Jasleen Abrol, Jalandhar V. The Income-tax Officer, Jalandhar

CO 23/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9323 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 28-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVISH SUD
• Keywords: Revised return

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.129(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 PAN :AEOPA1063M INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. SMT. JASLEEN ABROL, WARD III(1), JALANDHAR. JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O.NO.23(ASR)/2013 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO.129(ASR)/2013) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 PAN :AEOPA1063M SMT. JASLEEN ABROL, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR. WARD III(1), JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY:SH.MAHAVIR SINGH, DR ASSESSEE BY:SH.RAVISH SUD, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING: 28/01/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:14/02/2014 ORDER PER BENCH ; THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARISES FROM THE ORDER O F THE CIT(A), JALANDHAR, DATED 11.12.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: ITA NO.129(ASR)/2013 CO NO.23(ASR)/2013 2 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS .29,95,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUN T OF THE ASSESSEE, IGNORING THAT THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION AF TER REJECTING THE EXPLANATION OF BOTH THE PERSON I.E. DR. GAGANDE EP SINGH (HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE) AND SH. MAKHANJIT SINGH F ROM WHOM THE CASH WAS RECEIVED OUT OF BIANA AGAINST THE SALE AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF FLAT AT RANJIT AVENUE, AMRITSAR. 2. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BE SET-ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. BE RESTORED. 3. THE APPELLANT REQUESTS FOR LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND OR ALTER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD AND DI SPOSED OF. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CROSS OBJECTION RAIS ING THEREIN FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THAT THE CIT(A) IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF T HE CASE R.W. THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW HAD THEREIN RIGHTLY DELETED AN ADDITION OF RS.29,95,000/- SO MADE BY THE AO IN THE HANDS OF TH E ASSESSEE. 2. THAT THE CIT(A) FAILING TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS OF THE CASE HAD THEREIN ERRED IN UPHOLDING AN ADDITION OF RS.1,84,4 78/- SO MADE BY THE AO IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. ANY OTHER GROUND AS MAY BE ALLOWED TO BE RAISED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS IN THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE AR E THAT THE AO NOTICED THAT IN HER SAVING BANK ACCOUNT NO. 10860110001208 WITH ANDHRA BANK, JALANDHAR, CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.29,95,000/- WERE MAD E ON BEING ASKED TO GIVE THE NARRATION REGARDING THE CASH DEPOSITS AS UNDER: ITA NO.129(ASR)/2013 CO NO.23(ASR)/2013 3 DATE CASH DEPOSITED NARRATION 11.04.2008 9,95,000 CASH DEPOSITED BY HER HUSBAND, DR. GAGANDEEP SINGH, OUT OF BIANA AGAINST SALE AGREEMENT. COPY ATTACHED. 16.07.2008 9,00,000 CASH DEPOSITED OUT OF ADVANCE RECEIVED BY DR. GAGANDEEP SINGH, HER HUSBAND 16.07.2008 9,00,000 16,07,2008 2,00,000 3.1. BOTH THE PERSONS I.E. THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSES SEE DR. GAGANDEEP SINGH AND SH. MAKHANJIT SINGH, THE PERSON WITH WHOM THE A GREEMENT FOR SALE OF PROPERTY WAS MADE BY HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE WERE P RODUCED BEFORE AO AND THEIR RESPECTIVE STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED AND A FTER ANALYZING THE REPLIES AS DETAILED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO TREATED THE AGREEMENT A SHAM AND ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.29,95,000 IN THE HANDS OF TH E ASSESSEE. THE AO ALSO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1,84,478/- ON ACCOUNT OF INT EREST NOT DECLARED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. ANOTHER ADDITION OF RS.6 113 WAS ALSO MADE IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN ITEMS OF INCOME NOT DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 4. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SH. RAVISH SUD, ADVOCATE FILED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ALONGWI TH THE EXPLANATION TO THE INFERENCES DRAWN BY THE AO AND RELIED UPON THE DECI SION OF THE ITAT, ITA NO.129(ASR)/2013 CO NO.23(ASR)/2013 4 AMRITSAR BENCH IN THE CASE OF SH. BALWINDER SINGH, SHAHKOT VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAKODAR, IN ITA NO.126(ASR)/2011 FOR T HE A.Y.2005-06 DATED 28.03.2012 IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENTS. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION S OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE CASE RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. RAVISH SUD, DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.29,95,000/- VIDE PARAS 6 TO 10 OF HIS ORDER. 6. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AND ACCEPTED THE VERS ION OF THE AO THAT THE REVISED RETURN WAS FILED BEYOND TIME AND ACCORDINGL Y DISMISSED THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE INTEREST INCOME. 7. THE LD. JCIT( DR), MR. MAHAVIR SINGH, RELIED UPO N THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ARGUED THAT THE EARNEST MONEY RECEIVED WAS NOT PAID AT THE TIME OF AGREEMENT TO SELL. SH. MAKHANJIT SIN GH FROM WHOM DR. GAGANDEEP SINGH HAS RECEIVED THE EARNEST MONEY DID NOT REMEMBER THE EXACT LOCATION OF THE FLAT. THERE WAS CONTROVERSY I N THE STATEMENT AND FACTS OF THE CASE OF SH. MAKHANJIT SINGH AND DR. GAGANDEEP S INGH. THEREFORE, THE LD. DR PRAYED TO REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ) AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. RAVISH SUD , ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND THE SUBMISS IONS MADE THEREIN AND ITA NO.129(ASR)/2013 CO NO.23(ASR)/2013 5 ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE WHO IS A HOUSEWIFE FILED H ERE INCOME TAX RETURN DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.2,50,884/- FOR THE A.Y. 2 009-10 AS ON 30.07.2009, WHICH THEREAFTER WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE AC T AS ON 21.05.2010. HOWEVER, AS THE ASSESSEE HAD INADVERTENTLY OMITTED TO REFLECT INCOME PERTAINING TO SOME OF HER BANK ACCOUNTS AT THE TIME OF FILING OF THE ORIGINAL INCOME TAX RETURN, THEREFORE, SHE SUO MOTTO REVISED HER RETURN, THEREIN DULY REFLECTING THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS.3,55,362/- FROM THE SAID BANK ACCOUNTS, AS AGAINST THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,70,884/- AS EARLIER STOOD REFLECTED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THA T THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS, PURSUANT WHE RETO NOTICES U/S 143(2)/142(1) WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH QUESTIONNAIRE FROM TIME TO TIME, WHICH THEREIN WERE DULY COMPLIED WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THE REPLY TO THE QUERIES SO RAISED BY THE AO WERE DULY FURNISHED . FURTHER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO CALLED UPO N THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE CREDITS APPEARING IN THE LATTERS S.B.A/C NO.108601100001208 WITH ANDHRA BANK, G.T.ROAD, JALA NDHAR, PURSUANT WHERETO THE ASSESSEE DULY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO T HAT THE SAID AMOUNT HAD BEEN DEPOSITED BY HER HUSBAND NAMELY DR. GAGANDEEP SINGH AND EVEN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THE SOURCE OUT OF WHICH H ERE SPOUSE HAD DEPOSITED THE SAID AMOUNT IN HER BANK ACCOUNT. THE SPOUSE OF THE ASSESSEE, ITA NO.129(ASR)/2013 CO NO.23(ASR)/2013 6 DR. GAGANDEEP SINGH DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CATEGORICALLY OWNED THE TRANSACTIONS AS REGARDS THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE AFORESAID BANK ACCOUNT OF HIS WIFE I.E. THE ASSESSE E AND IN ORDER TO REMOVE ANY IOTA OF DOUBT, THEREIN FILED IN AFFIDAVIT WIT H THE A.O. WHEREIN HE DULY DEPOSED THAT THE AMOUNT AGGREGATING TO RS.29,9 5,000/- DEPOSITED ON DIFFERENT DATES IN THE AFORESAID BANK ACCOUNT OF TH E ASSESSEE WAS OUT OF THE EARNEST MONEY OF RS. 30 LACS RECEIVED BY HIM AS PE R THE AGREEMENT TO SELL EXECUTED BY HIM WITH RESPECT TO FLAT NO.20F.1(HIG), BLOCK A, RANJIT AVENUE, AMRITSAR SO OWNED BY HIM, FROM A PROSPECTIV E BUYER, NAMELY, SH. MAKHANJIT SINGH R/O VILLAGE : SATOWALI, DISTRICT JA LANDHAR. THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THEREIN CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE HER HUSBAND DR. GAGANDEEP SINGH AND THE AF ORESAID SH. MAKHANJIT SINGH (SUPRA). THAT PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF T HE AO, THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS AS WAS SO CAST UPON HER , THEREIN PRODUCED HER HUSBAND DR. GAGANDEEP SINGH, WHEREIN THE LATTER TO REMOVE ANY SCOPE OF DOUBT AS REGARDS THE SOURCE FROM WHERE HE HAD MAD E THE DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF HIS WIFE, I.E. THE ASSESSEE, THEREI N PRODUCED THE AFORESAID SH. MAKHANJIT SINGH (SUPRA) BEFORE THE AO. THE AO THERE IN PROCEEDED WITH AND RECORDED THE STATEMENTS ON OATH OF BOTH OF THE AFOR ESAID PERSONS, I.E. DR. GAGANDEEP SINGH AND SH. MAKHANJIT SINGH, WHEREIN B OTH OF THEM DULY ITA NO.129(ASR)/2013 CO NO.23(ASR)/2013 7 OWNED THE TRANSACTION AS REGARDS THE AGREEMENT TO SELL (SUPRA), PAYMENT OF THE EARNEST MONEY BY SH. MAKHANJIT SINGH TO DR . GAGANDEEP SINGH ON THE RESPECTIVE DATES, AS WELL AS THE FACT AS REGARD S THE SUBSEQUENT CANCELLATION OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL ALONGWITH TH E CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING THERETO ETC. BEFORE THE AO. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE ONUS AS STOOD CAST UPON THE ASSESSEE STOOD DULY DISCHARGED, WHEREIN TH E HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY OWNED THE TRANSACTION AS REGARDS DEPOSIT OF THE AMOUNT AGGREGATING TO RS.29,95,000/- (SUPRA) ON DIFFERENT DATES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT HE HAD ONLY OWNED THE SAID TRANSACTIONS IN THE AFFIDAVIT FILED WITH THE AO AS WELL AS ADMITTED THE SAME IN THE COURSE OF STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH AND LAS T BUT NOT THE LEAST HAD DULY DEPOSED AND EVEN SUBSTANTIATED THE SOURCE FROM WHERE THE SAID DEPOSITS HAD BEEN MADE BY HIM IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASS ESSEE, THE AO HOWEVER, ACTED MOST ARBITRARILY AND FAILING TO APPRECIATE T HAT THE ONUS AS STOOD CAST UPON THE ASSESSEE STOOD DULY DISCHARGED BY HER, THE REIN PROCEEDED WITH AND MERELY AS PER HIS WHIMS AND FANCIES, ALL THE MORE BY RESORTING TO SELF SUITING INFERENCES BY DIVORCING FEW LINES FROM THE STATEMENTS AS STOOD RECORDED BY HIM FROM THE ENTIRE CONTEXT AND THEREI N AS PER HIS CONVENIENCE READING THEM IN ISOLATION, DREW ADVERSE INFERENCES AS REGARDS THE GENUINENESS AND VERACITY OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL EXECUTED BY THE HUSBAND ITA NO.129(ASR)/2013 CO NO.23(ASR)/2013 8 OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. DR. GAGANDEEP SINGH AND SH. MA KHANJIT SINGH AND ON THE BASIS OF ABSOLUTELY MISCONCEIVED FACTS AS WELL AS T HE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW, THEREIN HELD THE AMOUNT AGGREGATING TO RS.29,95,000 /- AS STOOD DEPOSITED IN THE AFORESAID S.B. A/C NO.108601100001208 WITH AND HRA BANK JALANDHAR, AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOUR CES AND THEREIN MADE AN ADDITION OF THAT AMOUNT IN THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE DR. GAGANDEEP SINGH HAD DUL Y AFFIRMED THE FACTUM OF DEPOSIT OF RS.29,95,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT O F THE ASSESSEE, AS HEREUNDER: I) AFFIDAVIT DATED 08.02.2011 OF DR. GAGANDEEP SINGH F ILED DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHE REIN THE LATTER HAD DULY AFFIRMED AND DEPOSED AS REGARDS THE FACTUM OF DEPOSIT OF RS.29,95,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF HI S WIFE, I.E. THE ASSESSEE, ALONGWITH THE COMPLETE DETAILS AS REG ARDS THE SOURCE II) STATEMENT OF DR. GAGANDEEP SINGH RECORDED UNDER OAT H U/S 132(1) OF THE ACT I.E. AS ON 26.08.2011 WHEREIN THE LATTER HAD ONCE AGAIAN DULY CONFIRMED THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.29,95,000/- WAS DEPOSITED BY HIM IN THE BANK A/C OF HIS WIFE ITA NO.129(ASR)/2013 CO NO.23(ASR)/2013 9 I.E. THE ASSESSEE, ALONGWITH THE COMPLETE DETAILS A S REGARDS THE SOURCE OF THE SAME. THAT THE AFORESAID SH. MAKHANJIT SINGH I.E. THE PER SON FROM WHOM DR. GAGANDEEP SINGH CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.30 LACS TOWARDS EARNEST MONEY, THEREIN APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER OATH U/S 132(1) OF THE ACT, I.E. AS ON 26.08.2011, THEREIN DULY CONFIRMED ON OATH THE FACTUM OF PAYMENT OF RS .30 LACS BY HIM TOWARDS EARNEST MONEY TO DR. GAGANDEEP SINGH. THAT THOUGH THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. DR. GA GANDEEP SINGH CONFIRMED THE FACTUM OF DEPOSIT OF RS.29,95,000/- BY HIM IN THE BANK A/C OF HIS WIFE, I.E. THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH THE SOURCE FROM WHERE T HE SAID AMOUNT WAS SO DEPOSITED BY HIM IN THE SAID BANK A/C AND THE AFORE SAID SH. MAKHANJIT SINGH FROM WHOM DR. GAGANDEEP SINGH CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEI VED THE EARNEST MONEY OF RS.30 LACS ( OUT OF WHICH RS.29.95 LAC WA S DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE), TOO APPEARED BEFORE THE A O AND IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH THEREIN CONFIRMED THE FACT OF PAYM ENT OF EARNEST MONEY TO DR. GAGANDEEP SINGH, THEREIN THE ONUS AS STOOD CAST UPON THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT AS WAS SO DEP OSITED IN HER BANK A/C THEREIN STOOD DISCHARGED, IN EXCESS OF THE REQUIREM ENT CONTEMPLATED UNDER LAW, FOR THE VERY REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE NOT ONL Y SUBSTANTIATED THE SOURCE ITA NO.129(ASR)/2013 CO NO.23(ASR)/2013 10 OF THE DEPOSIT DULY CONFIRMED, BUT RATHER EVEN THE SOURCE OF SOURCE, WAS ALSO SUBSTANTIATED IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS, THEREIN REMOVING ANY SCOPE OF DOUBT AS REGARDS THE GENUINEN ESS AND VERACITY OF THE TRANSACTION UNDER CONSIDERATION. 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. RAVISH SUD , INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CI T(A) WITH REGARD TO THE ADVERSE INFERENCE DRAWN BY THE AO. IN HIS ORDER AT PAGES 8 TO 11 OF THE ORDER. HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, AMR ITSAR, BENCH IN THE CASE OF SH. BALWINDER SINGH VS. ITO IN ITA NO.126(ASR)/2 011 DATED 28.03.2012 AND OTHER DECISIONS AS UNDER: I) ARAVALI TRADING CO. VS ITO (2010) 187 TAXMAN 33 8 (RAJ) II) CIT VS. SHRI RAM NARAIN GOEL (1997) 224 ITR 1 80 (P&H) III) CIT VS. SMT. P.K. NOORJAHAN (1999) 237 ITR 57 0 (SC) THE COPIES OF THE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS COURTS OF LA W RELIED UPON BY SH. RAVISH SUD, ADVOCATE, WERE PLACED ON RECORD IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOK AND ACCORDINGLY PRAYED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 10. AS REGARDS THE CONFIRMATION OF INTEREST INCOME OF RS.1,84,478/- BY THE LD. CIT(A), HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INAD VERTENTLY OMITTED TO REFLECT THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS.1,84,478/- AS REG ARDS THE FDRS WITH IDBI ITA NO.129(ASR)/2013 CO NO.23(ASR)/2013 11 BANK AND ING VYSYA BANK, THEREIN REVISED HER ORIGI NAL RETURN WHEREIN THE LATTER WAS FILED WELL WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE ACT. THE AO, HOWEVER, REFUSING TO TAKE COGNIZANCE O F THE SUO MOTTO ACT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE AS REGARDS HER COMING FORT H AND DECLARING THE ADDITIONAL INTEREST INCOME AND FILING A REVISED RETURN, THEREIN SEPARATELY MADE AN ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.1,84,478/ - IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE CONCUR WITH THE VIEWS OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS PASSED A VERY REASONED ORDER, HAS VALIDLY OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS A DEPOSI T OF RS.29,95,000 IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. SH. GAGANDEEP SINGH, THE HUSBAND OF ASSESSEE OWNED UP BEFORE THE AO THAT THE AMOUNT BELONGED TO HIM WHICH WAS RECEIVED FROM ONE SH. MAKHANJIT SINGH AGAINST AGREE MENT TO SELL HIM A FLAT AT AMRITSAR OWNED BY THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE DEAL DID NOT MATERIALIZE AND THE AMOUNT WAS RETUNED TO SH. MAKHA N SINGH IN TWO INSTALLMENTS OF RS.20 LACS AND RS.10 LACS REPAID IN MONTHS OF AUGUST 04 AND SEPTEMBER 08.THE STATEMENTS OF SH. GAGANDEEP SINGH AS WELL AS SH. MAKHANJIT SINGH WERE RECORDED BY THE AO AND BOTH OF THEM CONFIRMED TO HAVE ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT, PAYMENT OF RS.30 LACS BY SH. MAKHANJIT SINGH ITA NO.129(ASR)/2013 CO NO.23(ASR)/2013 12 TO THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE AS EARNEST MONEY FOR PURCHASE OF THE FLAT BELONGING TO THE LATTER, CANCELLATION OF AGREEMENT BY BOTH THE PARTIES IN AUG 08 AND RETURN OF MONEY TO SH.MAKHAN SINGH BY THE HU SBAND OF THE ASSESSEE IN AUG 08 AND SEPT.08. THE AO HAS HELD THAT HERE W ERE DOUBTS ABOUT THE VERACITY OF CLAIMS IF THE RECORDED STATEMENTS ARE G ONE INTO AS IT RAISED CERTAIN DOUBTS AS NOTED AND MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER. HE ALSO HELD THAT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF SH. MAKHAN SINGH WAS ALSO IN D OUBT AS THE AMOUNT OF RS.30 LACS WAS STATED TO BE OUT OF EARNINGS FROM AG RICULTURAL ACTIVITIES ON LAND OWNED BY HIM AND TAKEN ON LEASE. LOOKING TO TH E TOTAL LAND HOLDING (OWNED AND LEASED), AS PER AO THE INCOME OF RS. 30 LACS AS CLAIMED WAS VERY HIGH. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THOUGH THE DEPOSITS ARE MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, SHE FROM THE BEGINNING HA S WASHED HER HANDS OFF AND TOTAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DEPOSITS AND EXPLA INING THE SOURCE HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO IS A DOCT OR, WHEREAS ASSESSEE HAS NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME THAN INTEREST INCOME IN D EPOSITS. ON GOING THROUGH THE CASE RECORDS IT IS FOUND THAT THE FLAT WHICH WAS AGREED TO BE SOLD VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 11.04.2008 WAS IN THE NAME OF THE HUSBAND OF ASSESSEE. THE RECEIPT FOR RS.30 LACS GIVEN BY THE H USBAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS APPENDED ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE AGREEMENT. THE FACT S THAT AGREEMENT WAS MADE AT THE RESIDENCE OF FATHER OF ASSESSEE AND PAY MENTS WERE MADE AT THE ITA NO.129(ASR)/2013 CO NO.23(ASR)/2013 13 RESIDENCE OF THE FATHER OF ASSESSEE ARE CONFIRMED B Y BOTH I.E. HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER OF TH E FLAT SH.MAKHANJIT SINGH. THERE ARE DEPOSITS OF RS.9,95,000 ON 11.04.2008 AN D RS.20 LACS ON 16.7.2008 AS MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT. THESE ALSO MATCH WITH THE FACTS AS STATED IN THE STATEMENT OF BOTH THE PARTIES. IT IS A MATTER OF FACT THAT THE RETURN OF MONEY TO THE PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER OF T HE FLAT IS MADE OUT OF WITHDRAWAL FROM THESE DEPOSITS. THE DOUBTS AS RAIS ED BY THE AO AFTER GOING THROUGH THE STATEMENTS OF DR. GAGANDEEP SINGH AND S H. MAKHANJIT SINGH ARE NOT GRAVE ENOUGH AND MATERIAL ONES. FOR EXAMPLE, WH Y TOTAL ADVANCE TAKEN WAS NOT RETURNED IN ONE GO WHEN THE AGREEMENT GOT C ANCELLED? IT IS SEEN THAT ENTIRE REPAYMENT TO SH. MAKHANJIT SINGH WAS MADE WI THIN A SHORT TIME I.E. WITHIN 25 DAYS AND IN BETWEEN THE MONEY DEPOSITED I N THE BANK WAS NOT USED IN ANY WAY BY THE ASSESSEE. AS FAR AS STATEMENT OF SH. MAKHANJIT SINGH IS CONCERNED HE HAD STATED THAT NO RECEIPT WAS GIVEN BY DR. GAGANDEEP SINGH IS ALSO NOT MATERIAL AS IN FACT THE RECEIPT WAS APP ENDED ON THE BACK OF THE AGREEMENT AND NO SEPARATE RECEIPT WAS GIVEN. MATERI AL FACTS REGARDING THE MONETARY TRANSACTION HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY BOTH TH E PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE STATEMENTS AS RECORDED MATCH WITH EACH O THER. THE ONLY MATERIAL OBJECTION OF THE AO REMAINS THAT THE INCOME OF SH. MAKHANJIT SINGH WAS CLAIMED TO BE HIGHER THAN THE TOTAL LAND HOLDING. H ERE IT MAY BE NOTED THAT AS ITA NO.129(ASR)/2013 CO NO.23(ASR)/2013 14 FAR AS THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED THE IMMEDIATE SOUR CE OF DEPOSIT IS HIS HUSBAND AS OWNED UP BY HIM THROUGH THE AFFIDAVIT AS WELL AS ON STATEMENT OF OATH. SH. MAKHANJIT SINGH REMAINS A SOURCE OF THE SOURCE, AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOTHING TO DO DIRECTLY WITH SH. MAKHANJIT SINGH . LOOKING TO TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THERE IS NO CA SE FOR MAKING THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AS SHE HAD DISCHARGED HIS ONUS AND IT WAS NOT INCUMBENT UPON HER TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE SOU RCE WITH WHOM SHE HAD NO DEALINGS, AS HELD IN INNUMERABLE CASES INCLUDING THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S. ORISSA CORPORATI ON, 159 ITR 78. 12.1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, W E FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WHO HAS RIGHTLY DELETED T HE ADDITION OF RS.29,95,000/- MADE BY THE AO. THUS, ALL THE GROU NDS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 13. NOW, WE TAKE UP C.O. NO.23(AS)/2013 FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE. GROUND NO.1 IN THE C.O. IS SUPPORTIVE IN NATURE AND THEREF ORE, DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.2, AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE WITH REGARD TO THE FINDINGS OF THE A.O. AND CONFIRMATION BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELO W, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY ITA NO.129(ASR)/2013 CO NO.23(ASR)/2013 15 IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WHICH IS WELL REASO NED ONE. THUS, GROUND NO.2 OF THE C.O. OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.129(ASR)/2013 IS DISMISSED AND C.O. NO.23(ASR)/2 013 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14TH FEBRUARY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 14TH FEBRUARY, 2014 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:SMT. JASLEEN ABROL, JALANDHAR 2. THE ITO , JALANDHAR. 3. THE CIT(A), JALANDHAR 4. THE CIT, JALANDHAR. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR