallowance of interest of Rs. 73,05,794/- as well as disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act of Rs. 06,73,251/-. 3.4. That the learned CIT(A) vide order dated 16/11/2011 deleted addition made by the A.O. on account of investment in purchase of land at Adalaj of Rs. 74,50,000/- and confirmed the disallowance of interest of Rs. The assessee also preferred appeal against disallowance of interest of Rs. 73,05,794/- as well as disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act of Rs. 06,73,251/-. 3.4. That the learned CIT(A) vide order dated 16/11/2011 deleted addition made by the A.O. on account of investment in purchase of land at Adalaj of Rs. 74,50,000/- and confirmed the disallowance of interest of Rs. 48,74,798/- out of total interest disallowance of interest of Rs. 73,05,794/- and deleted the balance interest expenses of Rs. 24,30,996/- 3.5. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned CIT(A), both revenue and assessee filed appeal before the learned appellate tribunal. 3.6. That the learned appellate tribunal vide order dated 26/2/2016 allowed the appeal of the assessee and directed the A.O. to delete addition of Rs. 48,74,798/- made on account of disallowance of interest expenses. The learned tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue against the order passed by the learned CIT(A) deleting addition made by the A.O. on account of investment in purchase of land at Adalaj of Rs. 74,50,000/-. 3.7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned tribunal in deleting addition made on account of investment in purchase of land at Adalaj of Rs. 74,50,000/-, revenue has preferred present Tax Appeal with the aforesaid proposed substantial question of law. 3.8. Similar order has been passed by the learned tribunal in case of co-purchaser of the very land situated at Adalaj, which is subject matter of Tax Appeal No. 904 of 2016. 4. Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue has vehemently submitted that the learned tribunal has materially erred in deleting addition of Rs. 74,50,000/- made by the A.O. on account of investment in purchase of land at Adalaj. It is submitted that the original owner - Mr. Gandaji Thakore has made a categorical statement before the A.O. that he has received Rs. 2.10 Crores on sale of land at Adalaj, which he has invested. It is submitted that even other co-owners of the said land situated at Adalaj have also made similar statement. It is submitted that the original owners even paid tax on receipt of Rs. 2.10 Crores on sale of land situated at Adalaj. 2.10 Crores on sale of land at Adalaj, which he has invested. It is submitted that even other co-owners of the said land situated at Adalaj have also made similar statement. It is submitted that the original owners even paid tax on receipt of Rs. 2.10 Crores on sale of land situated at Adalaj. It is submitted that, therefore, the learned tribunal is not justified in deleting addition made by the A.O. on account of investment in purchase of land at Adalaj of Rs. 74,50,000/-. It is submitted that the A.O. has rightly concluded that the assessee had, in fact, jointly paid Rs. 2.10 Crores to the original land owners - Mr. Gandaji Thakore and others for purchasing the land vide registered sale deed dated 8/7/2007, and the assessee has also shown his one half share of Rs. 32,32,825 in the balance sheet. It is submitted that therefore, the learned tribunal has materially erred in deleting addition made on account of investment in purchase of land at Adalaj of Rs. 74,50,000/-. Making above submissions it is requested to admit both these appeals. 5. Both these appeals are vehemently opposed by Mr. S.N. Divedia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the assessee. It is submitted that even considering the statement of land owner - Mr. Gandaji Thakore it can be seen that said Mr. Gandaji Thakore made a statement that he sold land situated at Adalaj to one Mr. Champavat for a sale consideration of Rs. 2.10 Crores. It is submitted that as per the statements made by said original land owners - Mr. Gandaji Thakore and others, the land situated at Adalaj has been sold to one Mr. Champavat in the year 2008. It is submitted that as such the assessee purchased the land situated at Adalaj vide registered sale deed dated 8/10/2007, which was executed by the power of attorney - one Mr. Abbasbhai, who sold the same in favour of one Mr. Hemendra Shah and from whom the assessee purchased the same. It is submitted that therefore, considering the statement of land owners - Mr. Gandaji Thakore and other co-owners, which were heavily relied upon by the A.O., it cannot be said that there is any cogent evidence and/or material to show that the assessee paid Rs. 2.10 Crores to the original land owners - Mr. Gandaji Thakore and others. It is submitted that therefore, considering the statement of land owners - Mr. Gandaji Thakore and other co-owners, which were heavily relied upon by the A.O., it cannot be said that there is any cogent evidence and/or material to show that the assessee paid Rs. 2.10 Crores to the original land owners - Mr. Gandaji Thakore and others. It is submitted that therefore, the learned tribunal has rightly deleted addition made by the A.O. on account of investment in purchase of land at Adalaj of Rs. 74,50,000/-. Making above submissions it is requested to dismiss both these appeals. 6. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 6.1. At the outset, it is required to be made that the A.O. made addition on account of investment in purchase of land at Adalaj of Rs. 74,50,000/- solely on the basis of statements of original land owners - Mr. Gandaji Thakore and others. However, it is required to be noted that on considering the statements of the said of original land owners - Mr. Gandaji Thakore and others, which Mr. Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue has placed before this Court for its perusal, it appears and it is not in dispute that as per the statements of said Mr. Gandaji Thakore and others, they received Rs. 2.10 Crores by way of sale consideration from one Mr. Champavat and they executed sale deed in the year 2008. However, it is required to be noted that so far as the both the assessee are concerned, they have never purchased the land situated at Adalaj from the original land owners - Mr. Gandaji Thakore and others. As per their case and even sale deed produced on record, both the assessee purchased the land from one Mr. Hemendra Shah vide registered sale deed dated 8/10/2007. It has come on record that said Mr. Hemendra Ahsh purchased the land situated at Adalaj from power of attorney holder of the original land owners - Mr. Gandaji Thakore and others and thereafter said Mr. Hemendra Shah sold the said land to the assessee. There is no iota of evidence on record to suggest that the assessee paid Rs. 2.10 Crores to said Mr. Hemendra Shah. Solely on the basis of statements of the original land owners - Mr. Gandaji Thakore and others that they received sale consideration from Mr. Hemendra Shah sold the said land to the assessee. There is no iota of evidence on record to suggest that the assessee paid Rs. 2.10 Crores to said Mr. Hemendra Shah. Solely on the basis of statements of the original land owners - Mr. Gandaji Thakore and others that they received sale consideration from Mr. Champavat, in whose favour sale deed was executed by them in the year 2008, as rightly held by the learned CIT(A) and the learned tribunal, A.O. was not justified in making addition on account of investment in purchase of land at Adalaj of Rs. 74,50,000/-. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned tribunal in deleting addition made by the A.O. on account of investment in purchase of land at Adalaj of Rs. 74,50,000/-. No substantial question of law arise as proposed. 7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, both the appeals deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.