Sh. Ami Lal Yadav, Gurgaon v. ITO, Rewari

ITA 1896/DEL/2016 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2016 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 189620114 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN AIYPL0940Q
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 1896/DEL/2016
Duration Of Justice 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant Sh. Ami Lal Yadav, Gurgaon
Respondent ITO, Rewari
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 27-09-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC 1
Tribunal Order Date 27-09-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 26-09-2016
Next Hearing Date 26-09-2016
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 08-04-2016
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : SMC-I : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1896/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 AMI LAL YADAV C/O MAHAVIR SINGH ADVOCATE 1078 SECTOR-15 PART II GURGAON. PAN: AIYPL0940Q VS. ITO WARD-1 REWARI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI RAJESH KUMAR SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 26.09.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.09.2016 ORDER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 10.12.2015 IN RELATION TO THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 43 DAYS. THE AS SESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. I AM SATISFI ED WITH THE REASONS GIVEN ITA NO.1896/DEL/2016 2 IN SUCH APPLICATION. ACCORDINGLY THE DELAY IS CON DONED AND THE APPEAL IS ADMITTED FOR DISPOSAL ON MERITS. 3. THE MAJOR ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAI NST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.32 40 000/-. BRIEFLY STATED THE FAC TS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO GOT AIR INFORMATION ABOUT THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITIN G CASH OF RS.33 51 000/- (RS.3 51 000/- ON 4.9.2006 AND RS.30 LAC ON 23.11.2006) IN HIS SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT WITH CORPORATION BANK REWARI. ON BEING CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF SUCH DEPOSIT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CASH WAS REALIZED AS SALE CONSIDERATION FR OM THE TRANSFER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BY HIS WIFE WHICH AMOUNT WAS DEP OSITED IN THE JOINT BANK ACCOUNT. A PHOTO COPY OF THE AGREEMENT OF SAL E OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS ALSO SUBMITTED. ON PERUSAL OF THE AGREEMENT T HE AO OBSERVED THAT THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE SMT. RAMGIRI ALONG WITH H ER SISTER SMT. RAM KALAN ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH ONE SHRI KANWA R SINGH FOR SELLING THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE AO SOUGHT INFORMATION U /S 133(6) FROM THE JOINT SUB-REGISTRAR REWARI WHICH DIVULGED THE SAL E CONSIDERATION AT RS.24 22 000/-. THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED HER SHARE BY CHEQUE AMOUNTING TO RS.1 LAC AND RS.10 LAC AND THE REMAINI NG AMOUNT OF ITA NO.1896/DEL/2016 3 RS.1 11 000/- WAS RECEIVED IN CASH. THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS SETTLED AT RS.92.03 LAC WHICH AMO UNT WAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED BUT FOR THE PURPOSES OF SALE DEED THE S ALE CONSIDERATION WAS GOT RECORDED BY THE BUYER AT RS.24.22 LAC WHO WAS TO B EAR THE COST OF REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED. A REQUEST WAS MADE TO T HE AO FOR VERIFYING THIS FACT FROM THE BUYER. NOT CONVINCED THE AO MAD E ADDITION OF RS.32.40 LAC (RS.33.51 LAC RS.1.11 LAC). THE ADD ITION CAME TO BE CONFIRMED IN THE FIRST APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGR IEVED AGAINST THIS ADDITION. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED T HE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ONLY ISSUE WHICH FALLS FOR MY CONSI DERATION IS TO DECIDE THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT OF RS.32.40 LAC IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT. WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THIS CASH WAS RECEIVED ON THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND THE REVENUE HAS REFUSED TO ACCEPT THIS CONTEN TION ON THE GROUND THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECORDED IN THE SALE DEED DO ES NOT JUSTIFY THE DEPOSIT OF THIS AMOUNT. PAGE NO.10 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS A COPY OF RECEIPT OF RS.1 LAC DULY SIGNED BY SHRI KANWAR SINGH THE BUYER. T HIS RECEIPT DATED 31.8.2006 WAS ISSUED ON RECEIVING RS.1 LAC AS ADVAN CE. THIS CLEARLY ITA NO.1896/DEL/2016 4 MENTIONS THE RATE OF RS.19 LAC PER ACRE. IT HAS BEE N DULY SIGNED BY THE BUYER SHRI KANWAR SINGH. PAGE 7 ONWARDS IS A COPY O F AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 4.9.2006 IN WHICH AGAIN THE RATE HAS BEEN M ENTIONED AT RS.19 LAC PER ACRE. THIS AGREEMENT TO SELL ALSO REFERS TO PA YMENT OF RS.1 LAC TO THE ASSESSEE ON 31.8.2006. THIS AGREEMENT IS ALBEIT SI GNED BY THE SELLERS AND WITNESSES BUT IS ADMITTEDLY NOT SIGNED BY THE BUY ER SHRI KANWAR SINGH. PAGE NO.1 ONWARDS IS A COPY OF REGISTERED SALE DEED IN WHICH SALE CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN MENTIONED AT 24.22 LAC. THI S SHOWS THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS SETTLED WITH A SALE RATE OF RS.19.0 0 LAC PER ACRE WHICH GIVES THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS. 92.03 LAC. NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE SALE DEED WAS GOT REGIST ERED WITH A LOWER AMOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION. THIS FACT IS FURTHER BORNE OUT FROM A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT WHOSE COPY IS AVAIL ABLE ON PAGE 11 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THIS SHOWS THAT A SUM OF RS.3 50 000/- WAS DEPOSITED IN CASH ON THE SAME DAY ALONG WITH THE CHEQUE OF RS.1 LAC O N 4.9.2006 WHICH GOT ENCASHED FOR A SUM OF RS.99 682/-. SIMILARLY ON 23 .11.2006 THERE IS DEPOSIT OF CHEQUE OF RS.10 LAC AND ON THE SAME DATE THERE IS A DEPOSIT OF TOTAL CASH OF RS.30 LAC WHICH ALSO INCLUDES THE DE CLARED SALE CONSIDERATION ITA NO.1896/DEL/2016 5 IN CASH AT RS.1 11000. THESE TWO AMOUNTS VIZ. RS .3 50 000/- ON 4.9.2006 AND RS.30 LAC ON 23.11.2006 ARE CLAIMED T O BE THE SUMS RECEIVED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SHRI KANWAR S INGH ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF PROPERTY FOR A SUM OF RS.92.03 LAC. THE SA LE CONSIDERATION OF RS.92.03 LAC ADMITTEDLY COMES OUT BY APPLYING THE RATE OF RS.19 LAC PER ACRE WHICH HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE RECEIPT DATED 31.8.2006 DULY SIGNED BY THE BUYER SHRI KANWAR SINGH. THE ASSESSEE REQUE STED THE AO TO ISSUE SUMMONS TO THE BUYER AND EXAMINE HIS CLAIM OF HAVIN G RECEIVED RS.33.50 LAC IN CASH. THE AO DID ISSUE SUMMONS. SINCE NONE ATTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE PURCHASER THE AO GAVE BURIAL TO THE ASSESSE ES REQUEST AND DID NOT PROCEED FURTHER TO ENFORCE THE ATTENDANCE OF SHRI K ANWAR SINGH. WHEN I CONSIDER THE FACTS AND ALL THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMST ANCES THERE REMAINS NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER THAT THE PROPERTY WAS IN FACT SO LD FOR A SUM OF RS.92.03 LAC BUT THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED FOR A LOWER AM OUNT OF RS.24.22 LAC. THE ASSESSEES BANK STATEMENT VALIDATES HIS CLAIM O F HAVING RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.33.50 LAC IN CASH ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF P ROPERTY WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ON THE RESPECTIVE DATES OF RE CEIPT ONLY ALONGSIDE THE DEPOSIT OF CHEQUES. THIS IS FURTHER SUBSTANTIATED F ROM THE FACT THAT THE BANK ITA NO.1896/DEL/2016 6 ACCOUNT WAS OPENED ON 4.9.2006 ITSELF WITH A DEPOSI T OF RS.1 000/- AND ON THE SAME DATE CASH OF RS.3 50 000/- WAS DEPOSITED ALONG WITH A CHEQUE OF RS.1 LAC. APART FROM THESE TWO CASH DEPOSITS TOTALI NG RS.33.50 LAC THERE IS HARDLY ANY OTHER ENTRY OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THESE FACTS ABUNDANTLY EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSEES WIFE IN FA CT RECEIVED RS.33.50 LAC FROM THE SALE OF HER AGRICULTURAL LAND IN CASH WHICH WAS NOT DECLARED BY THE BUYER FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. WHEN THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE CONTENTION BEFORE THE AO FOR EXAMINING THE BUYER SHRI KANWAR SINGH IT BECAME INCUMBENT UPON THE AO TO ENFORCE HIS ATTENDANCE AND SATISFY HIMSELF AS REGARDS THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION. NOTHING OF THIS SORT WAS DONE BY THE AO WHO CHOSE AN EASY WAY OF MAKING ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AN AGRICULTURIST. 5. ON A SPECIFIC QUERY ABOUT THE DECLARATION OF SALE CONSIDERATION ON TRANSFER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY SOLD WAS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH DID NOT RESULT INTO ANY CAPITAL GAIN CHARGEABLE TO TAX. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THE NATURE OF CAPITAL ASSET TRANSFERRED BEING AN AGRIC ULTURAL LAND. THIS IS ITA NO.1896/DEL/2016 7 MANIFEST FROM THE FACT THAT HE DID NOT COMPUTE ANY CAPITAL GAIN FROM THE TRANSFER OF THIS PROPERTY BUT SIMPLY MADE AN ADDI TION OF RS.32.40 LAC BEING THE UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCES. IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES I AM SATISFIED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION WHICH IS HERE BY DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 6. THOUGH THERE IS ANOTHER GROUND AGAINST THE CHARG EABILITY OF RS.75 000/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS AN AGRICULTUR AL INCOME BUT NO ARGUMENT WAS ADVANCED IN SUPPORT OF THIS GROUND. I THEREFORE SUSTAIN THIS ADDITION. THIS GROUND FAILS. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWE D. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.09.20 16. SD/- [R.S. SYAL] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED SEPTEMBER 2016. DK ITA NO.1896/DEL/2016 8 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR ITAT AR ITAT NEW DELHI.