HARVINDER SINGH BULLAR,VPO RANJITGARH, MUKTSAR V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), MUKTSAR, MUKTSAR

ITA 573/ASR/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around the appeal by Harvinder Singh Bhullar against the order of the CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre, which confirmed the addition of Rs. 64,02,000 to the assessee's income under sections 69A and 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The addition was initially made by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) following reassessment proceedings under sections 147 and 144. The primary contention was the source of unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. The Tribunal examined the documentary evidence and found that the deposits were proceeds from the sale of agricultural lands, thus explaining their source.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 31098 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Other Referred Cases: Smt Tej Kaur vs ITO, Sri Jagir Singh vs ACIT, Sri Harbans Singh vs ITO, Satbir Singh Bhullar vs ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Additional evidence; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 250; 113; 69A; 20

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (HYBRID COURT) BEFORE SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 573/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Harvinder Singh Bhullar, VPO Ranjitgarh, Muktsar Punjab 152022 [PAN: BXPPB 7427P] (Appellant) Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Muktsar (Respondent) Appellant by Respondent by : : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Mrs. Neelam Sharma, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : : 23.12.2024 24.02.2025 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi dated 29.08.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has arisen out of the order passed by the ITO, Ward- 2(2) Kota u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 09.03.2023. 2 I.T.A. No. 573/Asr/2024 Harvinder Singh Bhullar v. ITO 2. Grounds of appeal preferred by the assessee as per Form 36 are as under: “1. The CIT(A) NFAC has erred on facts and law in confirming the addition, vide order u/s 250 of the Act Dt. 29.08.2024, made by the AO amounting to Rs. 64,02,000/- u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, vide order u/s 147r.w.s 144 of the Act Dt. 09.03.2023 on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits in the saving bank account. 2. The CIT(A) NFAC has erred on facts and law in confirming the addition, vide order u/s 250 of the Act Dt. 29.08.2024, made by the AO amounting to Rs. 64,02,000/- u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, vide order u/s 147r.w.s 144 of the Act Dt. 09.03.2023 on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits in the saving bank account without appreciating the detailed written submissions alongwith evidence filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) NFAC. 3. That the Order u/s 250 of the Act Dt. 29.08.2024 passed by CIT(A) NFAC is not a speaking order as the grounds of appeal raised before the CIT(A) in Form-35 has been adjudicated in a summary manner without appreciating the submissions and evidence filed during the course of appellate proceedings. 4. That the Order u/s 250 of the Act Dt. 29.08.2024 passed by CIT(A) NFAC is not a speaking order as the Additional grounds of appeal raised before CIT(A) NFAC in appellate proceedings have not been adjudicated. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed of.” 3. Apart from the above grounds, the assessee made an application dated 18th December, 2024, and requested for taking up an additional ground of appeal, which is as follows: “1. That the proceedings u/s 148A and also the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act are void ab-initio and invalid and as a result thereof, the consequential assessment as framed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w. section 144 of the Act, dated 09.03.2023 deserves to be quashed as the above said proceedings have been initiated by the JAO, instead of Faceless 3 I.T.A. No. 573/Asr/2024 Harvinder Singh Bhullar v. ITO mode, as provided u/s 151A of the Act in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, High Court of Telangna and Bombay High Court.” 4. The brief facts of this case is that the assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs.64,02,000/- in his bank account with Bank of India, Digod, Kota, A/c No : xxxxxxxx 01914 , during the FY 2014-15, and in absence of any return on record , reassessment proceedings were initiated u/s 148 on 26/03/2022 , as per new scheme ( after obtaining necessary approval of specified authorities), and in absence of any response or compliances by the assessee, in respect of subsequent notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act 61 and also in absence of any compliance to the final SCN issued by the AO dated 01/03/2023, the assessment was completed ex-parte, u/s 147 / 144, vide order dated 09/03/2023,by determining the total income at Rs. 64,02,000/- by application of the deeming provisions of section 69A with consequential tax rates u/s 115BBE of the Act 61. 5. The matter was carried in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC, where elaborate written submissions were filed by the assessee along with supporting documentary evidence by way of an indexed paper-book consisting of 129 pages along with an application for admission of fresh evidence under Rule 46A. It is further observed from the appellate order (paragraph – 6) that fresh evidences filed by the assessee has been forwarded to the AO, from the office of the first appellate 4 I.T.A. No. 573/Asr/2024 Harvinder Singh Bhullar v. ITO authority, for his comments and in absence of any objection from the AO , the said additional evidences has been admitted and considered by the Ld CIT(A) and the appeal has been decided accordingly . The observation of the Ld CIT(A) on this issue are reproduced as under: “In absence of the report of the AO under Rule 46A of the Rules the additional evidence is admitted and the appeal is decided accordingly”. 6. The assessee before the tribunal has filed two sets of paper book consisting of 187 pages , which contains copies of registered sale deeds dated 19/05/2014 ( including its English translation ) , copies of death certificate of Sh. Raj Singh ( uncle of the assessee), copies of bank accounts of the assessee and other family members, copy of jamabandi of agricultural lands owned by parents of the assessee, copies of written submissions filed by the assessee before the first appellate authority , and copies of evidences, filed before the first appellate authority , and a judgment set consisting of 58 pages , containing decisions of various courts and tribunal, on which the assessee relied upon in support of his arguments. 7. At the very outset, the Ld AR of the assessee, has withdrawn grounds number – 4 and has also withdrawn the additional ground, both being legal grounds, objecting to the issue of reassessment notice issued by jurisdictional AO u/s 148 dated 26/03/2022, as not pressed and consequently, all relevant submissions on the 5 I.T.A. No. 573/Asr/2024 Harvinder Singh Bhullar v. ITO legal issue contained in the written submissions and part of the paper book filed , are also treated as withdrawn. 8. The Ld AR, proceeded to argue the case on the factual aspect of the matter on merits of the case, contained in grounds numbers 1, 2 and 3. He submitted that all three grounds relates to the single issue of the addition of Rs. 64,02,000/- pertaining to cash deposit in assessee bank account during the FY 2014-15 (relevant to the Asst year under appeal ) the date wise bifurcation being 19th May, 2014 , Rs.61,50,000/- , plus Rs.1,53,000/- on 23rd May, 2014 , plus Rs.50,000/- on 18th April, 2014, and Rs.49,000/- on 5th May 2014. 9. The Ld AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee himself is an agriculturist and belongs to an agricultural family and his entire family including his father, his uncle and cousins are all holders of agricultural lands and none of them has any other income earning activity other than agricultural income. 10. The AR further submitted that the assessee’s uncle ( younger brother of the father of the assessee) Sh. Raj Singh, has expired long back on 20th June, 2002 , leaving behind his agricultural lands located at khasra no 670 / 671 / 672/ 581 measuring total land area of approximately 3.84 hectors, at village Kanwarpura , patwar area, Dugrajya , Tehsil Digodh, Dt Kota , and the deceased was survived by 6 I.T.A. No. 573/Asr/2024 Harvinder Singh Bhullar v. ITO four first class legal heirs namely, (i) Smt Pritam Kaur (wife), (ii) Sh Sukhchain Singh ( son ) , (iii) Sh Kulwinder Singh ( son ) and (iv) Sh Bittu Singh ( son ), but the relation in between the brothers (sons of the deceased) were not amicable. 11. He further submitted that the aforesaid agricultural lands were sold by four separate deed of conveyance duly registered before the Registration authority sub - Registrar, at Deegod, Rajasthan , executed by all the four legal heirs of the deceased, on 19th May, 2014, in favour of one Smt. Sugna Bai, wife of Shri Ratanlal , of Tehsil Ladpura, Dt Kota , Rajasthan. He further submitted , referring to the four registered sale deeds, placed in (paper book page 142-167), that as per the registered deed , the deed value of three such sale document is recorded at Rs. 6,40,000/- each plus Rs. 6 laksh for one (which totals to Rs. 25,20,000/-), receivable in cash, which is the Government value for the purpose of stamp duty, but in actual practice, the total sale proceeds received against such sale of agricultural lands was Rs.1,23,00,000/- ( Rs. One crore, Twenty Three Lakhs), in cash on 19th May, 2014, which is the date of registration of the sale deeds , and the entire sale proceeds received in cash from the buyer, has been deposited (50%) partly, in the bank account of the assessee in A/c No . xxxxxx01914, with Bank of India, Doongraja Branch , Rs. 61,50,000/-, and the remaining ( 50% ) of equal amount has been deposited in the bank account of Mr Baljeet Singh (who happens to be the uncle of the assessee and naturally uncle of the 7 I.T.A. No. 573/Asr/2024 Harvinder Singh Bhullar v. ITO three sellers also and brother in law of the widow, of the deceased Raj Singh ), in his Bank of India A/c No. xxxxxxx02790, same branch. 12. He further submitted that, since the three brothers (three sons of the deceased) were not in harmony with each other , it was decided amongst the brothers in consultation with their mother, Smt Pritam Kaur, (widow), that the sale proceeds received in cash on sale of the agricultural lands , will be kept partly in custody of the assessee ( who is the elder cousin of the three sellers ) and partly in custody of their uncle Sh Baljeet Singh, as custodians, and the same will be refunded by the custodians, at a subsequent date, after the three brothers and their widow mother arrives at a harmonious settlement amongst themselves. 13. The Ld AR has filed the relevant copies of the bank statements of the assessee and also that of his uncle Baljeet Singh (the second custodial) (PB Page 52 – 56) and pointed out that the cash has been deposited in the bank accounts of the custodians simultaneously in the same branch, on the same date of the registration of the four sale deeds on 19th May, 2014, to put forth his argument that these cash deposits are contemporaneous to the sale transaction effected on the same date. 14. He further drew attention of the bench to the copies of bank statements, of the widow mother Smt. Pritam Kaur, and her three sons ( sellers ) Sukhchain Singh, 8 I.T.A. No. 573/Asr/2024 Harvinder Singh Bhullar v. ITO Kulwinder Singh, and Bittu Singh, which is placed in pb page – 57 to 68 , all accounts maintained in same branch of Bank of India , to explain that no CASH has been deposited in their own bank accounts, against such sale of agricultural lands, to drive home the point that whatever cash that has been received against sale of agricultural lands has been deposited in bank account of the assessee and his uncle Baljeet Singh ( being the two custodians ) in this transaction of sale. 15. He further submitted that subsequently after reconciliation amongst the cousin brothers, the said sum of money which was kept in custody of the assessee, has been duly transferred by the assessee through bank transfer on 19th February, 2016 to Mr Bittu Singh, Kulwinder Singh and others, and the said transaction is reflected in the bank statement on the said date amounting to Rs.62,91,131/- ( placed in page -54 of the pb). 16. Thereafter, the Ld AR of the assessee submitted that in the instant case , the source of cash deposited in bank account of the assessee is proved to have come out of sale proceeds of agricultural lands ( sold by his cousins and their mother ) , which was simply held by the assessee as custodian of money on their behalf ( as Amanat ) and the said deposit was subsequently refunded to the cousins through bank channel , and as such the amount of Rs. 61,50,000/- deposited in bank on 19th May, 2014, stands explained. 9 I.T.A. No. 573/Asr/2024 Harvinder Singh Bhullar v. ITO 17. He further submitted that the cash deposits in assessee bank account, comprising of the smaller deposits pertaining to Rs.1,53,000/- on 23rd May, 2014 , plus Rs.50,000/- on 18th April, 2014, and Rs.49,000/- on 5th May 2014, are out of his own agricultural income as an agriculturist and in support of such claim he refers to the copy of Jamabandi of agricultural lands owned by the father and mother of the assessee in the village of Kanvarpura, Rajasthan ( which is placed in paper book page 116 to 117 ) and the assessee being the only son of his parents , has deposited the said agricultural earnings in his bank account. 18. On a specific query from the bench regarding non submission of return in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act 61 dated 26/03/2022, the Ld AR submitted that the assessee is only engaged in agricultural activity and has never submitted any income tax returns in the past , because his ( and his family ) only income is agricultural income and he belongs to a family of agriculturist , and he previously used to reside at a village Kanvarpura, Kota , Rajasthan and now has shifted to village Ranjitgarh, Dt. Muktsar sahib, Punjab , and notices issued from the office of the AO either through post or affixation , at the old address at Kanvarpura , Kota , was never received by him and he was not at all aware of any such ongoing assessment proceedings, and the assessee himself being semiliterate , never had any knowledge of income tax portal and never had any knowledge of compliance with 10 I.T.A. No. 573/Asr/2024 Harvinder Singh Bhullar v. ITO income tax proceedings , because his entire income being from agriculture, all along, he was never aware of any statutory compliances. 19. However, the Ld AR further submitted that , in course of appellate proceedings, the assessee has fully cooperated in the appellate proceedings (through his authorised Advocate) , and has filed all necessary documentary evidences and elaborate written submissions in form of an indexed paper book before the CIT (A), and the Ld first appellate authority has also admitted the documents contained in the said paper book u/r 46A , and considered the same in his appellate order and has not given any adverse findings in respect of the same. 20. The Ld AR further relied upon the following decisions of the coordinate bench of the tribunal in support of his claim that the assessee has brought on record the relevant fact and the documentation as well as the nexus between the transaction of sales of agricultural lands (not being capital asset) effected by registered deed before the sub registrar, and the simultaneous deposit of cash in bank account , on the same date itself, the link and the nexus in between the two has been established , and since no contrary evidence has been brought on record , the only inference that can be drawn is that the deposit in bank is out of sale proceeds of agricultural lands. He relied upon the following decisions of the coordinate benches, where the Hon’ble 11 I.T.A. No. 573/Asr/2024 Harvinder Singh Bhullar v. ITO tribunal has taken a similar view on an almost identical facts and circumstances, relating to sale of agricultural lands in rural areas (not being capital assets). i. Smt Tej Kaur vs ITO in ITA No 06/ASR/2024 ii. Sri Jagir Singh vs ACIT 106 ITR( Trib) 233 ( Chandigarh ) iii. Sri Harbans Singh vs ITO 106 ITR( Trib) 20 ( Amritsar ) iv. Satbir Singh Bhullar vs ITO ITA No 258/ASR/2022 21. The Ld AR concluded his arguments by praying that since the Ld CIT(A) has accepted all documentary evidences and considered the same and has not arrived at any adverse findings in respect of the above documents, the addition made in the hands of the assessee on account of cash deposits in bank , the source of which being clearly explained through documentary evidences , the addition may please be deleted. 22. Again, a clarification was sought by the bench regarding the observation of the Ld CIT(A), in last paragraph of the appellate order 6.3, where the appellate authority has observed as follows: “All the documents and the sale deeds submitted pertained to FY 2015-16 and therefore not helping the appellant in its explanation convincing” 12 I.T.A. No. 573/Asr/2024 Harvinder Singh Bhullar v. ITO 23. The Ld AR explained that along with the paper book submitted by the assessee in course of appellate proceedings, before the first appellate authority , the assessee has also submitted copies of purchase deed of agricultural lands purchased by the Smt Pritam Kaur, Sri Bittu Singh , Sri Sukhchain Singh and Sri Kulwinder Singh on 17/3/2016 and 18/03/2016 , respectively, which relates to FY 2015-16 ( Asst year 2016-17 ) , copies of purchase deed (placed at page – 69 to 113 of the paper book ), just to prove the subsequent utilisation of the sale proceeds received by them on sales of agricultural lands effected on 19/05/2014 ( FY 2014-15 ) . These deeds of purchase of agricultural lands for the FY 2015-16, are subsequent events, where utilisation of the funds (sale proceeds) has been explained, and which has no relation for examining the source of bank deposits in FY 2014-15, because that is just the outgoing (or utilisation part) which is a subsequent event relating to subsequent year , which has been mis-judged by the Ld CIT(A) , for arriving at an incorrect conclusion on his part. 24. Per contra, the Ld DR, relied on the order of the Ld CIT (A), and submitted that the documentary evidences submitted before the tribunal, has also been submitted before the first appellate authority, as evident from the appellate order, but since the same was not examined by the AO in absence of any being submitted at the 13 I.T.A. No. 573/Asr/2024 Harvinder Singh Bhullar v. ITO assessment stage, the matter should be remanded back to the AO for fresh assessment. 25. However, when it was pointed out by the ld. AR of the assessee that in course of first appellate proceedings, all documentary evidences along with written submissions were forwarded to the AO by the Ld CIT ( A ) calling for comments , as per procedure laid down under Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, but the AO has remained silent and has ignored the matter for five months (from the date calling for report till the date of passing of the appellate order) neither objected to the same nor has given any adverse finding or any comments in respect of such evidences filed , and as such the Ld CIT (A), whose powers are co terminus to that of the AO , has accepted and admitted the said evidences , under Rule 46A of the IT Rules ’62, and has examined and considered the same , which is evident from the appellate order, and the said documents, admittedly becomes a part of the official record and there is no reason as to why the assessee cannot rely upon the same for arguing his case before higher appellate authorities. It is altogether a different matter that the Ld CIT(A) has arrived at a conclusion against the assessee, based on evidences filed , but the admissibility of the evidences on record cannot be denied. 26. The Ld DR, could not counter the said argument, that in the instant case the Ld first appellate authority has followed the procedure laid down in Rule 46A(3) and after forwarding all evidences , has called for the comments from the AO, but the AO 14 I.T.A. No. 573/Asr/2024 Harvinder Singh Bhullar v. ITO due to reasons unknown, has remained silent, without tendering any objections nor any comments, and as such, fair and reasonable opportunity of examination of documentary evidences offered to the AO could not be said to have been denied in the instant case , nor could the Ld DR point out any discrepancy in the registered sale deeds or bank statements ( contained in the paper book ) and relied upon for arguments by the assessee. 27. On merits of the case, we have heard the rival submissions and considered the materials and the contents of the paper book placed on record. There are two issues in this case, firstly, the source of the cash amounting to Rs.64,02,000/- that has been deposited in the bank account of the assessee on 19.05.2014 and secondly, the actual consideration of sale proceeds received amounting to Rs. 1,23,00,000/-, in cash against the registered set forth deed value of Rs. 25,20,000/-. For easy understanding the summary of the case is reproduced as follows: Date of Deposit Amount Source as Explained: Transferred Ultimate Assessee holding the same by assessee to Utilisation by Sellers in custody only : the sellers 19th May 2014 61,50,000.00 Sale proceeds of agricultural Transferred Agricultural Lands lands sold by Smt Pritam Kaur to Pritam Kaur purchased by and her sons was held by and Sons through Pritam Kaur and assessee as custodian bank transfer, Sons on 17/03/2016 Reflected in Bank Statement on 19 Feb 2016 and on 18/03/2016 15 I.T.A. No. 573/Asr/2024 Harvinder Singh Bhullar v. ITO Sale deed Registered on the Reflected in bank same date 19th May 2014 statement Separate Purchase Deeds registered on 18th April 2014 50,000.00 Agricultural Income March 2016 not related of assessee , Father and to the year under appeal Mother . As per Jamabandhi 05th may 2014 49,000.00 do 23rd May 2014 1,53,000.00 do 64,02,000.00 28. In the instant appeal, we are not concerned about the total amount of Rs. 1.23 crores, as claimed to be the total sale price of land, because our findings are only restricted to the amount of Rs. 64.02 lakhs deposited in the assessee bank account. 29. Regarding the first issue it is seen that the amount of Rs.61,50,000/- has been deposited in cash in the bank account of the assessee, Harvinder Singh Bhullar ( the custodian of the seller ) , in Bank of India , S/B A/c on 19th May, 2014 , and the date of registration of the sale deed executed by Smt Pritam Kaur and her three sons , ( the sellers ) , are also 19th May, 2014 , and as such as regards the deposit of the cash in bank account of the assessee is concerned the said deposit can be said to be contemporaneous to the sale transactions, in the absence of any other income 16 I.T.A. No. 573/Asr/2024 Harvinder Singh Bhullar v. ITO earning activity carried on by the assessee or his family members , more so in the context that the entire family ( extended family ) including his father , his uncle and cousins are all holders of agricultural lands, and as stated earlier , and they operate using their own labour and capital and members of the family are full time workers on the farm and families capital is inseparable from the farms assets , and none of them has any other income earning activity other than agricultural income . 30. It is further observed by us from the bank statement , that the said amount was held by the assessee as custodian till 19th February, 2016, and an amount of Rs.62,91,131/- has been transferred to the sellers Bittu Singh Kulwinder Singh and others through bank transfer, from the same bank branch, and it is also observed from the bank statement furnished, that the said amount has remained in the custodians bank account, almost for throughout the entire period of custody from May 2014 till February, 2016, and it can be reasonably concluded that the assessee has not derived any direct or indirect benefits out of the said holding as custodian of the amount. 31. It is also observed that the assessee (custodian) has not gained anything from this transaction of depositing cash into his bank account and thereafter transferring the said amount back to the actual owners (sellers) within a period of 21 months, thereafter, where the said amount was utilized by the sellers (Pritam Kaur and her 17 I.T.A. No. 573/Asr/2024 Harvinder Singh Bhullar v. ITO sons ) for purchasing agricultural lands on 17th March 2016 , a transaction to which this assessee (custodian) is not directly related. 32. At this juncture, it is clarified that the said purchase deeds of lands registered on 17th March, 2016, was also a part of the paper book filed before the Ld CIT (A), and the observation and comments of the Ld CIT(A) in the last paragraph of his order, relates to the registered purchase deeds evidencing purchase of lands which pertains to FY 2015-16 ( Asst year 2016-17 ) , and has no effect on the issue for the year under appeal. 33. The Ld CIT ( A ) has examined the entire paper book contents , in course of the appellate proceedings and no adverse comments or finding has been passed in respect of the documentary evidences , contained in the PB , relating to the deposit of cash in bank account of the assessee (custodian) arising out of sale of agricultural lands , of his extended family members (Smt Pritam kaur and her sons). He has dismissed the appeal, commenting on the documents which are related to the subsequent year FY 2015-16, which has no bearing on the year under appeal. 34. Regarding the second issue pertaining to the claim of the SELLERS that an amount of Rs. 1.23 crores, has been received in cash from the buyers of the agricultural lands, against the registered deed value of Rs. 25,20,000/- ( sum total of four registered sale deeds executed by Smt Pritam kaur and sons) (which is the 18 I.T.A. No. 573/Asr/2024 Harvinder Singh Bhullar v. ITO circle rates as fixed by the Government ), which means ON MONEY received is the balance amount of Rs.97,80,000/- in CASH , on sale of agricultural lands situated in rural areas ( not being capital asset ) , the assessee has argued that it is a normal practice that agricultural lands are sold and purchased , at much higher rates , in rural areas , and the registration of the same are done at a much reduced rates , according to the Government circle rates adopted by the office of the Sub registrar, on which the actual stamp duty is payable. The excess sale proceeds are invariably received in cash, and in this case, the entire sale proceeds has been received in cash, as evident from bank statements furnished. 35. On this aspect of the matter, the Ld AR has relied on some identical cases of the coordinate benches of this tribunal , where it is accepted that in rural areas relating to sales and purchase of agricultural lands , it is common practice that actual monetary transactions are more than the set forth value of the registered sale deeds, which is recorded at the prevailing Government rates for stamp duty purpose, and in absence of any contrary material brought on record the source explained by the assessee cannot be rejected, more so in cases where it is established that the dates of registration and deposit of cash in banks are matching and it can be assumed that the deposit of cash in the bank account is contemporaneous to the transaction of sale of land. Supporting decisions of co-ordinate bench relied upon: 19 I.T.A. No. 573/Asr/2024 Harvinder Singh Bhullar v. ITO (i) Smt. Tej Kaur v. ITO in ITA No. 06/Asr/2024 (ii) Sri Jagir Singh v. ACIT 106 ITR (Trib.) 233 (Chandigarh) (iii) Sri Harbans Singh v. ITO 106 ITR (Trib.) 20 (Amritsar) (iv) Satbir Singh Bhullar v. ITO ITA No. 258/Asr/2022 36. As such after examining of all factual issues and considering the fact that the deposit of the cash of Rs. 61.50 lakhs in the bank account of the assessee is matching with the date of sale registration of agricultural lands , and subsequent refund of the said amount to the original sellers, and also considering the fact that the amount has remained almost untouched by the assessee in his bank account all throughout the period held by him in custody, we are of the opinion that the assessee is not the beneficial owner of such funds and has not gained anything out of the said sum and he has simply held the same as a custodian of his family members , and as such the addition of Rs. 61.50 lakhs on this count in the hands of the assessee is hereby deleted. 37. Regarding the cash deposit of Rs. 2,52,000/- , in the bank account of the assessee in the months of April and May 2014, it is explained by the Ld AR of the assessee, to have arisen out of agricultural income from agricultural activity carried out by the assessee on agricultural lands owned and occupied by his parents (in support of which Jamabani of lands are filed in page 116 and 117 of PB) , which are 20 I.T.A. No. 573/Asr/2024 Harvinder Singh Bhullar v. ITO all under cultivation and there being no other source of income of the family nor any other activity other than agriculture , the cash deposit of Rs.2,52,000/- is accepted to have arisen out of agricultural receipts, and the addition of the said amount is hereby deleted. 38. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 24.02.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Krinwant Sahay) (Udayan Dasgupta) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order "