Teji Singh s/o Sh. Solia Ram, V. ITO, Kaithal

ITA 1063/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 77058 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 22-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J S NAGAR
• Assessee Lawyers: DALJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Question of law; Fair market value
• Section: 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1063/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10 TEJI SINGH VS. I.T.O. WARD 4 S/O SHRI SOLIA RAM KAITHAL H NO. 828, VPO SHERGARH TEH & DISTT. KAITHAL BQUPS 9333R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI DALJIT SINGH RESPONDENT BY: SHR I J.S. NAGAR DATE OF HEARING 1.4.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 .5.2014 O R D E R PER T.R. SOOD, A.M THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13. 8.2012 OF THE LD CIT(A), KARNAL. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS: 1 THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS AGAINST FACTS AND LAW. 2 WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CORRECT PERSPECTIVE AND FURTHER ERRED IN SU STAINING THE ARBITRARY ADDITION MADE BY THE ITO. 3 ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED TO REJECT THE IKRARNAMA FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. 4 ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED TO REJECT THE STATEMENT OF SOLIA RAM FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE WHO RECORDED THE S TATEMENT ON OATH. 5 ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED TO REJECT THE AFFIDAVITS FILED BY HAWA SINGH, RAM DIYA AND AJMER SINGH DURING THE PROCEEDINGS IN PERSON. 3 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT IN T HIS CASE AIR INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER W HICH DEPICTED THAT THE ASSESSEE (BEING SHARE) HAS DEPOSITED CASH AMO UNTING TO RS. 233407/- AND RS. 5992750/- DURING THE YEAR. ON ENQU IRY IT WAS MAINLY 2 SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEES FATHER SHRI SOLIA RAM ALO NG WITH HIS BROTHERS S/SHRI HAWA SINGH, RAM DIA AND AJMER SINGH HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT DATED 2.8.2008 TO SELL THEIR AGRI CULTURAL LAND @ RS. 1.11 LAKH PER ACRE TO SHRI BALDEV SINGH. TOTAL ARE A OF THE LAND WAS 30 KANALS AND INITIALLY AN ADVANCE OF RS. 60 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED ON 2.8.2008 AND DATE OF REGISTRATION WAS FIXED ON 1.5. 2009. LATER ON ANOTHER AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO ON 30.4.2009 AND AN ADVANCE OF RS. 85 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED AND DATE OF REGISTRATION WAS FIXED ON 30.6.2009. LATER ON THIS AGREEMENT WAS CANCELLED AN D FRESH AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED ON 26.6.2009 AND AN ADVANCE OF RS. 1 LAKH WAS RECEIVED BUT THE DATE OF REGISTRATION WAS NOT M ENTIONED. THIS AGREEMENT WAS NOT ATTESTED BY NOTARY OR WITNESSED B Y AN WITNESS. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 9.12.2011 WH ICH CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING AVERMENTS: (I) THAT MY FATHER SHRI SOLIA RAM AND MY UNCLES NAM ELY S/SHRI AJMER SINGH, HAWA SINGH ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT DATED 2 .8.2008 TO SOLD THEIR 30 KANALS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND PURCHASER BALDER SINGH INITIALLY PAID TO RS. 6 LAKHS AND RS. 22 LAKHS BEFORE THE DAT E OF AGREEMENT AND PAY RS. 32 LAKHS AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF AGREEM ENT TO SELL THUS TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 60 LAKHS RECEIVED AS EARNEST MONEY AN D THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF SALE DEED WAS FIXED AS 1.5.2009. (II) THAT ON 30.4.2009 BALDEV SINGH PURCHASER REQUE STED FOR EXTENSION OF TIME OF EXECUTION AND IN LIEU OF EXTENSION PURCH ASER PAID RS 25 LAKHS OUT OF BALANCE AND DATE OF EXECUTION WAS FIXED AS 3 0.6.2009. (III) THAT ON 25.6.2009 BALDEV SINGH FURTHER REQUES TED FOR EXTENSION OF TIME OF EXECUTION AND IN LIEU OF EXTENSION PURCHASE R PAID RS 15 LAKHS OUT OF BALANCE AND DATE OF EXECUTION WAS FIXED AS 30.12 .2009. (IV) THAT DEPONENT RECEIVE THE AMOUNT FROM FATHER A ND UNLESS AS THEY WERE ILLITERATE AND HAVE NO BANK ACCOUNT AND DEPONE NT DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT IS HIS SAVING ACCOUNT NO. 403010100027380 OF AXIS BANK, KAITHAL. (V) THAT DEPONENT PAID THIS AMOUNT TIME TO TIME TO HIS FATHER AND UNLESS AS THEY HAVE TO PURCHASE THE AGRICULTURAL LA ND IN DISTRICT KURUKSHETRA. (VI) THAT THE PURCHASER BALDEV SINGH EXECUTED THE S ALE DEED IN THE NAME OF SHRI AJMER NATH S/O SHRI RAM KISHAN, SMT. N EELIMA W/O SHRI ROHIT KHURANIA S/O SURJEET BAHADUR KHURANIA SHARE AND REMAINING SHARE IN THE NAME OF SMT. NAVITA KHURANIA W/O RAHUL KHURANIA S/O SURJEET BAHADUR KHURANIA RESIDENTS OF KAITHAL VIDE REGD SALE DEED NO. 4726/1 DATED 30.12.2009. 3 THE ASSESSEE (BEING SHARE) HAD MADE A DEPOSIT A S PER AIR INFORMATION AS UNDER: SBI BANK ACCOUNT NO. 303372865162 IN THE NAME OF TE JI SINGH S/O SHI SOLIA RAM TOTAL CASH DEPOSIT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-0 9 AXIS BANK ACCOUNT NO. 403010100027380 IN THE NAME O F TEJI SINGH S/O SHRI SOLIA RAM TOTAL CASH DEPOSIT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-0 9 TOTAL CASH DEPOSITS IN TWO BANK ACCOUNT: SBI RS. 23,34,075/- AXIS BANK RS. 59,92,750 TOTAL RS. 83,26,825/- THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE AB OVE AND ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE COPY OF THE SALE DEED. PERUSA L OF THE SALE DEED SHOW THAT THE DETAILS WERE AS UNDER: SHRI AMAR NATH S/O SHRI RAM KISHAN SHARE (I) SMT. NILIMA W/O SHRI ROHIT KHURANIA S/O SHRI S URJEET BAHADUR KHURANIA (II) SMT. NAVITA KHURANIA W/O SHRI RAHUL KHURANIA S/O SHRI SURJEET BAHADUR KHURANIA (III) SMT. SWETA W/O SHR RAJESH KHURANIA S/O SHRI SURJEET BAHADUR KHURANA SHARE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN INCORPORATED AT RS. 54,12,000/- AND STAMP DUTY OF RS. 2,16,500/- HAS BE EN PAID. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND ABOVE FACTS FROM TH E SALE DEED HE OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO MENTION OF ADVANCE IN TH E SALE DEED. HOWEVER, THE ADVANCE IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVE D FROM BALDEV SINGH BUT THE LAND WAS SOLD TO AMAR NATH, SMT. NILI MA, SMT. NAVITA AND SMT. SWETA. IN ANY CASE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERAT ION IN THE SALE DEED WAS ONLY RS. 54,12,000/-. THEREFORE THERE CAN NOT BE ANY RECEIPT OF ADVANCE AMOUNTING TO RS. 60 LAKHS. IN THIS BACK GROUND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED A SUM OF RS. 8326825/- BEIN G CASH DEPOSITED IN TWO BANKS TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE REITERATED. IT WAS FURT HER POINTED OUT THAT ORIGINAL AGREEMENT WAS EXTENDED ON VARIOUS OCCASION S AND MORE PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED ON VARIOUS DATES. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT SHRI TEJI SINGH I.E. THE ASSESSEE S/O SHRI SOLIA RA M WAS THE ONLY 4 EDUCATED PERSON IN THE FAMILY HAVING BANK ACCOUNT, THEREFORE HE WAS GIVEN THE MONEY TO DEPOSIT THE SAME IN HIS BANK ACC OUNT. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT IT IS A GENERAL PRACTICE WHEREIN S ALE DEED CAN BE EXECUTED IN THE NAME OF ANY OF THE NOMINEE WHO IS E NTERED IN THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. IN ANY CA SE BALDEV SINGH APPEARED AS WITNESS IN THE SALE DEED. FURTHER SHRI SOLIA RAM WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE CLEARL Y STATED THAT HE HAS RECEIVED MONEY ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF LAND WHICH HAS GIVEN TO HIS SON TEJI SINGH. FURTHER AFFIDAVITS OF S/SHRI HAWA SINGH, RAM DIA AND AJMER SINGH WERE ALSO FURNISHED AND SAME SHOULD HAV E BEEN ACCEPTED. THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT FIND ANY FORCE IN THESE SUBMISSIONS AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5 BEFORE US. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILE D WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME MAY BE CONS IDERED. 6 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. FOR THE REVENUE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND TH E LD. CIT(A). 7 WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREF ULLY. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAVE BEEN REITERATED. I T HAS BEEN EMPHASIZED THAT FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI SOLIA R AM ALONG WITH HIS BROTHERS, S/SHRI AJMER SINGH, HAWA SINGH AND RAM DI A AGREED TO SELL THEIR AGRICULTURAL LAND MEASURING ABOUT 30 KANALS T O BALDEV SINGH AND CERTAIN ADVANCES WERE RECEIVED. SINCE THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS UNCLES WERE ILLITERATE THE AMOUNTS WERE GIVEN T O THE ASSESSEE FOR DEPOSITING THE SAME IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. COPIES OF THE AGREEMENT WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD. CIT(A). IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT SALE DEED COULD NOT BE EXECUTE D AS AGREED ORIGINALLY BECAUSE BALDEV SINGH HAD EXPRESSED HIS I NABILITY TO ARRANGE ENTIRE BALANCE SALE CONSIDERATION AND THER EFORE HE HAD 5 REQUESTED ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS TO EXTEND THE TIME F OR REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED AND HAD GIVEN FURTHER ADVANCES. IT HAS B EEN FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN OBS ERVING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 60 LAKHS HAS NOT BEEN DEPOSITED ON 2 .8.2008 BECAUSE THIS SUM OF RS. 60 LAKHS WAS NOT RECEIVED IN ONE GO . IT HAS BEEN FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE FINDING THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD AGREED TO SELL THE LAND @ 1.11 CRORE PER ACRE WHEREAS TOTAL CONSID ERATION SHOWN IS ONLY RS. 54,12,000/-, IS ALSO OF NO VALUE BECAUSE I T IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT ACTUAL VALUE OF THE LAND IS GENERALL Y HIGHER THAN WHAT IS SHOWN IN THE SALE DEED AND IN THIS REGARD RELIAN CE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN CASE OF DINESH KUMAR MITTAL, 193 ITR 770. RELIANCE HAS ALSO BEEN PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. PARINEETA, ITA NO. 278 OF 2010 VIDE ORDER DATED 7.2.2011. 8 WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THESE SUBMISSIONS AND FIND T HAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED ALL THESE ISSUES IN DETAIL IN HIS ORDER VIDE PARA 1.04 TO 1.13 WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 1.04 TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS, DETAILS OF DEPOSIT OF CASH IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT MADE BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE GIVEN BELOW:- AXIS BANK ACCOUNT NO. 403003566 TRANSACTION DATE OPENING BALANCE DETAILS CREDIT NIL 16.07.2008 BY CASH 600000.00 01.08.2008 BY CASH 2200000.00 09.08.2008 BY CASH 300000.00 20.08.2008 BY CASH 200000.00 29.09.2008 BY CASH 202000.00 17.10.2008 BY CASH 4000.00 24.10.2008 FROM SHIV CHARAN 100000.00 05.11.2008 BY CASH 500000.00 05.11.2008 BY CASH 10000.00. 07.11.2008 BY CASH 700000.00 06.12.2008 BY CASH 295000.00 17.12.2008 BY CASH 195000.00 26.12.2008 BY CASH 507500.00 07.03.2009 BY CASH 19250.00 16.03.2009 BY CASH 260000.00 09.04.2009 BY CASH 106000.00 16.04.2009 BY CASH 395000.00 01.05.2009 BY CASH 2769500.00 6 11.05.2009 16.05.2009 BY CASH 8500.00 19.05.2009 BY CASH 35000.00 26.05.2009 BY CASH NO FURTHER DEPOSIT OF CASH TILL 07.09.2009 SBI BANK ACCOUNT NO. 30372865162 TRANSACTION DATE OPENING BALANCE DETAILS CREDIT NIL 26.04.2008 BY CASH 3000.00 03.05.2008 BY CASH 46575.00 05.05.2008 BY CASH 78694.00 06.05.2008 BY CASH 5000.00 09.07.2008 BY CASH 1000.00 14.07.2008 BY CASH 100000.00 14.07.2008 BY CASH 600000.00 18.10.2008 BY CASH 49000.00 18.10.2008 BY CASH 49000.00 18.10.2008 BY CASH 49000.00 18.10.2008 BY CASH 49000.00 23.10.2008 BY CASH 5000.00 09.12.2008 BY CASH 17000.00 13.12.2008 BY CASH 510000.00 19.01.2009 DEPOSIT BY SELF 20000.00 19.01.2009 DEPOSIT BY 093338849 20000.00 20.01.2009 DEPOSIT BY 0933388496 20000.00 21.01.2009 DEPOSIT BY SELF 20000.00 14.02.2009 DEPOSIT BY SELF 40000.00 21.02.2009 DEPOSIT BY SELF 575500.00 26.02.2009 DEPOSIT BY SELF 1000.00 13.03.2009 DEPOSIT BY JOG SINGH 25000.00 1.05 THE ISSUE IS EXAMINED. THE FACT IN BRIEF ARE T HAT ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION, IT WAS NOTED THAT THERE WERE SUBSTANTI AL CASH DEPOSITS IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT WIT H THE AXIS BANK & SBI BANK AND ON THAT BASIS THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTIN Y. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN T HE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS OF CASH IN THESE BANK ACCOUNTS. THE APPELLANT TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH THE AXIS BANK BUT NO EFFORTS WERE MADE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN THE S AVING BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH THE SBI BANK. IN OTHER WORDS, THE A PPELLANT DID NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT MAINTA INED WITH THE SBI BANK. 1.06 AS FAR AS THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT OF CASH IN THE SAVI NG BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH THE AXIS BANK IS CONCERNED, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT HIS FATHER ALONGWITH HIS 3 UNCLES ENTERED IN AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND MEASURING 30 KANALS AND ADVANCE OF RS. 60 LACS WAS RECEIVED ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT, I.E., 02.08.2008. AS PER THE AGREEMENT, THE SALE DEED WAS TO BE GOT EXECUTED BY 01.05.2009. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ON 30. 04.2009 THE PURCHASER FURTHER PAID ADVANCE OF RS.25 LAC AND REQUESTED TO EXTEND T HE DATE OF EXECUTION OF SALE DEED UP TO 30.06.2009. AGAIN THE PURCHASER CLAIMED TO HAVE PAID RS. 15 LAC AND REQUESTED TO EXTEND THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF SA LE BY 30.12.2009. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT HIS FATHER AND UNCLES WERE ILLITERATE AND WERE HAVING NO BANK ACCOUNT AND HENCE THE ENTIRE AMOUNT RECEIVED B Y THEM WAS HANDED OVER TO HIM FOR GETTING IT DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WH ICH WAS TO BE PAID AS AND WHEN THEY ASKED FOR THE SAME. 1.07 THE APPELLANT ENCLOSED A COPY EACH OF THE SAI D AGREEMENT. THE SAME ARE EXAMINED. AT THE, OUTSET, IT IS NOTED THAT AS P ER THE FIRST AGREEMENT DATED 02.08.2008 THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 60 LAC WAS STAT ED TO BE PAID ON 02.08.2008 I.E., ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT. THIS FACT HAS ALSO BEEN C ONFIRMED BY SH. SOLIA RAM, FATHER OF THE APPELLANT IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED ON 02.12 .2011. HE CATEGORICALLY STATED ON PAGE 2 OF HIS STATEMENT THAT WHICH WAS HANDED OVER TO SH. TEJI SINGH I.E., THE APPELLANT AND HE DEPOSITED THE SAME IN HIS BANK A/C MAINTAINED WITH AXIS BANK, KAI THAL. 7 1.08 IN VIEW OF THE FACTS DISCUSSED ABOVE, IT IS NOTED T HAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS GIVEN TO SH. TEJI SINGH TO KEEP IN HIS B ANK ACCOUNT BEING NEITHER SH. SOLIA RAM NOR HIS 3 BROTHERS HAD ANY BA NK ACCOUNT AND ARE ILLITERATE. THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.60 LAKHS SHOULD , THEREFORE, HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED ON 02.08.2008 OR 2-3 DAYS THERE AFTER. SINCE THERE CAN NOT BE ANY JUSTIFICATION OF KEEPING SUCH A HUGE AMOUNT AT HOME BUT THERE IS NO SUCH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH THE AXIS BANK. FUR THER, CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT DEPOSIT OF CASH OF RS. 6 LAKH ON 16. 07.2008 AND RS. 22 LAKH ON 01.08.2008 WAS OUT OF THE ADVANCE OF RS. 60 LAKH RE CEIVED IS ALSO NOT CORRECT SINCE THE SAID ADVANCE WAS RECEIVED ON 02.08.2008 O NLY AND HENCE THE SAME WAS NOT AVAILABLE PRIOR TO 02.08.2008. THE PLEA OF THE APPE LLANT OF DEPOSIT OF CASH IN PIECE MEAL IS NOT TENABLE ALSO IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT IN THAT CASE THERE WAS NO NEED OF PIECE MEAL WITHDRAWAL OF CASH FROM THE BANK BEING HUGE AMOUNT WAS AVAILAB LE AT HOME. 1.09 FURTHER SEQUENCE OF EVENTS ARE ALSO DISCUSSED BELOW:- ON THE BACK OF THE 1 ST PAGE OF THE AGREEMENT, THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT HAS BEEN WRITTEN WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW: - THE DATE HAS BEEN WRITTEN 30.04.2009. IN VIEW OF TH E ABOVE, IT IS NOTED THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE OF RS. 60 LAC WAS RETURNED TO THE PURCHA SER ON 30.04.2009. A FRESH AGREEMENT WAS TAKEN PLACE ON 30.04.2009 AS PER WHICH A SUM OF RS. 85 LAC WAS RECEIVED IN ADVANCE. THIS AGREEMENT WAS ALSO CANCELLED ON 25.06.2009 AND THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE OF RS.85 LAC WAS RETURNED ON THE SAME DATE AS PER THE AGREEMENT DT. 26.06.09 WHICH READS AS UNDER: 8 1.10 THERE WAS NO FURTHER AGREEMENT PER W HICH IT IS CLAIMED THAT AMOUNT OF RS. 151AC WAS FURTHER PAID BY THE PURCHASER FOR GETTING THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF SALE DEED EXTENDED SINCE NO SUCH COPY OF AGREEME NT HAS BEEN ENCLOSED. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE THAT THE FIRST AGREEMENT WAS CANCEL LED AND THE ENTIRE ADVANCE OF RS. 60 LAC WAS RETURNED ON 30.04.2009 BUT THERE IS NO SUCH WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT. RATHER THERE IS NO TRANSACTION IN THE BANK ACCOUNT FROM 16.04.2009 TO 30.04.2009. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION O F 2 ND AGREEMENT DATED 30.04.2009 WHICH WAS ALSO CANCELLED ON 25.06.2009 A ND THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE OF RS.85 LAC WAS RETURNED ON 25.06.2009 BUT THERE WAS NO SUCH WITHDRAWAL OF RS.85 LAKH ON 25/26.06.2009 FROM THE BANK. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE THAT COPY OF THE 3RD AGREEMENT PER WHICH FURTHER AD VANCE OF RS. 15 LAC CLAIMED TO BE RECEIVED HAVE NOT BEEN FILED. A COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF SAVING BANK A/C MAINTAINED WITH AXIS BANK, KAITHAL, COPY OF AGREEMENT DT. 02.08.2008, DT. 30.04.2009 AND OF AGREEMENT OF CANC ELLATION THEREOF DT. 26.06.2009 ARE MADE PART OF THIS ORDER AS ANNEXURE A, A-L, A-2, & A-3 RESPECTIVELY. 1.11 FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SAID LAND WAS SOLD TO THE FOLLOWING PERSONS :- A SH.. AMAR NATH S/O SH. RAM KISHAN 1/2 SHA RE B. (I) SMT. SMT. NILIMA W/O SH. ROHIT KHURANIA S/O SH. SURJEET BAHADUR KHURANIA (II) SMT. NAVITA KHURANIA W/O SH. RAHUL 1/2 SHARE KHURANIA S/O SH. SURJEET BAHADUR KHURANIA. (III) SMT. SWETA W/O SH. RAJESH KHURANIA S/O SH. SURJEET BAHADUR KHURANIA. INSTEAD OF THE PURCHASER SH. BALDEV SINGH WITH WHOM THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF LAND WAS CARRIED OUT. INTERESTINGLY, AS PER THE AGR EEMENT, THE LAND WAS TO BE SOLD AT THE RATE OF RS. 1.11 CRORE PER ACRE WHEREAS THE LAND MEASURING 3 ACRE WAS SOLD FOR RS. 54,12,000/- ONLY WHEREAS THE SAME SHOULD BE AT RS. 3.33 CRORES AND THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS AS PER THE SALE DE ED RECEIVED ON THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF SALE DEED I.E., ON 30.12.2009. THERE WAS NO MENTION OF ADVANCE PAID BY THE PURCHASER AND SETTLEMENT THEREOF HAS BE EN BROUGHT ON RECORD. THE APPELLANT ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE AO REFUSED TO REC ORD THE STATEMENT OF SH. BALDEV SINGH WHEREAS THE AO NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN PARA 11 (IV) AS UNDER:- 'TO ASCERTAIN THE CORRECTNESS OF FACTS THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED TO PRODUCE SH. BALDEV SINGH S/O SH. RAM S INGH BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO H IM. HOWEVER, SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE IT. ACT WAS ISSUED ON 19.12.2011 TO SH. BALDEV SINGH S/O SH. RAM SINGH R/ O VILLAGE SHERGARH, TEHSIL & DISTT. KAITHAL BUT SH. BALDEV SI NGH HAS REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE SUMMON AS PER INSPECTOR'S REP ORT PLACED ON FILE. HOWEVER, ONE COPY OF SUMMON HAS BEEN SENT BY POST AS REGD. A.D. SH. BALDEV SINGH HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE SUMMON ISSUED U/S 131 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961.' 1.12 IN VIEW OF THE FACTS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE O NLY INFERENCE WHICH CAN BE DRAWN IS THAT THE DEPOSIT OF CASH MADE BY THE APPEL LANT IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED WITH THE AXIS BANK AND WITH THE SBI BANK HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACTS OF SALE OF LAND BY HIS FATHER AND HIS UNCLES. IT IS ALSO ENDORSED BY THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH DEPOSIT OR WITHD RAWAL FROM THE BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT. AS FAR AS, RELIANCE PL ACED ON THE STATEMENT OF THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVI T OF THE FATHER AND OF UNCLES OF THE APPELLANT, IT IS NOTED THAT IN THE STATEMENT AS WELL AS IN THE AFFIDAVIT, IT IS STATED THAT THE ADVANCE OF RS. 60 LAC WAS RECEIVED ON 02.08.2008. FURTHER AMOUNT OF RS.25 LAC WAS RECEIVED ON 30.04.2009 AND FURTHER RS. 15 LAC ON 25.06.2009 WHEREAS, THE FIRST AGREEMENT DATED 02.08 .2008 WAS CANCELLED ON 30.04.2009 AND THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 60 LAC WAS STATED TO BE RETURNED. 9 FRESH AGREEMENT WAS CARRIED OUT AND ADVANCE OF RS. 85 LAC WAS RECEIVED, WHICH WAS ALSO CANCELED LATER ON AND THE ENTIRE AMO UNT OF ADVANCE OF RS.85 LAKH WAS ALSO RETURNED ON THE SAME DATE. THE FACTS GIVEN IN THE AFFIDAVIT AND IN THE STATEMENT ARE, AS SUCH, CONTRADICTORY. THE FACT S STATED IN THE AFFIDAVITS, RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT ARE, AS SUCH, NOT IN C ONSONANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT AND HENCE ARE NOT RELIABLE. 1.13 IN VIEW OF THE FACT DISCUSSED ABOVE, IT IS NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT OF CASH IN THE SAV ING BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED WITH THE AXIS BANK AND THE SBI BANK AND HENCE ADDIT ION THEREOF MADE BY THE AO IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. VARIOUS GROUND OF APPEAL TA KEN BY THE APPELLANT ARE, AS SUCH, REJECTED. ABOVE CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALREADY MET WITH ALL THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND WE FIND NOTHING WRONG WITH THE SAME. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOTED MANY INCONSISTENCIES. FOR EXAMPLE THE AMOUNT OF RS. 60 LAKHS COULD HAVE BEEN RECEIVED ONL Y ON 2.8.2008 AND NOT BEFORE THAT BECAUSE THE AGREEMENT ITSELF WA S DATED 2.8.2008 WHEREAS ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN CASH RECEIVED AMOUNTING TO RS. 6 LAKHS ON 16.7.2008 AND RS. 22 LAKHS ON 1.8.2008. IT IS N OT CLEAR THAT ONCE THE AGREEMENT ITSELF IS ENTERED ON 2.8.2008 THEN HO W THE ASSESSEE CAN DEPOSIT THIS AMOUNT ON 16.7.2008 AND 1.8.2008. SIMILARLY OTHER INCONSISTENCIES HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT. 9 WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DECISION IN CASE O F DINESH KUMAR MITTAL VS. (SUPRA). IN THAT CASE THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FOR STAMP DUTY WAS SHOWN AT RS. 207500/- B UT THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION WAS STATED AT RS. 1,50,000/-. THE AS SESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT TO THE EXTENT OF BUILT UP AREA AND THE RENT RECEIVED CLEARLY SHOW THAT ASSESSEE HAS SUPPRESSED THE SALE CONSIDERATION , THEREFORE A SUM OF RS. 28750/- WAS ADDED TO THE INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE A AC WHICH WAS DISMISSED. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY APPEAL BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL AND PREFERRED TO FILE A WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE HO N'BLE HIGH COURT. HON'BLE HIGH COURT ADJUDICATED THE MATTER AS UNDER : WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT WE CANNOT RECOGNIZE ANY RULE OF LAW TO THE EFFECT THAT THE VALUE DETERMINED FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY IS THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION PASSING BETWEEN THE PARTIES T O A SALE. THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION MAY BE MORE OR MAY BE LESS. WHAT IS THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION THAT PASSED BETWEEN THE PARTIES IS A QUESTION OF FACT TO BE DETERMINED IN EACH CASE, HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES 10 OF THAT CASE. IN THIS CASE, THE PETITIONER BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE COMMISSIONER THAT THE PORTION PURCHASED BY HIM WAS UNDER THE TENANCY OF HIS MOTHER AND ACTUALLY THEY WERE THEMSELVES OCC UPYING IT. THIS MAY BE A REASON FOR SELLING THE HOUSE AT A RATE LESSER THAN FAIR MARKET VALUE OR IT MAY NOT BE; BUT THAT IS A QUESTION OF FACT. I T IS TRUE THAT THE ITO HAD OBSERVED THAT THE PETITIONER HAD NOT PLACED ANY MAT ERIAL BEFORE HIM IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, BUT HE SEEMS TO HAVE OMITTED TO NOTICE THAT THE PURCHASED PREMISES WERE UNDER THE TENANCY OF THE ASSESSEES MOTHER AND THE ASSESSEES FAMILY WAS SAID TO BE OCC UPYING IT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ORDERS OF ALL THE THREE A UTHORITIES ARE QUASHED AND THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE ITO FOR RE-DETERM INATION OF THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION WHICH WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN TH E SAID TRANSACTION AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE ABOVE. THE ASSESSMENT MAY BE FINALIZED ACCORDINGLY. THEREFORE FROM ABOVE IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT NORMALLY THERE CANNOT BE ANY RULE THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE I S SAME AS MENTIONED REGARDING STAMP DUTY. IN THAT CASE HIGHER CONSIDERATION WAS ASSESSED BECAUSE IN THE SALE DEED ITSELF MENTIO NED HIGHER AMOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY. HOWEVER, IN CASE BEFORE US THERE IS NO SUCH MENTION REGARDING HIGHER CONSIDERA TION. 10 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. PARINEETA (SUPRA). IN THAT CASE THE ASSESSEE H AD FILED RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 87747/-. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH AMOUNT ING TO RS. 10,97,300/- AND RS. 32,84,000/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF THIS CASH. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT TH ESE AMOUNTS WERE WITHDRAWN FROM DIFFERENT BANK ACCOUNTS. IT WAS FUR THER EXPLAINED THAT SHE HAD SOLD HER HOUSE FOR RS. 2470000/- IN WHICH S HE HAD 50% SHARE AND BALANCE 50% BELONGING TO HER HUSBAND. THIS REP LY WAS NOT FOUND CONVINCING AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED A SUM OF RS. 13,50,000/- U/S 68 & 69 OF INCOME -TAX ACT, 1961. THE LD. CIT( A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON FURTHER APPEAL TO THE TRIBUNAL THE ADDITION WAS DELETED BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED DETAILED EXPLANATION REGARDING WITHDRAWAL OF CASH. ON APPEAL TO THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT BY THE REVENUE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AFTER DISCUSSING THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVE D AS UNDER: 11 THE DEPOSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE HELD TO BE GENUINE BY THE TRIBUNAL AFTER APPRAISAL OF BANK STATEMENTS OF INDU S IND BANK AND VIJAYA BANK IN WHICH SHE HAD THE ACCOUNT AND ALSO AFTER PE RUSAL OF COPY OF ENTRIES OF WITHDRAWALS AND DEPOSITS IN THE ACCOUNTS BEING OPERATED BY HER. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE COULD NOT SHOW TH AT THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL HOLDING THE CASH DEPOSITS TO BE GENUINE WERE LIABLE TO BE INTERFERED WITH. IN VIEW OF THIS, NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION BY THIS COURT. THUS IT BECOMES CLEAR FROM ABOVE THAT ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSITS WHICH WERE WITHDRAWN FROM VA RIOUS BANKS. THERE WAS NO ISSUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED E XTRA CONSIDERATION THAN STATED IN THE SALE DEED AND THE REFORE THIS CASE IS TOTALLY DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. 11 THEREFORE IN OUR OPINION, IN VIEW OF THE INCONSI STENCIES POINTED OUT BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE DETAILED OBSERVATIONS MADE BY HIM, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL BEFORE US TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A), ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED. 12 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2.5.2014 SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2.5.2014 SURESH COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT/THE C IT(A)/THE DR