ITA NO. 197/DEL/2007
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH "D", NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT
AND
SHRI S.K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A. No. 197/DEL/2007
A.Y. :2003-04
SH. MAHAVIR SINGH, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER,
S/O SH. ATTAR WARD-1(4),
SINGH, MEERUT
VILLAGE: RAJPURA, INCOME TAX OFFICE,
TEH. DISTT. MEERUT BHAINSALI GROUND,
MEERUT
(PAN: AXHPS-2723-C)
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
Assessee by : Sh. Sanjay Malik, Adv.
Department by : Sh. Gaurav Dudeja, Sr. D.R.
Date of Hearing : 22-12-2014
Date of Order : 26-12-2014
ORDER
PER S.K. YADAV : JM
This appeal preferred by the Assessee against the Order of the
Ld. CIT(A), Meerut inter-alia on the following grounds which are as
under:-
"1. That the Ld. CIT(A), Meerut order dated 18.9.2006 is
unwarranted, unjust and Non-judicious and based on
surmises and conjectures.
2. That the Ld. CIT(A), Meerut did the same mistake as AO
did by overlooking, the facts of the case. That the
appellant is a aged farmer and he did not have any other
source of income.
1
ITA NO. 197/DEL/2007
3. That the Ld. CIT(A) Meerut did not consider the provision
of section 50-C of the I.T. Act, 1961.
4. That the Ld. CIT(A), Meerut did not realize that the
appellant (Mahavir Singh) share in total sale
consideration was only half of it the rest half share
belong to his brother.
5. That the Ld. CIT(A), Meerut did not want through the
statement of Mrs. Vijay Kumari (Vendee) recorded by the
ITO. Mr. V.K. Nigam, carefully, where she has failed to
reply the question that now she manage to buy the
property worth of Rs. 15,63,000/- for mere Rs. 90,000/-
only. She further failed to answer the question no. 12
that besides cheque/ draft of Rs. 90,000/- she also paid
cash of Rs. 14,93,000/- to Mahavir Singh before two
witnesses Sh. Pal Singh and Sh. Anil Singh, against the
sale consideration of Agricultural land.
6. That neither the Ld. CIT(A) nor AO did not make on the
spot enquiries through the Inspector or any competent
authority regarding the actual facts in circumstances.
7. That kindly delete the addition of Rs. 14,93,000/- as
unexplained deposit and addition of Rs. 51,052/- as long
term capital gain.
8. That the paper book would be submitted one week prior
to hearing."
2. Though various grounds are raised in this appeal, but they all
relate to the additions made on account of cash deposited in the
bank.
2
ITA NO. 197/DEL/2007
3. The facts in brief borne out on record are that during the
enquiry by the ADIT(Inv.), it was found that assessee made deposits
of Rs. 14,93,000/- in cash on 20.7.2002 in Savings Bank A/c No.
4167 with Punjab National Bank, Mawan Road, Meerut. The assessee
was asked to explain the source of deposits and in response thereto
it was explained that deposits in the bank was out of the sale
consideration of land sold to Smt. Vijay Kumari. As per the sale
deed land was sold for Rs. 1,80,000/- (half share of the assessee was
Rs. 90,000/-) Since the deposit in the Bank account was not
apparently explained, the notice u/s. 142(2) was issued to the
assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was
noticed by the AO that the assessee claimed himself to be
agriculturist and the source of deposit in the bank account of Rs.
13,93,000/- was his agricultural income. By various notices and the
order sheets notings the assessee was asked to explain and
substantiate the source of cash deposits in the bank account and in
response thereto, the assessee later on took a stand that the sale
consideration of land sold for Rs. 1,80,000, as per the sale deed, was
Rs. 15,83,000/- out of which only Rs. 1,80,000/- was received
through demand draft and balance of Rs. 14,93,000/- was received
in cash. It was further submitted that out of the aforesaid sale
consideration assessee also purchased the another agricultural land
for Rs. 13,32,000/-, although the sale consideration in this Deed was
shown as lower price of Rs. 6,60,000/-. The assessee subsequently
asked to explain and substantiate the claim of sale of agricultural
land which was sold for Rs. 1,80,000/-, was actually sold for Rs.
15,83,000/- by obtaining the confirmation from the purchaser of the
aforesaid land Smt. Vijay Kumari, Advocate, W/o Sh. Braham Pal
Singh. Similarly, assessee was asked to substantiate the purchase
consideration for other agricultural land by obtaining the
confirmation from the seller Sh. Amar Singh, that he actually sold
3
ITA NO. 197/DEL/2007
the land at Rs. 13,32,800/- . Assessee was also asked to explain as
to why the entire amount of Rs. 14,93,000/- received in cash was
deposited in the bank of the assessee only whereas 50% of the
share belonged to his brother Sh. Sukhbir Singh. Assessee failed to
produce the said confirmation and substantiate the said two
transaction as above claimed. Later on, she has conceded that she
could not get the confirmation letter regarding the sale and
purchase of the lands as discussed and further requested that these
persons be summoned and examined with regard to the actual sale
transactions. Accordingly, Smt. Vijay Kumari, the purchaser was
examined and she confirmed that no cash whatsoever was paid for
the above land over and above the sale consideration of
Rs. 1,80,000/- as recited in the sale deed. The source of payment of
sale consideration was explained as withdrawal from the savings
bank account with PNB, Meerut. These findings were confronted to
the assessee but the assessee failed to explain the source of
deposits of Rs. 14,93,000/- in the savings bank account. The AO
accordingly made an addition of Rs. 14,93,000/- on account of
unexplained deposits in the bank.
4. Aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer, Assessee
preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and filed an affidavit in
support of his contentions. The Ld. CIT(A) reexamined the issues,
but was not convinced with the explanation of the assessee and he
accordingly confirmed the additions.
5. Now the assesee is before the Tribunal and reiterated his
contentions.
6. It was contended on behalf of the assese that it is a general
practice that market rate of the land are more than the declared
value of the land in the sale deed. In support of his contentions he
4
ITA NO. 197/DEL/2007
also filed a fresh affidavit reiterating its contentions. Besides, copy
of the statement of Smt. Vijay Kumari recorded by the AO is also
filed. Assessee is trying to point out the discrepancy in the
statement with regard to the payment of sale consideration. The
assessee is also placed reliance upon the following judgments:-
- M.S. Srinivasa Nicker & Ors. vs. ITO [2007] 292 ITR
481 (Mad.)
- CIT vs. H.H. Maharaja Sahib Shri Lokendra Singh
[1986] 162 ITR 93 (MP)
- CIT vs. Manohar Singhji P Jadeja[2006] 281 ITR 19
(Guj.)
- CIT vs. Amrik Singh [2008] 299 ITR 14 (P&H)
- HUF of H.H. Late Sir J.M. Scindia vs. ACIT [2008]
305 ITR (AT) 231 (Mumbai)
- CIT vs. Intezar Ali (I.T.A. No. 162 of 2013) of
Allahabad High Court.
7. The Ld. CIT(DR) on the other hand, has contended that AO has
afforded sufficient opportunity to explain the source of deposits. But
the assessee could not place relevant evidence either in the form of
confirmation or otherwise to explain the source of deposits. The Ld.
DR further invited to our attention that assessee has originally filed
the return of income in which he has declared long term capital
gains on the basis of the sale consideration of Rs. 1,80,000/- and
assesse's share was Rs. 90,000/-. When the assessee was cornered
with regard to the cash deposits in the bank account, initially it was
contended on behalf of the assessee that source of deposits was
from agricultural income. But later on he filed the revised return
5
ITA NO. 197/DEL/2007
claiming therein the sale consideration of agricultural land at
Rs. 15,83,000/-. Our attention was also invited to the fact that
undisputedly the assesee has jointly owned agricultural land, but
the entire cash received, according to assessee, was of
Rs. 14,93,000/- and was deposited in his bank account. With regard
to the case laws relied upon by the assessee, Ld. DR has contended
that all these case laws relate to the computation of Capital Gains
where the issue in dispute is with regard to the actual sale
consideration. So far as the judgment of Allahabd High Court in the
case of CIT vs. Intezar Ali (Supra) is concerned, the Ld. DR has
contended that in that judgment detailed enquiry was made.
Assessee has filed the confirmation of the witness to the Sale Deed
and complaint to the Registrar was also made with regard to under
valuation of the sale transactions. The Ld. DR further contended
that had it been a case of actual sale consideration, as alleged by
the assessee. The assessee would have paid the higher stamp duty
on the sale deed. Therefore, the contention of the assessee cannot
be accepted.
8. Having heard the rival submissions and careful perusal of record,
we find that undisputedly the sale consideration declared in the sale
deed was at Rs. 1,80,000/- and accordingly, the stamp duty was
paid thereon on its registration. The assessee has jointly owned the
agricultural land, therefore, the share was shown to be at
Rs. 90,000/-. It is also an admitted fact that assessee has initially
filed original return of income declaring the capital gains on the
basis of the sale value of Rs. 90,000/- of his share. But when the
substantial amount of cash deposits in the bank was noticed, the
assesee has taken a different pleas. Initially it was contended that
the source of deposits was from agricultural income and later on he
took another stand that it was out of the sale consideration received
6
ITA NO. 197/DEL/2007
on sale of agricultural land. In support thereof no evidence was
filed. Though the AO has asked the assessee to furnish the
confirmation letters of the buyers or any other evidence in support
thereof. At the instance of the assessee the buyer was also
examined by the AO and she has categorically denied the payment
over and above the sale consideration declared for the sale deed.
Copy of the statement is also filed before us. Except the affidavit of
the assessee in support of his contention, no other evidence is
available on the basis of which an inference can be drawn in favour
of the assessee. Affidavit of assessee is a self serving document,
therefore, on the basis of affidavit, the additions made by the AO
cannot be deleted.
9. We have also carefully examined the various judgments
referred to by the assessee and we find that these judgments are
rendered on computation of long term capital gains, but in those
judgments there was no dispute with regard to sale consideration
received by the assessee. In the case of CIT vs. Intezar Ali (Supra),
the dispute raised was with regard to actual sale consideration, but
in that case assessee has filed the confirmation letter of the witness
of the sale deed. Assessee has also made a complaint to the
Registrar with regard to the under valuation of the land for the
purpose of the stamp duty paid on registration of the sale deed.
Therefore, the facts of that case are distinguishable from the
present case, as in the instant case, except the oral statement of
the assessee no other documentary evidence was filed. We
therefore of the view that under the given facts and circumstances
of the case, the Revenue authorities have rightly treated the cash
deposits in the bank account of the assessee as unexplained cash
deposits and made the addition of the same. Since we do not find
any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), we confirm the same.
7
ITA NO. 197/DEL/2007
10. In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands
dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 26/12/2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
[G.D. AGRAWAL] [S.K. YADAV]
VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER
Date 26/12/2014
"SRBHATNAGAR"
Copy forwarded to: -
1. Appellant -
2. Respondent -
3. CIT
4. CIT (A)
5. DR, ITAT
TRUE COPY
By Order,
Assistant Registrar,
ITAT, Delhi Benches
8
ITA NO. 197/DEL/2007
9
|
