Naresh Sharma, Pehowa v. ITO, W-2, Kurukshetra

ITA 199/CHANDI/2019 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 04-05-2021 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 19921514 RSA 2019
Assessee PAN BLZPS7706Q
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 199/CHANDI/2019
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
Appellant Naresh Sharma, Pehowa
Respondent ITO, W-2, Kurukshetra
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 04-05-2021
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 04-05-2021
Date Of Final Hearing 04-03-2021
Next Hearing Date 04-03-2021
Last Hearing Date 01-12-2020
First Hearing Date 12-10-2020
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 25-02-2019
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHSMC CHANDIGARH !' # BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH JM !./ ITA NO. 199/CHD/2019 #& ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SHRINARESH SHARMA GARGGARG& ASSOCIATES KOTHI NO. 35 FIRST FLOOR SECTOR 7 KURUKSHETRA/ )& VS THE AO WARD-2 KURUKSHETRA. * + ! ./ PAN NO:BLZPS7706Q *- / APPELLANT ./*- / RESPONDENT #& '0 1 2 +/ ASSESSEE BY : NONE (ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION OF SHRIASHWANI KUMAR C.A. ) 3 1 2 +/ REVENUE BY : SHRI ASHOK KHANNA ADDL. CIT 4 &5 1 / DATE OF HEARING : 04.03.2021 678( 1 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.05.2021 HEARING CONDUCTED VIA WEBEX / ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 16.01.2019 OF CI T(A) KARNAL PERTAINING TO 2010-11 ASSESSMENT YEARIS ASSAILED ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. IN THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE WOR THY CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING AND APPRECIATING THE AMENDED GRO UNDS OF APPEAL. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE WORTH Y CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING AND APPRECIATING THE NEW F ACTS WHICH COULD NOT BE PLACED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT DUE TO REASONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF APPELLANT. ITA-199/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 2 OF 15 3. THAT ON THE AMENDED FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANC ES ALL THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK CAN NOT BE TAKEN AS INCOME BUT AT BEST BE TAKEN AS SALES OR TURNOVER ONLY. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD DELETE OR MOD IFY ANY OR ALL GROUNDS OF APPEAL 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATI ON HAS BEEN MOVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN NO REA SONS FOR SEEKING ADJOURNMENT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN. THE STATED REASON READ AS UNDER: DEAR SIRS WITH REFERENCE TO ABOVE THE BENCH IS REQUESTED TO KINDLY ADJOURN THE HEARING IN THE CASE. THANKS AND REGARDS. 3. HOWEVER ON CONSIDERING THE ABOVE MENTIONED GROU NDS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FACTS ON RECORD AFTER HEARING LD . SR.DR IT WAS DEEMED APPROPRIATE TO PROCEED WITH THE PRESENT APPEAL EX- PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT ON MERITS. 4. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT AN ADDIT ION OF RS. 40 LACS WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON AC COUNT OF DEPOSITS FOUND MADE IN THE ASSESSEE'S BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SAME AS BEING SOURCED FROM S ALE OF LAND MEASURING 11.28 MARLA (MURABA NO. 51 KILA NO. 4/1/1 KHEWAT N O. 246 277)SOLD TO SHRI MEHAR SINGH S/O SHRI BABU RAM OF PEHOWA WHO WAS THE PURCHASER. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER READS AS UNDER: ITA-199/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 3 OF 15 2.CASH OF RS 40.00.000/- WAS DEPOSITED IN HIS BA NK ACCOUNT OUT OF SALE OF PROPERTY TO SH MEHAR CHAND S/O SH BA BU RAM PEHOWA DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 RELEVANT T O ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. FROM THE PERUSAL OF LKRARNAMA DATED 0 2.06 2010 IT IS NOTICED THAT AGREEMENT WAS MADE BETWEEN MOTHER OF T HE ASSESSEE. SMT KRISHNA DEVI W/O SH RAMESH KUMAR R O PEHOW AND SHRI MEHAR CHAND S'OSHBABU RAM. PEHOWAON 02 06.2010 TO SELL LA ND MEASURING 11.28 MARLA (MURABA NO. 51 KILA NO. 4/1/ 1 KHEWAT NO. 246 277) FOR RS 40 00 000/- AND THE WHOLE AMOUNT O F RS 40 00 000/- HAS BEEN RECEIVED IN CASH. 4.1 HOWEVER THE PURCHASER AS PER RECORD DENIED HAV ING PAID BIYANA IN TERMS OF IKRARNAMA TO THE ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENT GIVEN TO THE AO. IN VIEW OF THIS STATEME NT ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE ISSUE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND ALSO ADVANCED AN ALTERNATE ARGUMENT NAMELY THAT THE DEPOSITS MADE WERE FROM HIS KNOWN SOURCES OF BUSINE SS. THE SAID SUBMISSION WAS DISMISSED HOLDING THAT THE CLAI M COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE EXPLAINED BY FILING OF A MERE AFF IDAVIT. 6. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE THE ITAT. 7. THE LD. SR.DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AU THORITIES. 8. I FIND ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE TWO RES PECTIVE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES THAT THE TAX AUTHORITIES ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES AND EXPLANATIONS OFFERED AS IRRELEVANT THE ORDERS ARE UNTENABLE. ACCORDINGLY THE DECISION ON MERITS CONSEQUENTLY ALSO CANNOT BE UPHELD AS THE ITA-199/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 4 OF 15 REASONING PROCESS AND CONCLUSION AGAINST THE SETTL ED LEGAL PRINCIPLES ARE UNTENABLE IN LAW. 9. ON THE FIRST AND BASIC ISSUE THE RELIANCE FOR T HE PRIMARY EXPLANATION OFFERED HAS BEEN PLACED ON IKRARNAMA I.E. THE AGREEMENT TO SELL AND THAT THESE CASH DEPOSITS WERE EXPLAINABLE FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS ARISING FROM SAL E OF THIS LAND. THE SAID DOCUMENT ADMITTEDLY IS A WRITTEN DO CUMENT ALLEGEDLY SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEES MOTHER AND THE A LLEGED PURCHASER SHRI MEHAR CHAND. HOWEVER I NOTICE NO FI NDING IS GIVEN BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES ON THE RELEVANT ASPECT S NAMELY: WAS THE ASSESSEE/HIS MOTHER OWNER AT THE RELEVANT P OINT OF TIME OF THAT LAND; SECONDLY WAS IT ULTIMATELY SOLD TO THE CONCERNED SIGNATORY OR ANY OTHER PERSON AT THE RELE VANT POINT OF TIME OR THEREAFTER; AND IF YES AT WHAT PRICE. THESE ISSUES IN THE FACE OF THE ALLEGED DENIAL BY ONE OF THE SIGNAT ORIES ARE CRUCIAL AND RELEVANT FACTS ON WHICH FINDINGS NEED T O BE GIVEN. WHEN A DOCUMENT DULY RELIED UPON BY ONE OF THE PART IES IS ALLEGEDLY SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES THE FACT THAT IT IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT WHICH HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE AS AN EVIDEN CE CANNOT BE WHIMSICALLY DISCARDED. THE ORDER IS SILEN T ON THE ASPECT WHETHER ULTIMATELY PURSUANT TO THIS IKRARNAM A/ AGREEMENT TO SELL ANY SALE DEED WAS FINALLY EXECUTE D IN RESPECT OF THE SAID LAND BETWEEN THE PARTIES OR NOT. I AGRE E THAT THE PREVALENT PRACTICE OF UNDER-REPORTING OF SALE PRICE GENERALLY BY ITA-199/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 5 OF 15 THE PURCHASER TO REDUCE THE STAMP DUTY COSTS ETC. ARE REALITIES WHICH CANNOT BE OVERLOOKED AND ALSO CAN NEITHER BE IGNORED BY THE TRIBUNAL AS THE FINAL FACT FINDING AUTHORITY. T HE PURCHASERS HAVE BEEN SEEN TO BE AVOIDING THE NEED TO EXPLAIN T HE AVAILABILITY OF MONEYS SPENT TO MAKE THE PURCHASES AND HAVE BEEN NOTICED TO UNDER- REPORT THE PURCHASE PRICE. N O DOUBT THERE MAY BE TIMES WHERE THE SELLERS MAY ALSO HELP THE PURCHASERS INNOCENTLY OR KNOWINGLY TO HOODWINK TH E AUTHORITIES. IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT THESE COND EMNABLE EFFORTS WHENEVER IN CONNIVANCE OR UNILATERALLY IN V IOLATION OF THE LAWS OF LAND ARE TO BE STRICTLY RESTRAINED AND PENALIZED. THE FACT THAT THE DIRECT BENEFICIARY OF SUCH UNDER REPORTING ETC. GENERALLY ARE THE PURCHASERS CANNOT BE DISPUTED. TH E MOTIVE TO REDUCE STAMP DUTY COSTS AND UTILIZE FUNDS ON WHICH INCOME TAX HAS NOT BEEN PAID CANNOT BE BRUSHED UNDER THE CARPE T TO THE PREJUDICE OF IGNORANT AGRICULTURIST LAND OWNER SELL ING THEIR FARM LANDS AND RECEIVING CASH PAYMENTS FOR SUCH SALE. TH ESE ARE LARGELY NON-TAXABLE EVENTS FOR THE AGRICULTURISTS. THESE OBSERVATIONS OF PREVALENT PRACTICES IS NOT A JUSTIF ICATION FOR CONDONING SUCH INSUPPORTABLE ACTIONS AS IT GOES WIT HOUT SAYING THAT SUCH ACTS OF UNDER-REPORTING BY EITHER THE PUR CHASER OR THE SELLER ARE UNACCEPTABLE IN LAW. THE PRACTICES H AVE BEEN NOTED ONLY TO ADDRESS THE EVIDENCE APPLYING THE TES T OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES AND PREVALENT PRACTICES NOTICED JUDIC IALLY. IT IS ITA-199/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 6 OF 15 NOT NECESSARY IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS TO REFER T O THE MULTIPLE ATTEMPTS MADE BY VARIOUS CENTRAL AND STATE AUTHORITIES THE LEGISLATURE AND THE JUDICIARY TO A DDRESS THESE MALPRACTICES. HOWEVER THE TRUTH OF THESE FACTUAL S CENARIOS CANNOT BE IGNORED ESPECIALLY WHERE ONE PARTY SEEKS TO DENY THE DOCUMENT SIGNED BY IT. IN SUCH AN EVENTUALITY IN OR DER TO ADDRESS THE MALPRACTICE THE EVIL HAS TO BE NIPPED IN THE BUD AND THE EXERCISE HAS TO BE CARRIED TO THE LOGICAL C ONCLUSION. 9.1 IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE RIGOURS OF THE RULE S OF EVIDENCE CONTAINED IN THE EVIDENCE ACT ARE NOT GENERALLY APP LICABLE BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE TAXING AUTHORITIES ARE PREVENTED FROM INVOKING THE PRINCIPLES OF THE ACT IN THE PROC EEDINGS BEFORE THEM AS HAS BEEN LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SU PREME COURT IN CHAHARMAL V CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250 SC UPH OLDING THE APPROACH THE APEX COURT NOTED AS UNDER: THE COURT OF BOMBAY HELD THAT WHAT WAS MEANT BY SA YING THAT THE EVIDENCE ACT DID NOT APPLY TO PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT WAS THAT THE RIGOUR OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE CO NTAINED IN THE EVIDENCE ACT WAS NOT APPLICABLE BUT THAT DID NO T MEAN THAT WHEN THE TAXING AUTHORITIES WERE DESIROUS OF INVOKI NG THE PRINCIPLES OF THE ACT IN PROCEEDING BEFORE THEM TH EY WERE PREVENTED FROM DOING SO. SECONDLY ALL THAT SECTION 110 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT DOES IS THAT IT EMBODIES A SALUTARY PR INCIPLE OF COMMON LAW JURISPRUDENCE WHICH COULD BE ATTRACTED T O A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT SATISFY ITS CONDITIONS. 9.2 IT IS NOT OUT OF PLACE TO BRIEFLY REFER AT THIS STAGE TO CHAPTER VI OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT WHICH ADDRESS ES BOTH THE ISSUES OF ORAL EVIDENCE AS WELL AS DOCUMEN TARY ITA-199/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 7 OF 15 EVIDENCE. THE CHAPTER BEGINS WITH SECTION 91. SECTI ON 91 DEALS WITH THE EXCLUSION OF ORAL EVIDENCE BY DOCUME NTARY EVIDENCE. THE SECTION CONTAINS TWO EXCEPTIONS TWO EXPLANATIONS AND FIVE ILLUSTRATIONS IT IS SEEN THA T IN ORDER TO AVAIL OF THE SHELTER OF THIS SECTION IT IS NECE SSARY THAT THE DOCUMENT BE PRODUCED SO AS TO PROVE ITS CONTENT S. IT MAY BE CONSIDERED THAT THE SAID SECTION ENUNCIATES THAT THE ADMISSION OF ORAL EVIDENCE BE EXCLUDED FOR PROV ING THE CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENT DULY SIGNED AND EXCLUDED B Y THE TWO PARTIES EXCEPT IN CASES WHERE SECONDARY EVIDENC E IS ALLOWED. THIS PRINCIPLE AS I UNDERSTAND IS BASED ON THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE . THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE DOES NOT DEMAND THE GREATEST AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE WHICH CAN POSSIBLY BE GIVEN OF ANY FACT BUT ITS AIM AND PURP OSE IS TO PREVENT THE INTRODUCTION OF ANY EVIDENCE OTHER THAN THE DOCUMENT ITSELF DULY SIGNED BY THE TWO CONSENTING P ARTIES. THE RULE IS THERE ON THE STATUTE FOR THE PREVENTION OF FRAUD OR WHEN BETTER EVIDENCE AVAILABLE WITH A PARTY IS W ITHHELD. IN SUCH A BACKGROUND IT CAN BE FAIR TO PRESUME THAT THE PARTY HAS SOME SINISTER MOTIVE FOR NOT PRODUCING TH E BEST EVIDENCE WHICH IF OFFERED HIS DESIGN WOULD BE FRUST RATED. HEREIN THE REDUCTION OF STAMP DUTY PAID OR CONSEQUE NCES FOR THE PURCHASER UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT ARE VALI D AREAS OF CONCERN. IT NEED BE CLARIFIED THAT SECTION 91 AL ONGWITH ITA-199/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 8 OF 15 THE ADDENDUM SECTIONS OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT RE FERRED TO LAYS DOWN THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE BUT IT DOES NOT PROHIBIT ANY OTHER EVIDENCE WHERE WRITING IS CAPABLE OF BEIN G CONSTRUED DIFFERENTLY AND WHICH MAY SHOW HOW THE PA RTIES UNDERSTOOD THE DOCUMENT. 9.3 HERE IT NEEDS TO BE ALSO BORNE IN MIND THAT A WRITTEN DOCUMENT DULY SIGNED BY BOTH THE PARTIES HAS A CERT AIN SANCTITY AS PARTIES HAVING TAKEN CARE TO PUT IN WRI TING THEIR INTENTION AT A POINT OF TIME INTENDED TO ABIDE BY T HE AGREED UPON TERMS THEREIN. THUS IF A PARTY PLEADS THAT I T HAS ACTED IN PURSUANCE TO THE SAID AGREEMENT THEN THE PARTY WHICH SEEKS TO DISCARD THE SAME NECESSARILY NEEDS TO DENY HIS SIGNATURES ON THE DOCUMENT AND ON SUCH DENIAL BEING FOUND TO BE UNTRUE UPON FORENSIC EXAMINATION MAY NEED TO INF ORMED OF THE PERILS OF BEING PROSECUTED FOR PERJURY. IN SUCH AN EVENTUALITY THE CORRECTNESS OF THE COUNTER CLAIMS NECESSITATES THAT THE DOCUMENT AND SIGNATURES HAVE TO BE PUT TO FORENSIC EXAMINATION AND ENQUIRY BEFORE IT CAN BE DISCARDED. IN CASE THE SIGNATURES ARE NOT DENIED AND THE DIFFERENT PLE AS ARE TAKEN INCLUDING MODIFICATION THEREAFTER THEN MERE ORAL ASSERTIONS OF DENIAL AND REDUCTION OF SALE PRICE MAY NOT BE ACCE PTABLE KEEPING IN VIEW THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES TH AT INVARIABLY NO SELLER WOULD BE WILLING TO REDUCE THE SALE CONSI DERATION ALREADY SETTLED UNLESS OF COURSE SOME CHANGED FACT S OR ITA-199/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 9 OF 15 CIRCUMSTANCES ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD AND FOUND TO BE RECORDED IN THE SALE DEED AND ALSO SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCE S WHICH TAXING AUTHORITIES ARE ENTITLED TO LOOK INTO IN ORD ER TO FIND OUT THE REALITY OF THE RECITALS IN ANY DOCUMENT. THE RE ASONING FOR THIS CAN BE UNDERSTOOD BY THE SANCTITY GIVEN TO THE WRITTEN WORDS AND SIGNED DOCUMENTS. IT NEEDS TO BE UNDERSTO OD THAT THE VERY OBJECT FOR WHICH THE TERMS WERE REDUCED IN WRITING WOULD PRESUPPOSE THE NEED TO PERPETUATE THE MEMORY OF WHAT IS WRITTEN DOWN. THE DOCUMENT DULY SIGNED IS NECESSARILY WITH THE INTENT TO FURNISH PERMANENT PR OOF OF IT IN THE EVENTUALITY SUCH A NEED ARISES WHICH IS WHY IN ORDER TO GIVE EFFECT TO THIS THE DOCUMENT ITSELF IT IS S EEN IS REQUIRED TO BE PRODUCED. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESEN T CASE THE DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PRODUCED AND HENCE IN VIEW O F BASIC PRINCIPLES SET OUT IN SECTION 61 READ WITH SE CTIONS 91 AND 92 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT CASUAL UNSUPPORTED ORAL EVIDENCE STANDS EXCLUDED. FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONTRADICTING VARYING ADDING TO OR SUBTRACTING F ROM THE TERMS OF THE WRITTEN DOCUMENT OR CONTRACT AND PRIMA RY EVIDENCE SOME UNIMPEACHABLE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE NE EDS TO BE BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE IKRARNAMA/ AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS SUBSEQUENTLY ALTERED AND THE ALTERATION WAS MUTUAL AND NOT UNILATERAL. ITA-199/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 10 OF 15 10. REVERTING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE IT IS SEEN THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS NOTICED EARLIER A LSO THE PRELIMINARY FACTS I.E. OWNERSHIP OF THE SPECIFIC LA ND WITH THE ASSESSEE/HIS MOTHER; SUBSEQUENT SALE THEREOF IF ANY AND IF YES AT WHAT PRICE HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED. 11. ADDRESSING THE ALTERNATE EXPLANATION FILED AT THE APPELLATE STAGE BY WAY OF AN AFFIDAVIT I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE EXPLANATION CANNOT BE OUT RIGHTLY DISCARDED. IT NEE DS TO BE BORNE IN MIND THAT SOME ASSESSEES LIKE THE PRESENT ASSESSEE ARE NOT NECESSARILY SEASONED TAX LITIGATORS. THE AS SESSEES EXPOSER TO THE NITTY-GRITTY OF TAX LITIGATION AND T HE AVAILABLE LEGAL EXPERTISE CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO BE AT PAR WIT H THE LEGAL AND TAX ADMINISTRATIVE TRAINING OF THE APPELLATE AU THORITY. THE EXPLANATION WHICH POSSIBLY COULD AND SHOULD HAVE BE EN GIVEN AT THE FIRST INSTANCE MANY A TIMES HAS BEEN SEEN TO COME AT THE APPELLATE STAGE. THUS EVEN IF THE EXPLANATION OFFE RED APPARENTLY OUT OF DESPERATION WAS AN ALTERNATE EXP LANATION BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT AS THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY HAD FA ILED TO GET RELIEF ON THE MAIN PLEA EVEN THEN IT IS NOT EXPECTE D FROM THE TAX AUTHORITIES TO ARBITRARILY REJECT IT WITHOUT ANY DI SCUSSION. IF THE REJECTION OF THE AFFIDAVIT HAS TO BE UPHELD THE N ITS REJECTION MUST BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NO LEGAL INFIRMITY IN THE AFFIDAVIT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES . I FIND THAT IN FACT THERE IS NO DISCUSSION ON THE CONTENTS OF T HE AFFIDAVIT ITA-199/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 11 OF 15 ITSELF. CONSEQUENTLY THE FINDING GIVEN THAT THE EVI DENCE WAS TO BE REJECTED CANNOT BE UPHELD IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISCUSSION AS THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CONCLUSION CANNOT BE ADJ UDICATED UPON. FOR ENABLING ADJUDICATION THERE HAS TO BE A DISCUSSION ON THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT FOLLOWED BY REASON S FOR THE CONCLUSION WHY IT IS TO BE ACCEPTED OR REJECTED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISCUSSION THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CONCLUSIO N CANNOT BE DETERMINED. NAMELY IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO GIVE A FIN DING THAT THE REJECTION WAS MAINTAINABLE IN LAW AS NO REASON FOR THE ARBITRARY FINDING IS ON RECORD. IN SUCH A SITUATION THE TAX AUTHORITIES WERE NECESSARILY REQUIRED TO ADDRESS TH E CORRECTNESS OR OTHERWISE OF THE CLAIMS MADE IN THE AFFIDAVIT. SUCH A FLAWED LEGAL APPROACH CANNOT BE UPHELD. IT G OES WITHOUT SAYING THAT EVEN IN THE EVENTUALITY OF A DEFICIENCY ETC. IN THE AFFIDAVIT IT WAS NECESSARILY INCUMBENT ON THE TAX A UTHORITIES IN A FAIR EXERCISE OF POWER AND JUSTICE DISPENSATION T O POINT OUT THE SHORTCOMING SO AS TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO MAK E GOOD THE DEFICIENCY ETC. IF ANY. THE AUTHORITY BEFORE WHOM T HE AFFIDAVIT IS FILED IS NECESSARILY REQUIRED TO ADDRESS AND DI SCUSS THE CONTENTS OF THE SAME AND RECORD THE REASONS ON THE BASIS OF RECORD OR LOGICAL INFERENCE JUSTIFYING WHY IT IS B EING ACCEPTED OR DISCARDED. 11.1. IT IS SEEN THAT THERE IS NO DISCUSSION WHAT SOEVER EVEN ON THE NATURE OF ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS. IN THE ABSENCE O F ANY ITA-199/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 12 OF 15 DISCUSSION THEREON IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE AFFIDA VIT OF THE ASSESSEE ASSERTING THAT THE DEPOSITS FULLY OR PART LY COULD ALSO BE EXPLAINED FROM THE BUSINESS CANNOT BE OUT RIGHTL Y DISCARDED. RELEVANT FACTS HAVE TO BE REFERRED TO C RITICALLY EXAMINED AND CONSIDERED BEFORE ANY SUCH CLAIM MAY B E ALLOWED OR REJECTED. 12. HAVING ADDRESSED THE MANNER IN WHICH THE DOCUME NTARY EVIDENCE NAMELY THE IKRARNAMA AGREEMENT TO SEL L AND THE AFFIDAVITS ARE TO BE CONSIDERED WHERE THE BASIC/PRI MARY FACTS ITSELF ARE MISSING NAMELY WHETHER THE OWNERSHIP OF THE SPECIFIC LAND EVER VESTED WITH THE ASSESSEE/HIS MOTHER OR NO T AND IF YES WAS IT ULTIMATELY SOLD AND IF YES THEN AGAIN TO WHOM AND AT WHAT PRICE I AM ALIVE TO THE POSSIBILITY THAT T HE NECESSARY QUERIES AND FINDINGS MAY ALSO THROW UP SOME CONTRAR Y FACTS NOT PLACED ON RECORD. IT NEEDS BE ADDRESSED THAT TH E PRESUMPTION THAT CLAIMS ARE CORRECTLY MADE ARE OPEN TO VERIFICATION AND IN CASE THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND BY THE MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF IS DISPUTED THEN THE ASSESSEE MAY BE FOREWARNED OF THE POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES THAT WOULD COME INTO PLAY. NO DOUBT THE CORRECTNESS OF THE AL TERNATE CLAIM BE EXAMINED ON MERITS. HOWEVER IN CASE THE OWNERS HIP AT THE RELEVANT TIME IS ESTABLISHED AND FURTHER SALE THERE OF IS ALSO AN ACCEPTED FACT THEN KEEPING THE PREVALENT MALPRACTIC ES AND DEPRECATING THEM FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE PRESENT PR OCEEDINGS ITA-199/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 13 OF 15 SINCE ONLY THE CORRECT INCOME IS TO BE BROUGHT TO T HE TAX IN ADDITION TO THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO EXAMINE WHAT WAS THE CORRECT VALUE OF THE SPECIF IC LAND AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME. THIS ENQUIRY IN THE FAC TS IS NECESSARY AND CRUCIAL FOR DETERMINING THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT AND ITS TAXABILITY. IT NEEDS TO BE BORNE IN MIND THAT NOT TO SO ENQUIRY WOULD TANTAMOUNT TO PLACING AN UNFAIR AND IMPOSSIBLE BURDEN ON A SELLER TO PLEAD WITH THE PUR CHASER TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND ACCEPT THE FACT THAT PART PAYMENT M AY HAVE BEEN FROM HIS/ PURCHASERS UNACCOUNTED MONEY. THE TA X AUTHORITY AT LEAST FOR SEMI-LITERATE ECONOMICALLY D EPRESSED AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDERS STAND IN THE POSITION OF LOCUS PARENTIS AS THEY MAY NOT BE AWARE OF THE MANIPULATIVE PRACTI CES AND BEING INTERESTED ONLY IN RECEIVING THE PAYMENT FOR SALE OF THEIR LAND MAY SIMPLY SIGN ON THE DOTTED LINE. IN SUCH TR ANSACTIONS IT IS THE WILY PURCHASERS WHO WOULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF HONEST SELLER WHO HAS DEPOSITED THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERAT ION INCLUDING THAT RECEIVED IN CASH IN THEIR BANKS. IT IS NOT DIFFICULT TO VISUALIZE THE MOTIVES A PURCHASER MAY HAVE TO RE CORD DIFFERENT AMOUNTS IN THE SALE DEED VIS--VIS AGREEM ENT TO SELL ONLY TO ESCAPE THE RIGORS OF TAX LAWS AND REDUCE ST AMP DUTY ETC. AND THEN AFTER THE SALE STANDS CONCLUDED TO SUBSEQUENTLY VERY CONVENIENTLY DENY THE CORRECTNESS OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL IKRARNAMA. IF THE DOCUMENT HAS BEEN SIGNED ITA-199/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 14 OF 15 AND SIGNATURES ARE NOT DENIED CONSEQUENCES FOLLOW. IN CASE SIGNATURES ARE DENIED THEN FORENSIC EXAMINATION BEC OMES NECESSARY. HENCE IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE CORRECTN ESS OF THE IKRARNAMA CANNOT BE OUT RIGHTLY DISCARDED AND THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE SAME INCLUDING THE SIGNATURES OF THE PARTIES NEED TO BE FORENSICALLY EXAMINED AND THE WI TNESSES TO THE DOCUMENT ALSO WOULD NEED TO BE EXAMINED. PARTIE S CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO TREAT THE DOCUMENT/AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THEM CASUALLY OR DISOWN THEM AT THEIR CONVE NIENCE AS SUCH ACTIONS MAY INVITE CRIMINAL CONSEQUENCES FOR T HE CRIMES OF FORGERY AND PERJURY. 13. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THE TAX AUTHO RITIES THEREFORE NEED TO ASCERTAIN AND VERIFY WHETHER THE SIGNATURES ON THE AGREEMENT TO SELL IKRARNAMA HAS BEEN DISOW NED BY THE PURCHASER AS A FORGERY. THESE ARE ALL RELEVANT ISSU ES FOR CONSIDERATION AND THE TAX AUTHORITIES CANNOT EVADE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT ONLY CORRECT AND DUE TAXES ARE COLLECTED AND NO TAXPAYER LACKING IN PROPER LEGAL ADVICE/SUFFERING A HANDICAP ON ACCOUNT OF PROPER LE GAL ADVICE IS BURDENED WITH UNFAIR ADDITIONS AND STEAM ROLLED IN THE HASTE FOR COLLECTION OF TAXES. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESEN T CASE IT APPEARS ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE APPARENTLY DID NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF PROPER ADVICE AS PERJURY AND FORGERY ARE SERIOUS ITA-199/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 15 OF 15 ISSUES WHICH CANNOT BE TOLERATED AND TREATED LIGHTL Y BY A LAW ABIDING ECONOMIC SOCIETY. 14. THE ISSUE ACCORDINGLY IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE D ETAILED REASONS IS SET ASIDE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WHO IS DIRECTED TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WIT H LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEI NG HEARD AFTER MAKING NECESSARY ENQUIRIES ETC. FOR ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSION. 15. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS OWN INTERESTS IS ADVISED TO PARTICIPATE FULLY AND FAIRLY IN THE PROCEEDINGS. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED AT THE TIME OF VIRTUAL HEARING ITSELF IN THE PRESEN CE OF THE PARTIES VIA WEBEX. 16. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 04 TH MAY 2021. SD/- ( ) (DIVA SINGH) / JUDICIAL MEMBER *POONAM & *RANJAN / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. / CIT 4. ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. / DR ITAT CHANDIGARH. 6. / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR