Mahinder Singh, Fatehgarh Channa V. ITO, W-1, Barnala

ITA 1077/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6242 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 16-09-2020
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 31-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Income from undisclosed sources; Source of fund; Condonation of delay
• Section: 54B; 2(14); 13

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH SMC CHANDIGARH !', # BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM ./ ITA NO. 1077/CHD/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI MAHINDER SINGH, VILLAGE: FATEHGARH CHANNA, DISTT. BARNALA. VS THE ITO, WARD-1, BARNALA. ./ PAN NO: EMVPS0322C / RESPONDENT ! ' / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PARDEEP GOYAL, C.A. AND SMT. DEEPIKA PARDEEP GOYAL, TAX CON SULTANT # ! ' / REVENUE BY : SHRI DAYA INDER SINGH SIDHU,ADDL. CIT $ % ! &/ DATE OF HEARING : 16.09.2020 '()* ! &/ D ATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.09.2020 HEARING CONDUCTED VIA WEBEX $%/ ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 25.03.2019 OF CI T(A), PATIALA PERTAINING TO 2011-12 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE FOLLOW ING GROUNDS : 1. ON FACTS AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TH E CIT (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY A.O OF THE SUM OF RS.2671080/- WHICH, IS NOT TAXABLE AS INCOME AT ALL UNDER ANY HE AD OF INCOME UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. ON FACTS AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TH E CIT (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION IN ASSESSE E CASE DUE TO THE BINDING NATURE OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HONORABLE ITAT CHANDIGARH BEN CH ORDER IN THE CASE OF MOHINDER SINGH V/S MALKIT SINGH ITA NO.665 & 666/CHD/2016 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE ASSESSEE CASE ARE ITA 1077/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 2 OF 10 TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE CASE RELIED UPON BY CIT (A) AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 3. ON FACTS AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TH E CIT (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY IGNORING THE FACT THAT AGRICULTURE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RURAL AGRICULTURE LAND IN NATURE WHICH IS NOT A CAPITAL ASSET U/S 2(14) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 . THEREFORE THE INCOME WHICH IS NOT TAXABLE UNDER CAP ITAL GAIN HEAD OF INCOME CANNOT BE TAXED UNDER ANY OTHER HEAD OF INCOME AND SAME CANNOT BE PART OF GROSS TOTAL INCOME IN ANY MANNER. 4. ON FACTS AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TH E CIT (APPEALS) IGNORED THE ASSESSEE SUBMISSION IN WHICH HE RELIED UPON RATIO DECIDENDI IN THE CASE OF NANIKANT AMBALAL MODY V/S CIT ON 04.05.1966 DECIDED BY HONORABLE SUPREME COURT WHICH IS A VALID AND BINDING DECISION TILL DATE. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT (A) AND THE A.O HAS MADE ADDITIONS BY IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESS EE IS PURELY AN AGRICULTURIST HAVING NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME EXCEPT AGRICULTURE INCOME. THEREFORE THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT REPRESENTS ONLY AS AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM SALE OF RURAL AGRICULTURE LAND. 2. HOWEVER, BEFORE ADDRESSING THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCE D ON THE ISSUES IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, IT IS PERTINENT TO FI RST ADDRESS THE DELAY OF 58 DAYS POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY IN THE FILING OF THE PRESENT APPEAL. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A CONDONATION OF DELAY AP PLICATION. RELIANCE WAS PLACED THEREON BY THE LD. AR. IT IS S UPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO. CONTENTS OF THE SAM E ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER FOR READY REFERENCE : SUB : APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILIN G APPEAL. R/SIR, IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT IS AN ILLITERATE AGRICULTURIST PERSON HAVING SOURCE OF INCOME ONLY FROM AGRICULTUR E ACTIVITIES . AT PRESENT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO SOURCE OF INCOME. HE IS AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS AND HAVING MORE THAN 80% PHYSICAL DISABILITY IN BOTH LEGS AND FULLY DEPENDENT ON HIS ONLY SON, WHO IS ALSO AN ILLITERATE PERSON, FOR HIS LIVELIHOOD. THE ASSESSEE HAD TOTAL RURAL AGRICULTURE LAND MEASURING 19 KANAL 13 MARIAS SITUATED IN VILLAGE: F ATEHGARH CHANNA, DISTRICT: BARNALA WHICH WAS SOLD DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION. THE AMOUNT THUS RECEIVED ITA 1077/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 3 OF 10 FROM PROCEEDS OF SALE OF RURAL AGRICULTURE LAND WAS DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT NO.65040559274 MAINTAINED WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA, HANDIAYA BRANCH. THE A.O MADE ADDITIONS OF RS.2671000/- VIDE HER ORDER DATED 28.1 2.2018 DUE TO THE REASON THAT 'THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL COPY OF AGR EEMENT TO SELL AND THE PURCHASER WITH WHOM HE HAD MADE AGREEMENT TO SELL, AND HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS MADE BY HIM. THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CASH DE POSITS OF RS.4146000/- ON 18.01.2011 WHEREAS IT HAS BEEN FOUND THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD MADE REGISTRATION OF THE LAND FOR RS. 1475000/- ON 17.01.2011 THEREFORE THE AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 1475000/- IS TREATED AS EXPLAINED OUT OF THE SALE O F SAID LAND AND THE BALANCE OF RS.2671000/- IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT S MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF UNDISCLOSED SOURCES OF INCOME. HENCE AN ADDITION OF RS.2671000/- IS MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CA SH DEPOSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH STATE BANK OF INDI A, HANDIAYA BRANCH BEARING ACCOUNT NO.65040559274. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE CIT (APPEALS) PATI ALA AGAINST THE ORDER OF A.O ON 02.01.2019.THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED APPLICATION F OR EARLY HEARING OF APPEAL BEFORE CCIT, LUDHIANA AND PR.CIT, PATIALA ON 05.02.2019 FO R GETTING THE JUSTICE AS HE WAS UNABLE TO PAY THE DISPUTED TAX DEMAND RAISED BY THE A.O. THE HONORABLE CIT (APPEALS) KEEPING IN VIEW THE ASSESSEE APPLICATION HEARD THE ASSESSEE APPEAL TURN AND DECIDED THE APPEAL ON 25.03.2019 THE ORDER OF WHICH WAS RECEIVE D BY THE ASSESSEE ON 04.04.2019. ACCORDING TO THE SAID ORDER THE LAST DATE OF FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE HO ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH WAS 03.06.2019. AS ALREADY STATED THE ASSESSEE AT HAS NO SOURCE OF INCOME AND IS FULLY DEPENDENT ON HIS ONLY SON FOR H IS AND LIVELIHOOD. THE ASSESSEE HAD NO MONEY TO PAY ITAT APPEAL FEE OF RS. 10000/ - FOR FILING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS), PATIALA. THE ASSES SEE HOWEVER MANAGED TO COLLECT THE MONEY FROM HIS FRIENDS AND RELATIVES FOR DEPOSI TING THE APPEAL FEE OF RS. 10000 - AND HE FINALLY DEPOSITED THE SAME ON 01.07.2019 WI TH OBC BANK VIDE CHALLAN NO.41342. IN THE MEANTIME THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO GET LEG AL AID SERVICES FOR FILING HIS APPEAL BEFORE YOUR HONORABLE COURT AS HE HAS NO MON EY TO PAY THE COUNSEL FEE. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED HIS PREVIOUS COUN SEL TO PROVIDE FREE LEGAL SERVICES TO HIM FOR FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE YOUR HONORABLE COU RT WHO HAD EARLIER FILED ASSESSEE APPEAL BEFORE CIT (APPEALS), PATIALA. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE HURDLES THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE HIS APPEAL BY 03.06.2019 AND THERE IS DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE YOUR HONORABLE COURT BY 58 DAYS WHICH IS PRAYED TO BE CONDONED. IT IS THEREFORE REQUESTED THAT THE DELAY IN THE FIL ING OF THE APPEAL MAY BE CONDONED AND THE APPEAL TREATED AS FILED WITHIN THE ALLOWED TIME. DEPONENT (MAHINDER SINGH S/O SHRI KEHAR SINGH) (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) 4. THE LD. DR WAS HEARD. CONSIDERING THE FACTS, HE POSED NO OBJECTION TO THE CONDONATION OF DELAY APPLICATION F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA 1077/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 4 OF 10 5. I HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED ILLITERACY AND LACK OF FUNDS AS WELL AS PHY SICAL DISABILITY AND CONSEQUENTLY HAS PLEADED THAT HE HAS BEEN RELIA NT UPON THE SON WHO IS ALSO ILLITERATE AS REASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL WHICH ARE NOT QUESTIONED BY THE DEPARTMENT, THE EXPLANATION SO OFFERED CAN BE ACCEPTED. IT IS FURT HER NOTED THAT NO ADVANTAGE HAS BEEN DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BY FI LING THE APPEAL LATE AND NO ADVANTAGE VESTED BY THE REVENUE HAS BEEN UPSET BY FILING THE APPEAL LATE. THE DELAY, IT IS NOTED, HAS BEEN EXPLAINED. ACCORDINGLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE PRAYER OF THE PARTIES BEFORE THE BENCH, THE DELAY IS CONDONED. SAID ORDE R WAS PRONOUNCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF IN THE PRE SENCE OF THE PARTIES VIA WEBEX. THE PARTIES WERE ACCORDINGLY DIR ECTED TO ARGUE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 6. REVERTING TO THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL, IT IS SEE N THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL HAD COME UP FOR HEARING ON 15.09.202 0 ON WHICH DATE, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS FULLY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY VIRTUE OF THE ORDER DATED 15.01.2010 IN ITA 246/CHD/2018 IN THE CASE OF SHRI MANGAT SINGH V S ITO. COPY FILED BY E-MAIL. RELYING ON THE SAID ORDER, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE SEEKS SIMILAR DIRECTION IN THE PR ESENT CASE ALSO IN ITS PRAYER FOR REMAND AS IN THE FACTS OF THE PRE SENT CASE, THE VALUE OF THE SPECIFIC PIECE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT THE RELEVANT ITA 1077/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 5 OF 10 POINT OF TIME HAD NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION . IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SIMILARLY PURELY HAS AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND DOES N OT HAVE ANY OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME. 7. TIME WAS GIVEN TO THE LD. SR.DR SHRI SIDHU TO GO THROUGH THE ORDER AND BE IN A POSITION TO ADDRESS THE SIMIL ARITIES OF FACTS RELIED UPON. THE APPEAL WAS, ACCORDINGLY, ADJOURN ED TO THE NEXT DATE. IT IS WORTH NOTING THAT THE PARTIES ON THE SA ID DATE HAD FAILED TO POINT OUT THE DELAY WHICH WAS NOTICED ON THE NEXT DATE WHEN THE APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING. 8. IN THE SAID BACKGROUND, HAVING ARGUED THE CONDON ATION OF DELAY, THE LD. AR, APART FROM REITERATING THE SUBMI SSIONS ADVANCED ON THE EARLIER DATE FURTHER RELYING ON THE FACTS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER HAS INCORRECTLY RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF SHRI MOHINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER ( ITA 665/CHD/2016, ITA 666/CHD/2016 AND ITA 474/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2013-14), CO PY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE IN THE PAPER BOOK RUNNING INTO 1 55 PAGES. DRAWING SPECIFIC ATTENTION TO PAGE 110 AND 113, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE DECISION WAS DISTINGUISHABLE AN D INFACT WAS NOT APPLICABLE HAVING BEEN WRONGLY APPLIED. IN THE FACTS OF THE SAID CASE, IT WAS ARGUED THE ISSUE WHICH FELL FOR C ONSIDERATION BEFORE THE ITAT WAS THE CLAIM THAT THE SALE PROCEED S WERE APPLIED ITA 1077/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 6 OF 10 IN TERMS OF BENEFIT CLAIMED U/S 54B AND THIS WAS NO T THE ISSUE AT HAND IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED A ND CONSIDERED ON DISSIMILAR PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IN D ISTINGUISHABLE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS ARGUED, CANNOT BE A PRECEDENT TO BE FOLLOWED IN DIFFERENT CASES. HENCE, IT WAS VEHEMEN TLY ARGUED THAT THE DECISION IS WRONGLY APPLIED. 9. THE LD. SR.DR DR. SIDHU RELIED UPON THE IMPUGNED ORDER. HOWEVER, ON THE ARGUMENT THAT THE DECISION OF MOHIN DER SINGH HAS BEEN INCORRECTLY APPLIED, NO REBUTTAL WAS GIVEN . HOWEVER, HE INSTEAD DREW DRAWING SPECIFIC ATTENTION TO PARA 4. 3 OF THE ORDER. HIS ATTENTION WAS ALSO INVITED TO PARA 4.2 OF THE I MPUGNED ORDER WHEREIN THE LD. COMMISSIONER HAD TAKEN NOTE OF CERT AIN TRENDS NOTED BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES AND HIS REPLY ON BEHAL F OF THE REVENUE IN THE CONTEXT OF THESE OBSERVATIONS WAS SO UGHT. FOR READY REFERENCE, RELEVANT EXTRACT HIGHLIGHTED FOR T HE BENEFIT OF LD. SR.DR IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER : 4.2 THAT HERE IS A MARKET PRACTICE OF MAKING A GREEMENT TO SELL IN THE NAMES OF AN ASSOCIATED PERSON OF THE BUYER AT A HIGHER PR ICE AND THE ACTUAL SALE DEED BEING DONE AT THE STAMP DUTY RATE TO AVOID STAMP DUTY AND TO UTILIZE UNACCOUNTED CASH IS A WELL KNOWN FACT. HOWEVER, IN THE INSTANT CASE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY EXTRA MONEY HAS BEEN PAID TO THE APPELLANT THE TERMS ANY AGREEMENT TO SELL OR IN TERMS OF A DEED/ DOCUMENT REDUCED TO WRITING SIGNED BY THE BUYER AND DULY REGISTERED.. (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) 9.1 ON READING OF PARA 4.3 HIGHLIGHTED BY THE LD. S R.DR, THE LD. SR.DR WAS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS HOW THE GENERAL PRESU MPTIONS CAN BE SAID TO DISMANTLE THE ASSESSEE'S CASE AS THE FAC TS/TRENDS AS ITA 1077/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 7 OF 10 NOTICED ARE HARDLY LIKELY TO IMPACT AN AGRICULTURIS T RECEIVING SALE PROCEEDS FROM SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AS HE IS LE AST INTERESTED IN REDUCING THE STAMP DUTY COSTS ETC. FOR THE PURCH ASER. AS SELLER, HE PERSONALLY DOES NOT HAVE ANY REASON OR M OTIVE TO REDUCE THE STAMP DUTY COSTS TO BE INCURRED BY THE P URCHASER. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS, THE RELEVANT EXTRACT HIGH LIGHTED BY THE LD. SR.DR IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER : 4.3 NOW COMING TO THE QUESTION AS TO WHY THE PARTIE S TO SUCH TRANSACTIONS CHOOSE TO GET THEM REGISTERED AT A LOWER RATE THAN ACTUALLY AGREED TO? THE ANSWER, IS TO EITHER AVOID PAYMENT OF HIGHER STAMP DUTY, OR TO UTILIZE UNACCOUNTED FUNDS. THE SELLER AS WELL AS THE PURCHASERS CONNIVE WITH EACH OTHER TO FALSELY REPRESENT TO THE CONCERNED PUBLIC AUTHORITY / LAND REVENUE OFFICER ENTRUSTED WITH THE WORK OF REGISTRATION AND COLLECTION OF STAMP DU TY ABOUT THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT A FAR LESS AMOUNT THAN THAT WAS AC TUALLY AGREED TO. WHILE IT IS A COMMON PRACTICE THAT THE SALE DEEDS ARE REGISTERE D SHOWING PASSING OF LESS CONSIDERATION AS COMPARED TO THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATI ON PAID SO AS TO AVOID THE STAMP DUTY/ UTILIZE UNACCOUNTED FUNDS. THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL UAT IN THE CASE OF MOHINDER SINGH AND MALKIAT SINGH REFERRED T O SUPRA HAS EXAMINED THIS ISSUE IN DETAIL AS UNDER:.. (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) 10. THE LD. SR.DR RELIED ON THE ORDER, HOWEVER, THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AR AND THE INAPPLICABILITY O F THE SAID DECISION IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WAS NOT D ISPUTED. THE LD. DR INFACT AGREED TO THE REQUEST OF REMAND BACK TO THE CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN MANGAT SINGH CASE . 11. I HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO HAVE DEPOSITED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 46,36,000/ - IN THE SPECIFIC BANK ACCOUNT NOTED BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES. IT WAS ITA 1077/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 8 OF 10 CLAIMED THAT IT WAS SOURCED FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS OF RURAL AGRICULTURAL LAND MEASURING 14 KANAL 15 MARLA SITUA TED IN VILLAGE FATEHGARH CHANNA. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 41,46,000/- HAD BEEN DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCO UNT ON 18.01.2011 WHEREAS THE REGISTRATION OF THE LAND WAS DONE FOR A VALUE OF RS. 14,75,000/- ON 17.01.2011. THE AMOUNT OF RS. 26,71,000/- WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT S. 12. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE ISSUE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER. THE RELEVANT FACTS HAVE BEEN NOTICED BY THE COMMISSIONER IN PARA 4.1 OF HIS ORDER. A PERUSAL OF THE SAME SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMED TO BE AN ILLITER ATE AGRICULTURIST WHOSE MAIN SOURCE OF INCOME WAS FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. ON A READING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED ON THE BASIS OF POSSI BILITIES AND CONJECTURES INCLUDING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DI D NOT PRODUCE THE PURCHASER. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE THE PURCHASER AT A NY STAGE. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE ORIGINALLY HAD 1 9 KANAL 13 MARLAS OF LAND AND WAS HAVING ONLY AGRICULTURE INCO ME OF RS.75000/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION (AS NOTED IN PARA 4.1 PAGE 3 OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER). THE ASSESSE E HAD SOLD 14 KANAL ODD TO IDENTIFIED PERSON WHOSE NAME AND DE TAILS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE SALE DEED I.E. LAND REVENUE RECORD S. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD B E SAID TO ITA 1077/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 9 OF 10 HAVE ANY AUTHORITY, INFLUENCE OR POWER OVER THE BUY ERS SO AS TO ENFORCE THEIR PRESENCE BEFORE THE TAX AUTHORITIES. ADMITTEDLY, THE ONLY INTERESTED PARTY WITH A MOTIVE TO REDUCE COSTS BY REDUCING STAMP DUTY COSTS WOULD BE THE PURCHASER WHO IS IDEN TIFIED. THUS, IF HIS PRESENCE WAS SO RELEVANT, THERE WAS NOTHING TO STOP THE TAX AUTHORITIES FROM ENSURING HIS PRESENCE FOR WHICH PU RPOSES, IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO HAVE ON RECORD THE ACTUAL VALU E OF THE SPECIFIC LAND AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME. 13. IT IS SEEN THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CAS E, THE TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE TAKEN AN EASY ROUTE AND HAVE PLACE D AN IMPOSSIBLE BURDEN UPON THE ASSESSEE. AS HAS BEEN NO TED EARLIER, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES TO ASSIST TAX COMPLIANCE WHICH MEANS GIVING CORRECT ADVICE AND FOLLOWING BES T PRACTICES. TO ATTEMPT COLLECTING TAX ON THE BASIS OF IGNORANCE OF THE CITIZENRY IS NOT EXPECTED FROM A TAX ADMINISTRATION IN A DEVELOPED ECONOMY. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASS ESSEE HAS CONSISTENTLY CLAIMED TO BE ILLITERATE EVIDENCED BY THE FACT THAT THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS ARE CARRYING A THUMB IMPRESSION. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO BE A PURELY AN AGRICULTURIST HA VING NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME. THESE FACTS REMAIN UNREBUTTED ON RECORD. ACCORDINGLY, CONSIDERING THE PRINCIPLE AS LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF SHRI MANGAT SINGH (SUPRA) NAMELY THE VALUE OF THE L AND AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME, THE ISSUE IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN A CCORDANCE WITH ITA 1077/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 10 OF 10 LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUN ITY OF BEING HEARD. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED AT THE TIME OF HEA RING ITSELF IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES VIA WEBEX. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 21 ST SEPTEMBER,2020. SD/- ( !' ) (DIVA SINGH) # / JUDICIAL MEMBER