ACIT, Chandigarh v. Sh. Baljinder Singh, Chandigarh

ITA 133/CHANDI/2012 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2012 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 13321514 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN ALKPS2033C
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 133/CHANDI/2012
Duration Of Justice 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
Appellant ACIT, Chandigarh
Respondent Sh. Baljinder Singh, Chandigarh
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-07-2012
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 30-07-2012
Date Of Final Hearing 25-07-2012
Next Hearing Date 25-07-2012
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 03-02-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD AM AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA JM ITA NO. 133/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 A.C.I.T. CIRCLE 3(1) V BALJINDER SINGH CHANDIGARH H NO. 3608 SECTOR 23-D CHANDIGARH ALKPS 2033 C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SMT. JAISHREE SHARMA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI PARIKSHIT AGGARWAL DATE OF HEARING: 25.07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.07.2012 ORDER PER T.R. SOOD A.M IN THIS APPEAL REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GR OUND: WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 15 00 000/- M ADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH INTRODUCED WHEN THE ASSESSEE AS W ELL AS CREDITOR FAILED TO PROVE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR. 2. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT DURI NG ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT AS P ER CASH BOOK THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN CASH RECEIPTS OF RS. 15.00 LAKHS ON 10.4. 2007. THIS WAS STATED TO BE BIANA (ADVANCE) FOR SALE OF PLOT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH DETAILS OF PROPERTY COPY OF AGREEMENT TO SELL AND ADDRESS OF THE PROSPECTIVE BUYER. HOWEVER THESE INFORMATIONS WERE NOT FURNISHED THE REFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED A SUM OF RS. 15.00 LAKHS TO THE INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 3. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH SHRI BAKHTAWAR SINGH TO SELL HIS GODOWN AT VILLAGE PABHAT. THE AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED ON 10.4. 2007 FOR TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 35.00 LAKHS. A SUM OF RS. 15. 00 LAKHS RECEIVED AS ADVANCE. HOWEVER THE DEAL COULD NOT BE MATERIALIZ ED DUE TO VARIOUS UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES AT THE END OF PURCHASER A S WELL AS THE SELLER AND 2 THEREFORE THE SAME WAS CANCELLED AND ADVANCE WAS R ETURNED INTO TWO INSTALLMENTS OF RS. 10.00 LAKHS ON 24.3.2008 AND RS . 5.00 LAKHS ON 26.3.2008. IN THIS REGARD A COPY OF LEDGER COPY OF AGREEMENT TO SELL COPY OF CANCELLATION AGREEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT OF THE PURCHASER WERE ENCLO SED. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) FORWARDED THE SAME FOR REMAND REP ORT BECAUSE THIS EVIDENCE HAS NOT BEEN FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OF FICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT STATED AS UNDER:- 2.3 IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSES SEE SUMMONS U/S 131 WERE ISSUED TO THE PURCHASER SHRI BAKHTAWAR SIN GH SON OF SHRI GURDAS RAM R/O VILLAGE KALWAN TEHSIL ANANDPUR SAHI B. HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED ON OATH. IN THE STATEMENT HE DEPOSED THAT HE ENTERED INTO A TRANSACTION WITH SHRI BALJINDER SINGH THROUGH HIS RELATIVES WHO ARE RESIDING AT ZIRAKPUR FOR THE PURCHASE OF SAID GODOW N FOR RS. 35.00 LAKHS AND HAD PAID RS. 15.00 LAKHS IN CASH AS ON ADVANCE MONEY. THE AGREEMENT LATERON WAS CANCELLED DUE TO SHORTAGE OF FUNDS AT HIS END AND HE RECEIVED BACK THE MONEY IN TWO INSTALLMENTS WITH OUT ANY INTEREST AND DAMAGES. HE PRODUCED THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS OF AGR EEMENTS THE COPY OF WHICH HAVE BEEN RETAINED AND PLACED ON RECORD. 2.4 WHEN ASKED ABOUT SOURCES OF FUNDS OF ADVANCE MO NEY OF RS. 15.00 LAKHS IT WAS STATED THAT HE HAD SOLD POPLAR T REES PROCEEDS OF WHICH WERE RECEIVED ONLY IN CASH AS PER THE CUSTOME RY PRACTICE. FURTHER HE HAD IN CASH HIS PREVIOUS SAVINGS FROM AGRICULTUR AL ACTIVITIES. ALSO HIS SONS (WORKING IN ITALY) USE TO SEND REMITTANCE IN N AME OF THEIR WIVES WHICH WAS RECEIVED IN CASH FROM LOCAL MONEY CHANGER . HOWEVER AS PER BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF MS. SARABJIT KAUR DAUGHT ER IN LAW PLACED ON RECORD IT SHOWS THAT VERY MEAGER AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AND THE SAME WERE INSUFFICIENT TO SOURCE HIS PURCHASE. FUR THER NO OTHER ITRS OR BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT OR J-FORM ETC. WERE PRODUCED WHICH COULD SATISFACTORILY PROVE HIS CREDIT WORTHINESS. 2.5 THUS FROM THE COMPLIANCE OF SUMMONS ISSUE AND THE STATEMENT RECORDED IT IS REVEALED THAT THOUGH THE IDENTITY A ND GENUINENESS OF CREDITOR HAS BEEN PROVED BUT HIS CREDIT-WORTHINESS IS HIGHLY DOUBTFUL IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITH THE PURCHASER TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT OF RS. 15.00 LAKHS . A COPY OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED IS ENCLOSED FOR YOUR KIND PERUSA L. 2.6 FURTHER EVEN THOUGH THE PURCHASER WAS NOT A RE SIDENT OF CHANDIGARH BUT STILL HE HAD NOT CHANGED HIS ADDRESS AND HE CONTINUED TO RESIDE AT THE SAME PLACE SINCE THAT AGREEMENT OF SA LE AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAD GIVEN SUFFICIENT TIME AND OPPORTUNITY T O THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE SUCH EVIDENCE/PERSON SO THERE IS NO SATISF ACTORY REASON WHICH PREVENTED ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THIS EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS . 2.7 KEEPING IN VIEW ABOVE FACTS AND PROVISIONS OF R ULE 46A IT IS REQUESTED THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE ADMITTED. 5. THE REMAND REPORT WAS GIVEN TO THE LD. COUNSEL O F THE ASSESSEE FOR HIS COMMENTS. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY WAY OF COMMENTS THAT SUMMONS WERE ISSUED TO 3 THE PROSPECTIVE BUYER AND HE APPEARED BEFORE THE AS SESSING OFFICER AND ADMITTED THAT HE HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AND PAID A SUM OF RS. 15.00 LAKHS IN CASH AS ADVANCE ON 10.4.2007. THE PROSPECTIVE BUYER HAD ALSO CONFIRMED THE CANCELLATI ON OF THE DEAL AND HAD ALSO EXPLAINED THE SOURCES OF FUNDS. IT WAS FURTHER SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HERSELF CONFIRMED THE FACT OF IDENTITY AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND THE ONLY OBJECTION RAISED BY HER IS REGARDING THE CREDIT WORTHINESS. SINCE ALL THE EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN PROD UCED THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE IN THE HA NDS OF THE PURCHASER. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) AGREED WITH THE SUBMISSIONS AND D ELETED THE ADDITION. 7. BEFORE US THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT FIRST OF ALL NO EVIDENCE REGARDING THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS FUR NISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHER WHEN THIS EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED B EFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE SAME WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REMAND R EPORT AND DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS PROSPECTIVE BUYER COULD NOT EXPL AIN THE SOURCE OF FUNDS SATISFACTORILY. FOR EXAMPLE IT WAS STATED THAT SOM E MONEY WAS BEING SENT AS REMITTANCE BY HIS SON. HOWEVER AS PER THE BANK ST ATEMENT OF MS. SARABJIT KAUR DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF THE PURCHASER ONLY MEAGER AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED. SIMILARLY THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE PURCHASER FOR SALE OF POPLAR TREES. THEREFORE IT IS CLEAR THAT SHRI BAKHTAWAR SINGH COULD NOT GIVE SUFFICIENT SOURCES OF FUNDS. THE ASSESSEE WAS DUTY BOUND TO E XPLAIN THE SOURCES IN THE HANDS OF THE BUYERS AND IN THIS REGARD SHE RELIED O N THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT V. BIJU PATNAIK 160 I TR 674 (S.C). 8. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT CORRECT THAT NOTHING WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER AND IN THIS REGARD HE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 12 TO 15 OF THE PA PER BOOK WHICH IS COPY OF LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE PART ICULARLY REFERRED TO PARA 5 IN WHICH IT IS CLEARLY STATED THAT LEDGER ACCOUNT OF T HE ADVANCE WAS ENCLOSED AND PROPERTY WAS A GODOWN AT ZIIRAKPUR (17 MARLAS). IT WAS CLEARLY STATED THAT THE SAME WAS SOLD TO SHRI BAKHTAWAR SINGH SON OF GURDAS RAM R/O 172 VILLAGE 4 KALWAN TEHSIL ANANDPUR SAHIB DISTT. ROPAR. IT WA S ALSO INFORMED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN TOUCH WITH THE PARTY AS THE AGR EEMENT TO SELL HAD BEEN CANCELLED AND THE SAME WAS RETAINED BY THE PROSPECT IVE BUYER. TIME OF FIVE DAYS WAS SOUGHT FOR COLLECTING CONFIRMATION ETC. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS FURTHER INFORMED THAT HE DESIRED VERIFICATION MAY B E MADE FROM THE PARTY THEREFORE WHATEVER INFORMATION WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE WAS DULY FURNISHED. IN ANY CASE WHEN THESE PARTICULARS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE SAME WERE SENT BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFF ICER FOR HIS REMAND. DURING REMAND SHRI BAKHTAWAR SINGH APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPONSE TO SUMMONS U/S 131 AND HIS STATEMENT WAS A LSO RECORDED. SHRI BAKHTAWAR SINGH CLEARLY ADMITTED THAT HE HAS AGREED TO ENTER INTO THE TRANSACTION FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AND GIVEN ADVA NCE OF RS. 15.00 LAKHS IN ADVANCE. HE ALSO EXPLAINED THE SOURCE BEFORE THE A SSESSING OFFICER AND IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLAN ATION REGARDING SOURCES IN THE HANDS OF THE BUYER THEN ACTION COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN AGAINST SUCH BUYER AND THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SADDLED WITH THE BURDEN TO PROVE THE SOURCES IN THE HANDS OF THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY. THE CA SE RELIED BY THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE IS CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE. 9 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULLY AND AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. FI RSTLY ALL DETAILS WERE FILED BY A LETTER COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 12 TO 15 O F THE PAPER BOOK. PARA 5 OF THE SAME READS AS UNDER:- THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED ADVANCE OF RS. 15.00 LAKHS TOWARDS THE SALE OF HIS PROPERTY. THE DEAL COULD NOT MATERIALIZE AND T HE ASSESSEE HAD TO REFUND THIS AMOUNT. COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF A DV ANCE IS ENCLOSED. THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS A GODWN AT ZIRAKPUR (1 7 MARLAS). IT WAS AGREED TO BE SOLD TO SHRI BAKHTAWAR SINGH SON OF SH RI GUDRAS RAM R/O H NO. 172 VILLAGE KALWAN TEHSIL ANANDPUR SAHIB DIS TT. ROPAR. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN DIRECT TOUCH WITH THAT PARTY AS THE AGREEMENT WAS CANCELLED AND ALL DOCUMENTS WERE RETAINED BY HI. F OR FILING OF CONFIRMATION FROM THAT PARTY FRESH OPPORTUNITY OF ABOUT 5 DAYS MAY BE ALLOWED. HOWEVER VERIFICATION FROM THAT PERSON MA Y BE MADE. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE DETAILS OF THE PROPERTY A ND PARTICULARS OF THE PROSPECTIVE BUYER WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND T HE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS REQUESTED TO GIVEN SOMETIME TO VERIFY THE FACTS FRO M SHRI BAKHTAWAR SINGH. IN 5 ANY CASE WHEN THESE PARTICULARS WERE FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) HE CORRECTLY SENT THE SAME FOR REMAND PROCEEDINGS TO THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD OBSERVED THAT PARTICULARS HAD NOT BEEN FILED. DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS IN RESPONSE SUMMONS U/S 131 SH RI BAKHTAWAR SINGH DULY APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ADMITTED THAT HE HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE PURCHASER OF THE GODOWN WITH THE ASSESSEE AND PAID CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 15.00 LAKHS AS ADVANCE. HE HAD AL SO EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF ADVANCE. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE MAINLY BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE SOURCES OF THE BUYER BEC AUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CLEARLY STATED IN THE REMAND REPORT AT PARA 2.5 THAT SHE WAS SATISFIED WITH THE IDENTITY AND GENUINENESS OF THE CREDIT HAS BEEN PROVED. IF THE SOURCES WERE NOT CORRECTLY EXPLAINED THEN AT THE BEST ACTION COU LD HAVE BEEN TAKEN AGAINST THE PURCHASER FOR UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. THE CASE LAW CITED BY THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE IS TOTALLY DISTINGUISHABLE BECAUSE IN T HAT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED CERTAIN INTEREST ON LOAN TAKEN FROM KALINGA FOUNDATION TRUST. THE TRUST HAD ALSO INVESTED IN THE SHARES OF KALINGA TU BES LTD. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GIVEN SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION REGARDING THE PERSON WHO HAD DONATED THE MONEY TO THE TRUST IT WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE MONEY BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE ONLY. FROM THE FACTS IT I S CLEAR THAT THE TRUST WAS ALSO BEING CONTROLLED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY. THE ADDITIO N WAS DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL. ON APPEAL BY THE REVENUE THE HON'BLE SUP REME COURT HELD AS UNDER:- THAT THE TWO BASIC QUESTIONS WERE WHETHER THE DONA TIONS COLLECTED BY THE TRUST WERE GENUINE AND WHETHER THE DEPARTMENT C OULD RELY UPON THE LARGE AMOUNT OF MATERIAL COLLECTED BY THE DEPARTMEN T SUBSEQUENT TO THE DECISION OF THE SC ION JAINS CASE. THE IDENTITY A ND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONORS HAD NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED AND THE LARGE A MOUNTS RECEIVED AS DONATIONS BY THE TRUST WERE FOR OVER A DECADE LYING AS CASH WITHOUT BEING INVESTED ANYWHERE. THE QUESTION WHETHER THE MONEYS WERE RAISED BY THE TRUST AS DONATIONS FROM VARIOUS PEOPLE OR NO T WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS PROPER PERSPECTIVE. IN NOT APPRECIATING THE BASIC QUESTION OR DISCUSSION THE EVIDENCE IN RESPECT THER EOF THERE WAS NON- CONSIDERATION OF A RELEVANT FACTOR ON A FACTUAL ASP ECT AND THE QUESTION WHETHER THE TRIBUNALS DECISION WAS PERVERSE IN THE SENSE THAT NO MAN INSTRUCTED PROPERLY IN LAW COULD HAVE ACTED AS THE TRIBUNAL DID AND WHETHER THERE WAS IGNORING OF MATERIAL AND RELEVAN T FACTS IN CONSIDERING THIS ASPECT AROSE OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. IGNORING THE POINT AS TO 6 WHO MADE THE DONATIONS AND WHAT WAS THEIR CAPACITY TO MAKE THE DONATIONS WHICH WAS A VITAL FACT GAVE RISE TO THE QUESTION OF LAW. 10 FROM ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT LOT OF MATERIAL WAS GATHERED BY THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT THE TRUST WAS NOT GENUINE AND THE CASH WAS KEPT WITH MAHARAJA OF SONEPUR FOR ABOUT A DECADE WITHOUT INTEREST WHICH W AS NOT FOUND TO BE PLAUSIBLE. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS CASE IS TOTA LLY DISTINGUISHABLE. THE THEORY OF CASTING OF BURDEN TO PROVE THE SOURCES OF SOURCE MA Y NOT BE APPLICABLE IN CASE OF CASH CREDITOR WHERE IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT CREDITO R HAS DEPOSITED THE CASH IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND GIVEN LOAN TO A PARTICULAR PER SON BECAUSE IT CAN BE ARGUED THAT SUCH PERSON MAY HAVE GIVEN THE CASH BUT THIS THEORY CANNOT BE APPLIED IN CASE OF SALE PURCHASE TRANSACTION OF THE PROPERTY BECAUSE NO PERSON WOULD GIVE THE MONEY TO OTHER PERSON TO SHOW THE SA ME AS BEING RECEIVED BACK AS ADVANCE PARTICULARLY AFTER THE EXECUTION OF AGRE EMENT TO SELL. IN CASE BEFORE US AN AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS DULY EXECUTED WHICH WA S PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). FURTHER SHRI BAKHTAWAR SINGH DID APPEAR BE FORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND ADMITTED TO HAVE ENTE RED THE TRANSACTION FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AND ALSO THE FACT OF GIVING AD VANCE TO THE ASSESSEE. ALL THESE FACTS WERE FURNISHED EVEN BEFORE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THIS IS AN AFTER-THOUGHT BECAUS E THE SAME PARTICULARS WHICH WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE F URNISHED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AT BEST THE REVENUE COULD HAVE TAKEN SOME ACTION IF THE SOURCES HAVE NOT BEEN EXPLAINED BY TH E BUYER SATISFACTORILY AGAINST SUCH BUYER. IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALREADY OBSERVED IN PARA 3.5.1 AS UNDER:- THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED WERE INQUIRED INTO B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND STATEMENT OF SHRI BAKHTAWAR SINGH WAS RECORDED U/S 131 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SHRI BAKHTAWAR SINGH PRODUCED T HE ORIGINAL OF AGREEMENT TO SELL ENTERED WITH THE APPELLANT AND CONFIRMED THAT AGREEMENT WAS CANCELLED DUE TO SHORTAGE OF FUNDS AT HIS END. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED SHRI BAKHTAWAR SINGH ABOUT THE SOURCE OF MONEY OF RS. 15.00 LAKHS TO WHICH HE HAD REPLIED TH AT THE AMOUNT WAS OUT OF SALE OF POPLAR TREES RECEIVED IN CASH PREVI OUS SAVINGS AND THE MONEY RECEIVED FROM HIS SONS THROUGH MONEY EXCHANGE R. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF SHRI BAKHTAWAR SINGH WAS HIGHLY DOUBTFUL BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT HE HAS N OT DENIED THAT HE HAD NOT ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT WITH THE APPELLANT FOR P URCHASE OF A GODOWN FOR WHICH HE HAD PAID RS. 15.00 LAKHS AND FURTHER CREDITWORTHINESS IS 7 VERY SUBJECTIVE ISSUE. THE AGREEMENT TO SELL DOC UMENT IS NOT DOUBTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SO THE SAME IS TO BE T AKEN AS GENUINE. NOW IF SHRI BAKHTAWAR SINGH IS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF RS. 15.00 LAKHS THE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE IN THE CAS E OF THE APPELLANT AS THE SOURCE OF RS. 15.00 LAKHS IN THE HANDS OF THE A PPELLANT STANDS EXPLAINED. THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF RS. 15.00 LA KH IS DELETED. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 IS ALLOWED. HOWEVER THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO PASS ON THE INFORMATION TO THE CONCERNE D ASSESSING OFFICER FOR TAKING APPROPRIATE ACTION IN THE CASE O F SHRI BAKHTAWAR SINGH TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT OF RS. 15 .00 LAKHS. 11. THUS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TAKEN A CAUTION BY GIV ING A DIRECTION TO PASS THIS INFORMATION TO THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR TAKING APPROPRIATE ACTION IN THE CASE OF SHRI BAKHTAWAR SINGH. THUS THE LD. CIT (A) HAS VERY CORRECTLY DECIDED THE ISSUE AFTER TAKING ALL PRECAUTIONS AND WE FIND NOTHING WRONG WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS CONFIR MED. 12 IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 30.07. 2012 SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 30 .07.2012 SURESH COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT/THE C IT(A)/ THE DR 8