Shri Amit J.Patel, Baroda v. The Income tax Officer,Ward-2(4),, Baroda

ITA 450/AHD/2012 | 2002-2003
Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2015 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 45020514 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AFWPP3570K
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 450/AHD/2012
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 12 day(s)
Appellant Shri Amit J.Patel, Baroda
Respondent The Income tax Officer,Ward-2(4),, Baroda
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-04-2015
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 30-04-2015
Date Of Final Hearing 28-04-2015
Next Hearing Date 28-04-2015
Assessment Year 2002-2003
Appeal Filed On 17-02-2012
Judgment Text
ITA NOS.448 449 & 450/AHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2000-01 2001-02 & 2002-03 PAGE 1 OF 11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND S.S. GODARA JM] ITA NOS.448 449 & 450/AHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2000-01 2001-02 &2002-03 AMIT J. PATEL ...............APPELLANT 29 KRISHNAKUNJ SOCIETY JETALPUR ROAD BARODA. [PAN: AFWPP 3570 K] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER .................RESPONDE NT WARD 2(4) BARODA. APPEARANCES BY: URVASHI SHODHAN FOR THE APPELLANT DINESH SINGH FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : APRIL 28 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : APRIL 30 2015 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR AM: THESE THREE APPEALS PERTAIN TO THE SAME ASSESSEE I NVOLVE A COMMON ISSUE AND ARE DIRECTED AGAINST A CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 16 TH DECEMBER 2011 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT U NDER SECTION 144 READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 2001-02 & 2002-03. AS A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE THEREFORE ALL THE THREE APPEALS ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE LIKE THIS. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US AN INDIVIDUAL IS A PARTNER IN M/S NILES H DEVELOPERS BUT STATED TO BE ITA NOS.448 449 & 450/AHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2000-01 2001-02 & 2002-03 PAGE 2 OF 11 AGRICULTURIST BY PROFESSION. THE ASSESSEE WAS CALL ED UPON TO FILE HIS INCOME TAX RETURN AS ACCORDING TO THE INFORMATION COMING TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CASH INVESTMENTS IN LAND AMOUNTING TO RS.7 10 000/- RS.7 20 000/- AND RS.95 700/- FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 2001-02 AND 2002-03 RESPECTIVELY. IN RESPONSE TO T HESE NOTICES THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.2 50 000/- RS.3 70 000/- AND RS.3 40 000/- FOR THESE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS RESP ECTIVELY. WHILE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE INCOME SO RETURNED B Y THE ASSESSEE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATIONS ABOUT THE SOURCE OF CAS H INVESTMENTS IN LAND AS DETAILED ABOVE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ADDED TH ESE AMOUNTS OF RS.7 10 000/- RS.7 20 000/- AND RS.95 700/- IN THE ASSESSMENT YEA S 2000-01 2001-02 & 2002-03 RESPECTIVELY. AGGRIEVED BY THE ADDITIONS S O MADE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) BUT WITH OUT ANY SUCCESS. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED AND IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF T HE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 4. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION FOR THES E INVESTMENTS AS BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS AS FOLLOWS :- THE ONLY GROUND OF APPEALS IS RELATED TO ADDITION U/S 69 FOR INVESTMENT IN LAND OF RS.7 10 000/- RS.7 20 000/- AND RS.95 700/- FOR RESPECTIVE THREE YEARS. YOUR APPELLANT IS AN AGRICULTURIST BY COMMUNITY. H IS JOINT FAMILY OWNS AGRICULTURE LAND OF ABOUT 56.42.38 HECTARES. STATE MENT OF LAND HOLDING WITH FORM 7/12 IS SUBMITTED HEREWITH APPELL ANTS FAMILY IS REGULARLY DOING AGRICULTURE ON THESE PLOTS OF LAND SINCE YEARS. ITA NOS.448 449 & 450/AHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2000-01 2001-02 & 2002-03 PAGE 3 OF 11 FURTHER IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE APPEL LANT AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS.2 50 000/- RS.3 70 000/- AND RS.3 40 000/- IS SHOWN FOR THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL AND ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. ON VERIFICATION OF THE LETTER DATED 24 TH OCTOBER 2007 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 IT WILL BE NOTICED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CAL LED FOR DETAILS FOR FOLLOWING PAYMENTS MADE TO THE LAND OWN ERS AND FOR SETTLEMENT EXPENSES. RS.1 05 000/- BY CASH TO BACHIBEN AS PER DOCUMENT NO 12440 DATED 22.09.1999 RS.2 45 000/- BY CASH TO BACHIBEN AS PER DOCUMENT NO.07265 DATED 10.09.1999 RS.3 60 000/- BY CHEQUE TO VINESH R PATEL AND OTHER S DATED 12.03.2000 REGARDING THE SOURCE OF FIRST TWO PAYMENTS IT IS S UBMITTED THAT THE SAME WERE WITHDRAWN FROM BANK ACCOUNT OF DR. RAMBHA I S PATEL WHO IS FATHER-IN-LAW OF SISTER OF YOUR APPELLANT AD ONE OF THE PARTNER OF M/S. NILESH DEVELOPERS. THE DETAILS OF WITHDRAWALS ARE AS UNDER : SIMILARLY ON VERIFICATION OF THE LETTER DATED 24 TH OCTOBER 2007 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 IT WILL BE NOTICED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER AD CALLED FOR DETAILS FOR FOLLOWING PAYMENTS MADE TO T HE LAND OWNERS AND FOR SETTLEMENT EXPENSES. RS.29 400/- BY CASH FOR LAND MEHSUL ON 12.10.2001 RS.66 300/- BY CASH FOR LAND REVENUE TAX ON 12.10.2 001 ------------- RS.95 700 REGARDING THE SOURCE OF THESE PAYMENTS IT IS SUBMI TTED THAT THE SUM OF RS.57 500/- WERE WITHDRAWN FROM BANK ACCOUNT OF YOUR APPELLANT WITH SHREE SWAMINARAYAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. THE DETAILS OF WITHDRAWALS ARE AS UNDER :- ITA NOS.448 449 & 450/AHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2000-01 2001-02 & 2002-03 PAGE 4 OF 11 RS.08 000/- WITHDRAWN ON 28.09.2001 RS.28 000/- WITHDRAWN ON 03.10.2001 RS.21 500/- WITHDRAWN ON 05.10.2001 ------------- RS.57 500/- THE SOURCE OF THESE WITHDRAWALS OF RS.57 500/- IS T RANSFER OF FUND FROM SB ACCOUNT NO.1794 WITH THE SAME BANK AMOUNTING TO RS.1 00 250/- ON 26.09.2001. COPY OF PASSBOOK IS SUBMITTED HEREW ITH. BALANCE RS.38 200/- WERE PAID ON ACCOUNT OF YOUR AP PELLANTS SOURCE OF JOINT INVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL PLOTS OF LAND I S SAVINGS FROM NO OF YEARS AGRICULTURE INCOME. FURTHER YOUR APPELLANT IS SUBMITTING COPY OF FOUR INDEXES FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURE LAND ALONG WITH TWO PURCHASE DEEDS F OR YOUR HONOURS PERUSAL. ON VERIFICATION OF THE SAME IT WILL BE A PPRECIATED THAT THE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID FROM TIME TO TIME IN CASH. THESE PLOTS WERE INTRODUCED AS CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION BY YOUR APPELLANT IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S. NILESH DEVELOPERS. 5. WHEN ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ASKED TO COMMENT UPON THESE SUBMISSIONS THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT HAD ST ATED AS FOLLOWS :- 2. AT THE OUTSET IT IS TO SUBMIT THAT THE ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS FOR ALL THE CAPTIONED YEARS WERE STARTED BY ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 DATED 23.03.2007. THEREAFTER ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED REASON ABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD VIDE NOTICES U/S 142(1)/148(2) DATED 29 /08/2007 AND 03/09/2007 AND LETTER/SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 12/10 /2007 AND 16/10/2007. INSPITE OF ALL THESE NOTICES AND LETTE RS ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO COMPLY WITH ANY OF THE NOTICES/LETTERS. AS SUCH T HE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED EXPARTE U/S 144 OF THE ACT AS PER THE PRO POSAL MADE IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICES. ITA NOS.448 449 & 450/AHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2000-01 2001-02 & 2002-03 PAGE 5 OF 11 3. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT BEFORE INTI MATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 FOR THE CAPTIONED YEARS AS PER THE DETAILS AVAILABLE ON RECORD ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME VOL UNTARILY FOR A.Y. 1999- 2000 AND 2003-2004 ON 02/05/2000 AND 31/03/2004 RES PECTIVELY. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 1999-00 ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED ANY INCOME UNDER THE HEAD AGRICULTURAL INCOME. WHEREAS IN T HE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2003-04 HE HAD DISCLOSED AGRICULTURAL INCOME A T RS.40 000/-. HOWEVER IN THE RETURNS FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 HE DISCLOSED INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AS UNDER; WHICH IS 6 TO 9 T IMES MORE THAN DISCLOSED IN THE A.Y. 2003-04. A.Y. 2000-01 RS.2 50 000/- A.Y. 2001-02 RS.3 70 000/- A.Y. 2002-03 RS.3 40 000/- ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY CORROBORATIV E EVIDENCE SUCH AS CROPS GROWN EXPENSES INCURRED TOWARDS AGRICULTU RAL ACTIVITIES AND DETAILS OF SALE PROCEEDS TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. CONSIDERING THE AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDING JOINTLY HELD BY THE ASSES SEE THE INCOME DISCLOSED BY HIM IS ABNORMAL AND PURPORTEDLY TO ESTABLISH THE SOURCE OF FUND. FURTHER IF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INVESTMENTS W ERE MADE OUT OF THE BORROWED FUNDS FROM DR. RAMBHAI S PATEL WHAT PREVEN TED HIM IN FURNISHING THE DETAILS THEREOF AND CONFIRMATION FROM DR. RAMBH AI S PATEL DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. MOREOVER WHEN EH ASSESSEE AS WELL AS DR. RAMBHAI S PATEL WAS HAVING BANK ACCOUNTS WHY THE TR ANSACTIONS WERE MADE IN CASH. THIS LEADS TO THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION THAT THE PRESENT VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOTHING BUT AN AFTER THOUGHT A COOKED UP STORY TO DEFRAUD THE REVENUE. THEREFORE HE EVIDENCE NOW BROUGHT IN DURING THE APPELLATE STAGE DESERVES TO BE REJECTED. ON THIS BACKGROUND I SUBMIT THE YEAR WISE COMMENTS AS UNDER : A.Y. 2000-01 AS PER DETAILS AVAILABLE ON RECORDS ASSESSEE HAS M ADE THE FOLLOWING PAYMENTS TO THE LAND OWNERS. RS.1 05 000/- BY CASH ON 22/09/1999 RS.2 45 000/- BY CASH ON 10/09/1999 RS.3 60 000/- BY CHEQUE ON 12/03/2000 ITA NOS.448 449 & 450/AHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2000-01 2001-02 & 2002-03 PAGE 6 OF 11 THE SOURCE OF FUND AS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER : THE FIRST TWO PAYMENTS ARE OUT OF THE WITHDRAWALS F ROM THE SB A/C OF DR. RAMBHAI S. PATEL WITH BHARAT CO-OP BANK LTD. AS UND ER: RS.1 86 000/- WITHDRAWN ON 25/05/1999 RS.1 60 000/- WITHDRAWN ON 02/06/1999 RS.24 500/- WITHDRAWN ON 04/06/1999 THE THIRD PAYMENT OF RS.3 60 000/- BY CHEQUE ON 12/ 03/2000- WAS FROM THE SB A/C OF THE ASSESSEE WITH SHRI SWAMINARAYAN CO-OP BANK LTD. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE FIRST TWO P AYMENTS WERE MADE OUT OF THE WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK A/C OF SHRI RA MBHAI S PATEL CANNOT BE ACCEPTED FOR THE VERY REASON THAT THE WITHDRAWALS W ERE MADE IN MAY & JUNE 1999. WHEREAS THE PAYMENTS BY THE ASSESSEE WERE MA DE IN SEPTEMBER & OCTOBER 1999. THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT TH E FUND LYING WITH THE BANK HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN IN CASH AND KEPT BY MR. RAM BHAI S. PATEL FOR ABOUT 4 MONTHS AND GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. IF THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS GENUINE AND BONAFIDE THE TRANSACTION SHOULD HAVE BE EN MADE THROUGH CHEQUE WHEN BOTH THE PARTIES ARE HAVING BANK ACCOUN TS. FURTHER THE THIRD PAYMENT BY CHEQUE ON 12/03/2000 OF RS.3 60 000/- T HE SOURCE THEREOF REMAIN UNEXPLAINED. BECAUSE ON VERIFICATION OF THE BANK STATEMENT IT IS SEEN THAT RS.3 60 000/- WAS DEPOSITED IN CASH ON 13 /03/2000 AND THEN ISSUED CHEQUE FOR THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.3 60 000/- TO ONE SHRI V.R. PATEL ON 16/03/2000 THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS IS OUT OF THE ACCUMULATED FUND FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS WITHOUT ANY CREDEN CE FOR THE VERY REASON NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AS TO THE SALE PROCEEDS ETC . OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND THE EXPENSES INCURRED THERE AGAINST HAV E BEEN FURNISHED. IF THIS ACCUMULATED FUND WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESS EE WHY NOT THE SAME WAS UTILISED FOR MAKING THE PAYMENTS IN SEPTEMBER 1 999 TO THE LAND OWNERS. IN NUTSHELL THERE IS NO NEXUS WITH THE WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK A/C OF DR. RAMBHAI S. PATEL AND PAYMENTS BY THE ASSESSEE TO TH E LAND OWNERS. MOREOVER NO CONFIRMATION FROM DR. RAMBHAI S. PATEL HAS BEEN FILED. THE SOURCE OF FUND FOR PAYMENT BY CHEQUE OF RS.3 60 000 /- ALSO REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. A.Y. 2001-02 AS PER THE DETAILS AVAILABLE ON RECORD ASSESSEE HA S MADE THE FOLLOWING PAYMENTS TO THE LAND OWNER. ITA NOS.448 449 & 450/AHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2000-01 2001-02 & 2002-03 PAGE 7 OF 11 RS.7 20 000/- BY CHEQUE DATED 12/06/2000 & 19/09/20 00 THE SOURCE OF FUND AS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER : RS.4 00 000/- WITHDRAWN ON 29/04/2000 FROM THE BANK A/C OF DR. RAMBHAI S. PATEL RS.1 60 000/- WITHDRAWN ON 03/05/2000 FROM THE BANK A/C OF DR. RAMBHAI S. PATEL RS.1 64 000/- OUT OF SAVINGS FROM AGRICULTURAL INCO ME. HERE ALSO THERE IS NO NEXUS WITH THE WITHDRAWALS FR OM THE A/C OF DR. RAMBHAI S. PATEL ON 29/04/2000 & 03/05/2000 AND DEP OSIT OF CASH INTO ASSESSEES A/C ON 12/06/2000 OF RS.3 62 000/- AND O N 12/09/2000 OF RS.3 62 000/- AND PAYMENT BY CHEQUE OF RS.3 60 000/ - EACH ON 16/06/2000 AND 13/09/2000 TO MR. V. R. PATEL. FURTHER AS STAT ED IN AY 2000-01 NO CONFIRMATION FROM DR. RAMBHAI S. PATEL WAS FILED AN D NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS ALSO FURNISHED . ALSO THE QUESTION AS TO WHY THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN CASH LOAN WHEN BOTH THE PARTIES HAVING BANK A/C REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. THEREFORE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. A.Y. 2002-03 AS PER THE DETAILS AVAILABLE ON RECORD ASSESSEE HA S MADE THE FOLLOWING PAYMENTS TO THE LAND OWNERS FOR SETTLEMENT OF EXPEN SES. RS.29 400/- BY CASH ON 12/10/2001 RS.66 300/- BY CASH ON 12/10/2001 THE SOURCE OF FUND AS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: RS.8 000/- WITHDRAWN ON 28/09/2001 FROM AS SB ACCO UNT WITH SHREE SWAMI NARAYA CO-OP BANK LTD. RS.28 000/- WITHDRAWN ON 03/10/2001 RS.21 500/- WITHDRAWN ON 03/10/2001 RS.38 200/- OUT OF SAVINGS FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME . HERE ALSO THERE IS NO NEXUS WITH THE WITHDRAWALS AN D PAYMENTS TO THE LAND OWNERS. AGAIN WHY HE HAS WITHDRAWN THE AMOUNT IN P IECE MEAL BASIS WHEN SUFFICIENT BALANCE WAS THERE IN THE BANK A/C AND TH E ENTIRE PAYMENT OF RS.95 700/- WAS MADE ON A SINGLE DAY I.E. ON 12/10 /2001. FROM THE ABOVE ITA NOS.448 449 & 450/AHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2000-01 2001-02 & 2002-03 PAGE 8 OF 11 IT CAN BE CLEAR THAT THE AFORESAID WITHDRAWALS ON V ARIOUS DATES WERE MEANT FOR MEETING SOME OTHER EXPENSES/PURPOSE. AGAIN IF THERE WAS ACCUMULATED CASH BALANCE OF RS.38 200/- AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSE SSEE WHY THE SAID WITHDRAWALS WERE MADE ON DIFFERENT DATES. THUS THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOTHING BUT A COOKED UP STORY AND IS AN AFTER TH OUGHT WITH A MALAFIDE INTENTION TO DEFRAUD THE REVENUE AND THUS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. 6. IT WAS IN THIS BACKDROP THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING INTER ALIA AS F OLLOWS :- 1. NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE F OR THE 3 YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 2. NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED BASED ON INFORMATION ABOUT CASH INVESTMENT MADE BY ASSESSEE IN LANDS. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME BEFORE T HE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 FOR A.Y. 1999-2000 SHOWING NIL AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME AND FOR A.Y. 2003-04 SHOWING AGRICULTURAL IN COME OF RS.40 000/- ONLY. 4. IN RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 THE ASSESSEE SHOWED VERY HIGH AGRICULTURAL INCOME 6 T O 9 TIMES THAT DISCLOSED IN A.Y. 2003-04. A.Y. - RS.2 50 000/- A.Y. - RS.3 70 000/- A.Y. - RS.3 40 000/- 5. NO RESPONSE/EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER WAS FILED DUR ING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN RESPONSE TO REPEATED NOT ICES U/S. 142(1) AND SHOW CAUSE ISSUED. CONSEQUENTLY ASSESSI NG OFFICER PASSED ORDER U/S 144 TREATING THE INVESTMENT AS UNE XPLAINED. ITA NOS.448 449 & 450/AHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2000-01 2001-02 & 2002-03 PAGE 9 OF 11 6. IN APPEAL THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAS TRIE D TO EXPLAIN THE COMPLETE NON-COMPLIANCE BY THE FLIMSY GROUND OF NON -RECEIPT OF FULL BANK STATEMENT. 7. DURING APPEAL THE SOURCES OF INVESTMENT ARE CLA IMED TO BE CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE BY ONE DR. RAMBHAI S. PATEL FROM H IS BANK ACCOUNT. DR. RAMBHAI S. PATEL IS THE FATHER-IN-LAW OF ASSESSEES SISTER. NO CONFIRMATION HAS BEEN FILED FROM HIM TI LL DATE SO THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLI SHED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. ALTHOUGH A COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME OF DR. RAMBH AI S. PATEL HAS BEEN FILED IT IS CLEVERLY GIVEN FOR AY 2003-04 AND NOT OF THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. EVEN THIS RETURN OF INC OME DOES NOT EVIDENCE THAT DR. RAMBHAI S. PATEL HAS EXTENDED SUC H SUBSTANTIAL SUMS OF MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AGR ICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY DR. RAMBHAI S. PATEL IS ONLY RS.43 635/-. TE EXTRACT OF BANK STATEMENT PRODUCED SHOWS DEPOSIT OF CHEQUES OF EQUIVALENT AMOUNTS ON THE SAME OR IMMEDIATELY PRECE DING DATES AND WITHDRAWAL OF CASH IN ODD FIGURES. THIS PATTERN SHOWS WITHDRAWAL FOR IMMEDIATE & SPECIFIC PURPOSE A ND NOT A GENERAL WITHDRAWAL FOR KEEPING CASH ON HAND FOR A F UTURE PURPOSE. 9. THE DATE OF WITHDRAWAL AND THE PAYMENT MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE ARE ALSO TOO FAR REMOVED. THERE IS TIME LAG OF ABO UT 4 MONTHS AND THE NON-MATCHING OF FIGURES OF WITHDRAWAL AND P AYMENT SHOW LACK OF ANY NEXUS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN T HE REMAND REPORT HAS CLEARLY BROUGHT OUT THE INFIRMITIES AND CONTRACTION IN THE EXPLANATION PUT FORTH BY THE AUTHORISED REPRESE NTATIVE AND WHY IT IS AN AFTER THOUGHT AND CAN NOT BE ACCEPTED. THIS HAS NOT BEEN SUCCESSFULLY REBUTTED BY THE AUTHORISED REPRES ENTATIVE. THE WHOLE CLAIM OF THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN THE ABSENCE OF CONFIRMATION FROM DR R AMBHAI S. PATEL. IN ANY CASE THE EXPLANATION PUT FORTH IF T RUE WOULD ATTRACT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS & 269 T. 10. THE CLAIM OF HUGE AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR THE Y EARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE IN SHARP CONTRAST TO NIL AND RS.4 0 000/- AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF I N THE PRECEDING AND SUCCEEDING YEARS. NO VALID EXPLANATI ON HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY SUCH ABNORMALLY HI GH AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE 3 YEARS. THE LAND HOLDI NGS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE JOINT HOLDINGS AND OF RELATIVES. THESE DO NOT ITA NOS.448 449 & 450/AHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2000-01 2001-02 & 2002-03 PAGE 10 OF 11 PROVE SUCH HIGH AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE OF SALE AND E XPENSES INCURRED. JUST BECAUSE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOMES SHO WN IN RETURNS FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 WERE AD OPTED AS SUCH IN THE ASSESSMENTS FARMED DOES NOT PROVE THE GENUI NENESS OF SUCH A HIGH AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THESE FUNDS WERE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR INVESTMENT S IN CASH AS CLAIMED. SAVINGS FROM EARLIER YEARS AGRICULTURAL I NCOME IS ALSO NOT SUBSTANTIATED AND CONTRADICTS ASSESSEES OWN CL AIM AS BROUGHT OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT I.E. IF THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCUMULATED SAVINGS FROM EARLIER Y EARS AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO BE DEPOSI TED IN BANK ACCOUNT RS.3 60 000/- ON 13.03.2000 WHAT WAS THE N EED TO WITHDRAWAL FROM BANK ACCOUNT DR. RAMBHAI S. PATEL RS. 1 86 000 ON 25.05.99 RS.1 60 000/- ON 02.06.99 AND RS.24 500/- ON 04.06.99. THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAS GRO SSLY FAILED TO REBUT THIS AND PUT UP ANY VALID AND BANA-FIDE EX PLANATION. 11. THE NEED TO MAKE PAYMENT IN CASH FOR THE LAND P URCHASED HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT HAS NOT B EEN ESTABLISHED THAT THE SELLER INSISTED ON PAYMENT BY CASH. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD A BANK ACCOUNT WHY MAJOR PORTION OF PURCHASE COST WAS PAID IN CASH IS NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAI NED. IN VIEW OF ALL THE ABOVE IT IS HELD THAT THE SOURC ES OF INVESTMENT IN LANDS BY CASH IS NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED. T HE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAIN ED ADDING IT TO THE TOTAL INCOME IS CORRECT AND IS THEREFORE UPHELD. 7. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE REASONS BASED ON WHICH HE HAS REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PURELY IN THE NATUR E OF SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. ONCE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF ACCEPTS THE AGRICULT URAL INCOME OF RS.2 50 000/- FOR A.Y. 2000-01 RS.3 70 000/- FOR A.Y. 2001-02 AN D RS.3 40 000/- FOR A.Y. 2002-03 IT IS NOT OPEN TO HIM TO HOLD THAT SUCH IN COME WAS HIGHLY EXAGGERATED AND COULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT OR AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS IN MAKING THE INVESTMENTS IN QUESTION. AS FOR THE NEED TO BORROW FROM DR. RAMBHAI S. PATEL WHEN ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT FUNDS OUT OF HIS AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME IT IS NOT FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO QUESTION THE COMMERCIAL WI SDOM OF THE ASSESSEE TO DO ITA NOS.448 449 & 450/AHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2000-01 2001-02 & 2002-03 PAGE 11 OF 11 SO. WE HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT WHAT HAS BEEN DESCRIBE D AS CASH INVESTMENTS IN LAND IS PARTLY BY WAY OF CHEQUE EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE CASH DEPOSITS IN THESE ACCOUNTS BUT YET THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PROCEEDE D TO TAX THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT IN LAND RATHER THAN CASH DEPOSITS IN BAN K ACCOUNTS IN QUESTION. THE MERE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED MONEY IN L AND DOES NOT MEAN OR IMPLY THAT ENTIRE INVESTMENT SHOULD BE TREATED AS UNEXPLA INED EXPENDITURE WHICH CAN ONLY BE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND FUNDS OTHERWISE AVAILABLE TO HIM. IN THE CASE BEFORE US HOWEVER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SIMPLY PROCEEDED TO TREAT ENTIRE INVESTMENT IN LAND AS HIS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE AND WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT HIS AGR ICULTURAL INCOME WHICH THE AO HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED. AS FOR THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IN AN EARLIER YEAR HAS DISCLOSED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.40 000/- NOTHI NG REALLY TURNS ON IT BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME R ETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THESE DISCUSSIONS AS ALSO BEARING IN MIND THE ENTIRETY OF THE CASE WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE ANY MERITS IN THE IMPUGNED ADDITI ONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE THEREFORE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO DELETE THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE GETS THE RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 8. IN THE RESULT ALL THE THREE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 3 0 TH DAY OF APRIL 2015. SD/- SD/- S. S. GODARA PRAMOD KUM AR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD THE 30 TH DAY OF APRIL 2015 PBN/* COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ETC ASSISTANT/DEPUTY REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES AHMEDABAD