CHAMELI DEVI,JAIPUR V. ITO, WARD-1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 1244/JPR/2025

AI Insights

Chameli Devi, the appellant, contested the additions made to her income for the assessment year 2012-13, which were upheld by the CIT(A). The additions included Rs. 19,00,000 for unexplained investment in a flat, Rs. 60,000 disallowed under Section 80C for unsubstantiated FDR deductions, and Rs. 2,04,256 for unexplained investments in other FDRs. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments regarding the timing of the payments and the lack of evidence for some of the additions, leading to a partial allowance of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 778690 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 05-09-2025
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT vs. Smt Rashmi Rajiv Mehta, CIT vs. Smt. K.C. Agnes
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: P.C. PARWAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Unexplained investment
• Section: 147; 148; 131; 80C

Judgement Text

"vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1244/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Chameli Devi 3465 KKJ, KJKJ, KJKJ, Jaipur-302007. Cuke Vs. The ITO, Ward-1(4), Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AOLPD7250G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh. P.C. Parwal, FCA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 13 /10/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 15/10/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member, Appellant-assessee-appellant is feeling dissatisfied with the order dated 17.07.2025, passed by Learned CIT(A), relating to the assessment year 2012-13, as thereby appeal filed her challenging assessment order dated 05.11.2019, has been dismissed, and as a result, three additions made to her income have been upheld. The Assessing calculated total income of the assessee at Rs. 24,54,710/-, even though the assessee had shown her income for the said assessment year as Rs. 2,90,450/-only. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 1244/JPR/2025 Chameli Devi, Jaipur. The Assessing Officer, while resorting to the provisions of Section 69A of the Act made an addition of Rs. 19,00,000/-, due to unexplained investment by purchasing a flat situated at Jaipur, during the financial year 2011-12. The Assessing Officer also disallowed a sum of Rs. 60,000/-, u/s 80C of the Act, due to the reason that the assessee had failed to support the claim regarding deductions in respect of certain FDRs. Another addition of Rs. 2,04,256/- also came to be made by the Assessing Officer due to unexplained investment in certain other FDRs. Appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed 2. When the matter came up in appeal, Learned CIT(A) upheld all the three additions mentioned above and dismissed the appeal. Hence this appeal by the assessee. 3. Arguments heard. File perused. 4. It may be mentioned here that case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the act and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2019, followed by another notice u/s 143(2)/142(1) of the Act raising certain queries. The assessee reply the said notices. She also filed her return of income, in reply to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, declaring her income of Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 1244/JPR/2025 Chameli Devi, Jaipur. Rs. 2,90,450/-, while claiming deduction of Rs. 60,000/- under Chapter VIA of the Act. The assessment was reopened on receipt of information from DDIT( Investigation)-II, Jaipur about recovery of a copy of sale agreement dated 02.03.2012, which revealed that Shri OM Prakash Agarwal was found to have sold Flat No. 1, 204, 3rd Floor, Radha Govind Palace, Near Chogan Statium, Jaipur to Smt. Chameli Devi, the assessee-appellant, for a sale consideration of Rs. 30,25,000/-, out of which Rs. 5,00,000/- is stated to have paid in cash at the time of execution of the said agreement dated 02.03.2012, as it was agreed that the balance sale consideration of Rs. 25,25,000/- shall be paid within 2 months. 5. For the purpose of enquiry, by DDIT, a notice u/s 131 of the Act was issued to the assessee. Thereupon, Shri Rajesh Kumar Verma son of the assessee appeared during enquiry and disclosed that sale deed in respect of the above said flat was executed and registered on 06.07.2012, and further that the sale consideration was Rs. 16,00,000/- only. At the time of said enquiry, son of the assessee was confronted with the above said agreement, but he displayed ignorance about it. Copy of the registered sale deed was collected and taken on record. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 1244/JPR/2025 Chameli Devi, Jaipur. 6. As per contents of said registered sale deed, payment of Rs. 16,00,000/- was made in the manner as:- Amount Mod Date 475000/- Cash 10.03.2012 69000/- Ch. 006232 29.06.2012 931000/- Ch. 760945 29.06.2012 125000/- Ch. 760946 05.07.2012 Total: 1600000/- 7. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the version put forth by son of the assessee and the claim of the assessee herself were not acceptable. He was also of the view that a sum of Rs.14.25 lakhs was paid by the assessee as ‘on money’ over and above sale consideration of Rs. 16 lacs i.e. the amount declared in the registered sale deed. 8. The Assessing Officer was also of the view that the assessee had failed to explain the source of investment of Rs. 4.75 lac (said to have paid on 10.03.2012 as per registered sale deed), and source of investment of Rs. 14.25 lacs mentioned above. Said amount of Rs. 19,00,000/- was prima facie found to have escaped total income for the purposes of assessment. 9. The Assessing Officer, while dealing with this issue and making addition of Rs. 19,00,000/-, made observations in para 4(i), 4(ii) and 4(iii) of the assessment order. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 1244/JPR/2025 Chameli Devi, Jaipur. Contentions 10. Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that what is stated to have been forwarded by DDIT is a copy of sale agreement dated 02.03.2012, regarding sale of the above said flat. The contention raised is that no reliance could be placed only on a photo copy of the agreement, same having no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. In this regard, Ld. AR has placed reliance on the following two decisions:-  PCIT vs. Smt Rashmi Rajiv Mehta, (2024) 299 Taxman 82 (Delhi H.C.)  CIT vs. Smt. K.C. Agnes, (2003) 128 Taxman 848 (Kreala H.C.) 11. We have gone through the two decisions relied by Ld. AR for the appellant. 12. Addition of Rs. 19,00,000/- was made on the ground that the assessee had failed to proof of source of an investment of Rs. 19,00,000/- in purchasing the above said property. As is available from copy of the agreement dated 02.03.2012, same is purported to have been executed between the same parties i.e. the assessee and Shri Om Prakash Agarwal, who were parties to the sale deed. Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 1244/JPR/2025 Chameli Devi, Jaipur. 13. Ld. DR for the department has pointed out that as per agreement dated 02.03.2012, total sale consideration agreed to be paid by the assessee was Rs. 30,25,000/-, out of which Rs. 5,00,000/- is stated to have been paid in advance, in cash, by the assessee to the seller, on that very day i.e. time of execution of the agreement. The contention is that the assessment order has been rightly sustained by Learned CIT(A). 14. It is true that as per agreement to sell, a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- was paid in cash, but lesser amount by way of advance money i.e. Rs. 4,75,000/- finds mention in the sale deed . Generally, in case of execution and registration of sale deed, after execution of agreement to sell, in the recitals of the sale deed, the factum of execution of the agreement to sell find specific mention. But, in this case, in the registered sale deed, there is no mention at all as regards execution of the agreement dated 02.03.2012. 15. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Assessing Officer associated in the enquiry any of the witnesses of the agreement to sell dated 02.03.2012. Upon notice u/s 131 of the Act issued to the assessee, only her son appeared. Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No. 1244/JPR/2025 Chameli Devi, Jaipur. Record reveals that the assessee was also examined during enquiry, as regards cash amount stated to have been paid at the time of execution of the agreement, by way of advance money. However, as per details available in para No.1 of the registered sale deed, a sum of Rs. 4,75,000/- was paid by way of advance money and the balance sale consideration to the tune of Rs. 11,25,000/- was paid by the assessee to the seller by way of three cheques- (i) for Rs. 69,000 cheque dated 29.06.2012; (ii) for Rs. 9,31,000/- cheque dated 29.06.2012; and (iii) for Rs. 1,25,000/- cheque dated 05.07.2012. 16. As regards decision in Smt. K.C. Agnes’s case (supra) relied on behalf of the appellant, as per sale deed, the price of the property was Rs. 8,000/-per cent, but as per agreement dated 1.3.1983, the parties had agreed to purchase the property @ Rs. 12,951/- per cent. Therein, Hon’ble Court observed that when a document shows a fixed price, there will be a presumption that it is the correct price agreed between the parties. Hon’ble Court further observed that it is not necessary that the price stated in the agreement will be the price shown in the sale deed. Sometimes, it may be higher and sometimes it may be lower. Sometimes, Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No. 1244/JPR/2025 Chameli Devi, Jaipur. intentionally a lesser value is shown in the sale deed. Therein, Hon’ble Court was of the view that even if it is assumed to be so, unless it is proved that the agreement was acted upon and unless the amount stated in the agreement was paid for sale, it could not be concluded that the price mentioned in the sale deed is not correct. There, it was finally found that the amount was received only at the rate of Rs. 8,000/-per cent i.e. the rate mentioned in the sale deed. Therein, the sale deed came to be executed, on the basis of agreement. What distinguishes present dispute from the facts of above case is that here in the sale deed, there is no mention or reference of any agreement to sell. Therefore, said decision does not come to the aid of the appellant. If major part of the sale consideration paid in the next financial year- Its impact. 17. Learned AR for the appellant has submitted that even if it is presumed that the sale consideration of the flat was Rs. 30.35 lacs, as per sale agreement dated 2.3.2012, as per said agreement only Rs. 5 lacs was paid in cash on the date of agreement and balance amount of Rs.25.25 lacs was paid within 2 months of the agreement. Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA No. 1244/JPR/2025 Chameli Devi, Jaipur. The contention is that when there is no evidence that the balance amount was paid on or before 31.3.2012, addition to the extent of Rs. 11,25,000/-made under section 69A of the Act for the year under consideration is unjustified and uncalled for. 18. In Smt. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta’s case (supra), also relied on by Learned AR for the appellant, Appellate Tribunal was of the view that only on the basis of a photocopy of the alleged agreement to sell the addition of any amount would be unsustainable. Therein, cash transaction of Rs. 1,37,00,000/-took place at the time of execution of the agreement to sell, but the balance sale consideration was required to be paid at the time of execution of sale ded, which admittedly, took place on 7th of June, 2010, which date did not fall in the concerned assessment year. Herein, as per sale deed, advance money of Rs. 4,75,000/-came to be paid on 10.3.2012, and a sum of Rs. 11,25,000/-was paid, through cheques dated 29.6.2012. So, date of payment of the balance sale consideration fell in the next year, and not in the present assessment year. Therefore, we find merit in the contention of learned AR for the appellant in this regard and hold that addition to this extent i.e. of Rs. Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA No. 1244/JPR/2025 Chameli Devi, Jaipur. 11,25,000/-could not be made during the year under consideration, and as such, same deserves to be deleted. Source of investment 19. When cogent and convincing material was not available with the Assessing Officer regarding payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 02.03.2012, and rather as per registered sale deed, cash payment by way of advance money was made on 10.03.2012, and in view of the above discussion, no reliance could be placed on the copy of agreement to sell, in absence of original thereof, the assessee was required to explain source of advance money of Rs. 4,75,000/-and not of Rs. 5,00,000/-. As regards, remaining sale consideration, as per sale deed, when the said amount was stipulated to be Rs. 11,25,000/-, and original agreement to sell was not available with the Assessing Officer, the assessee was not required to explain source of the amount of balance sale consideration as shown in the copy of the agreement to sell. Rather, the assessee was required to prove source of Rs. 11,25,000/- admittedly paid by way of three cheques, as per contents of the registered sale deed, only if paid in the year under consider, which was not so, as discussed above. Printed from counselvise.com 11 ITA No. 1244/JPR/2025 Chameli Devi, Jaipur. Withdrawal of Rs. 7,20,000/-for payment of advance money of Rs. 4,75,000/-. 20. Ld. AR for the appellant has referred to page 36 of the paper book which reveals that a sum of Rs. 7,20,000/- was withdrawn by the assessee on 24.12.2010. Reference has also been made to previous entry dated 21.12.2010, which shows deposit of Rs. 11,19,800/- said to have been received from RBI, as per said account of the assessee. Ld. AR has stated at bar that husband of the assessee was an employee with office of Accountant General, and that he expired on 24.01.2008, and that is how, the said amount was transferred by RBI to the assessee. As per the sale deed, advance money of Rs. 4,75,000/- was paid on 10.3.2012 i.e. about one year and one and half month, after said withdrawal. Learned DR for the department has rightly submitted that the abovesaid withdrawal of Rs. 7,20,000/-made on 24.12.2010 cannot be said to have been utilized in making payment of the advance money on 10.3.2012. It was for the assessee-appellant to establish that said amount withdrawn from her bank account remained with her upto 10.3.2012 or that Printed from counselvise.com 12 ITA No. 1244/JPR/2025 Chameli Devi, Jaipur. said amount withdrawn on 24.12.2010 was never utilized anywhere else before 10.3.2012. However, from the material on record, we find that the appellant was unable to establish source of said payment of Rs.4,75,000/-made by way of advance payment on 10.3.2012 in cash. As a result, addition to the extent of Rs. 4,75,000/-deserves to be sustained, while affirming the impugned order and the assessment order to this limited extent. We order accordingly. Disallowance under Section 80 C of the Act. 21. Said disallowance of Rs. 60,000/-came to be made while observing that the assessee had failed to explain said investment in FDRs. Ld. AR for the appellant has referred to document available at page 43 and 44 of the paper book, submitted before us for the first time. This document dated 04.01.2020 purports to have been issued by HDFC bank. From the contents of this document, it transpires that the maturity amount of said FDRs, was one again invested by way FDRs, without encashment of the said FDRs. Ld. DR for the department has not raised any contention in this regard. Printed from counselvise.com 13 ITA No. 1244/JPR/2025 Chameli Devi, Jaipur. 22. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that said addition because of disallowance deserves to be set aside, and the same is hereby set aside. Addition of 2,04,256/- 23. The Assessing Officer made this addition observing that there was investment of Rs. 50,000/-, on 03.05.20211; Rs. 50,000/- on 03.05.2011; Rs. 29,762/- on 06.05.2011 and Rs. 74,494/- on 06.05.2011 i.e. investment of total sum of Rs. 2,04,256/-. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee failed to establish source of said investment. 24. Ld. AR of the appellant has referred to page no. 45 of the paper book which is copy of an application submitted by the assessee to the Manager of SBI and NCRB, Jaipur and then to certificate dated 28.01.2020 issued by the Manager, to the effect that the assessee had 2 tax saving Bonds- 5 years STDRs i.e one of Rs. 40,000/-, deposited on 20.02.2012, which got matured on 20.02.2017 with maturity amount of Rs. 64,750/-; and of Rs. 20,000/- deposited on 17.03.2012, which got matured on 17.03.2017 with maturity amount of Rs. 32,375/-. Printed from counselvise.com 14 ITA No. 1244/JPR/2025 Chameli Devi, Jaipur. . Ld. DR for the department has not advanced any contention in this regard. Consequently, claim of assessee deserves to be allowed and the addition deleted. 25. In view of the two documents, no doubt, submitted by the assessee before this appellate proceedings, for the first time, it can safely be said that no such addition can be made against the assessee. Same is also set aside. Result 26. In view of the above discussion and findings, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order is set aside in the manner indicated above, while modifying the first mentioned addition of Rs. 19,00,000/-, and restricting the same to Rs.4,75,000/- only, and by deleting other 2 additions. Assessing Officer to make recalculations in view of said decision in this appeal. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 15/10/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur Printed from counselvise.com 15 ITA No. 1244/JPR/2025 Chameli Devi, Jaipur. fnukad@Dated:- 15/10/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Chameli Devi, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-1(4), Jaipur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 1244/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "