The Hon’ble bench upheld the order passed by the CIT(A) which states that considering the nature of transaction only substantive addition can be made in the hands of the buyer and the seller on the reasoning that if payments was made by the buyer not out of disclosed sources, the amount has to be added as undisclosed income to the total income of the buyer on substantive basis and at the same time if the receipt of consideration is not disclosed by the seller, the amount has to be added as undisclosed income to the total income of the seller on substantive basis only. Further, it is undisputed fact that Shri Mehul Mehta in whose hands the addition was made on substantive basis had made relevant disclosure in the application for the settlement which has been considered by the Settlement Commission. Therefore, this ground of appeal of the revenue stands dismissed. In case of second ground with respect to Addition of Rs. 4 Lacs U/s 68 of the Act, the Hon’ble Bench held that because of non-availability of return of income and copy of bank account of the lender the Assessing Officer has treated the unsecured loan amount of Rs 4lacs as unexplained and added to the total income of the assessee U/s 68 of the act. However, assessee furnished additional evidences before CIT(A) in the form of bank statement, confirmation containing the lender full address, documentary evidences of the ownership of agricultural land and it was also explained that since lender was an agriculturist therefore, he was not liable to file any return of income. The assessing officer has not brought any material or evidences on record to disprove the aforesaid facts and evidences submitted by the assessee in support of genuineness of the loan transactions. Therefore, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. (AY.  2012-13)