Income Tax Officer, Sirhind V. Sh.Amrik Singh S/O Sh.Iqbal Singh Near Warehouse,

ITA 1099/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6534 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 26-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Additional evidence
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1099/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. SH. AMRIK SINGH WARD SIRHIND. S/O SH. IQBAL SINGH NEAR WAREHOUSE GODOWN KHANANON ROAD, BASSI PATHANA PAN: COMPS5643K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT.CHANDER KANTA, DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 11.09.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.12.2017 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M. : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE HAS BEEN PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), PATIALA (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(APPEALS)) DATED 26.8.2016 RELATING TO ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL PERTAINS TO ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH FOUND DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AMOUN TING TO RS.1,50,50,000/-. THE ASSESSEE ATTRIBUTED THE SAME TO CONSIDERATION RECEIVED IN CASH ON SALE OF TWO CHUNK S OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNED BY HIM AND CONTENDED THAT H E HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO SELL THIS LAND ON 10.1 0.2008 TO S. JAGVIR SINGH AND S. BHUPENDER SINGH AT RS. 31,50 ,000/- 2 PER ACRE AND THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION FOR THE DEAL W ORKED OUT TO RS.3,12,04,685/- OUT OF WHICH RS.1,60,50,000/- W AS RECEIVED BY WAY OF DEMAND DRAFT AND BALANCE IN CASH WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE SALE DEEDS OF THE SAID LAND REFLECTED A CONSIDERATION OF ONLY RS. 1,60,50,000/- RECEIVED BY WAY OF DEMAND DRAFT AND FURTHER REVEALED THAT THE LANDS WE RE SOLD TO S. GURPREET SINGH AND S. BALWANT SINGH, WHO WERE THE SONS OF THE PURCHASERS MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT T O SELL. MOREOVER, IN THE COURSE OF ENQUIRY CONDUCTED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE PURCHASERS MENTIONED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED REFUSED HAVING RECEIVED ANY AM OUNT IN CASH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, TREATED THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE TO TH E TUNE OF RS. 1,50,50,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED TO THE S AME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WHERE THE ASSESSEE REITERATED HIS CONT ENTIONS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE CASH DEP OSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CONSIDE RATION RECEIVED IN CASH ON THE SALE OF HIS AGRICULTURAL LA ND AND TO FURTHER SUBSTANTIATE HIS CONTENTION HE FILED ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCES AS UNDER:- BANK STATEMENT OF PURCHASERS WITH HDFC BANK, MOHALI SAVING BANK ACCOUNT NO. 03431000052259 AND SAVING BANK ACCOUNT NO. 0343000052269 3 COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED WITH ADDL.CIT, FATEHBAD SAH EB REGARDING EVASION OF STAMP DUTY ON THE PART OF PURCHASERS. AFFIDAVIT OF THE WITNESSES TO THE AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 10.10.2008 I.E. SH PRAHLAD SINGH SON OF SH. BABU SINGH R/O VILL AJNER TEHSIL KHUMANO DISTT. FATEHGARH SAHIB AND S. SUKHDEEP SINGH S/O S. SURJIT SINGH R/O VILL. MARWA TEHSIL BASSI PATHANA. 4. RELYING UPON THE SAME THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THA T THE PERUSAL OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE PURCHASERS REA D ALONG WITH THE AGREEMENT TO SELL AND ALSO THE CASH DEPOS ITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD REVEAL THAT THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION PASSED ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF T HE IMPUGNED AGRICULTURAL LAND OF THE ASSESSEE WAS AS R EFLECTED IN THE AGREEMENT TO SELL I.E. RS.3,12,04,685/-, FOR WHICH ADEQUATE WITHDRAWALS WERE MADE IN CASH FROM THE BAN K ACCOUNTS OF THE PURCHASERS WHICH WAS DULY REFLECTED IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS IN THE PERIOD IN WHICH THE AGRE EMENT TO SELL WAS ENTERED INTO AND THE FINAL SALE DEED WAS R EGISTERED I.E. BETWEEN 10.10.2008 AND 4.2.2009. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THIS CASH WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK AC COUNT OF THE PURCHASERS WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AND DEP OSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT IN THE SAME PERIOD. THE ASSESS EE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE WITNESSES TO THE AGREEMENT TO SELL HAD VERIFIED THE CONTENTS OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN THE CASH IN VIEW OF THE AGREE MENT TO SELL. THUS, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE FACTS S TATED IN THE AGREEMENT TO SELL STOOD CORROBORATED WITH THESE 4 EVIDENCES AND EXPLAINED THE CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK AC COUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE ADDITION BY SIMPLY RELYI NG ON THE REGISTERED SELL DEED AND THE STATEMENT OF THE P URCHASERS MENTIONED THEREIN WITHOUT GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THOSE PURCHASERS. HE, THEREFORE, CONTENDED THAT NO RELIANCE COULD BE PLAC ED ON THE SAME. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) FORWARDED THE SUBMIS SIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED T O THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR NECESSARY VERIFICATION. THE A SSESSING OFFICER IN TURN SUBMITTED HIS COMMENTS STATING THAT SUMMONS WERE ISSUED TO THE PURCHASERS AS MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT TO SELL AS WELL AND ALSO THE WITNESSE S TO THE AGREEMENT AND WHILE THE PURCHASERS REFUSED TO RECEI VE THE SUMMONS THE WITNESSES CONFIRMED THEIR STATEMENT GIV EN IN THE AFFIDAVIT. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), BASED ON T HE ABOVE, DELETED THE ADDITION MADE HOLDING AT PARA 6.3 OF HI S ORDER AS UNDER:- 6.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES PUT FORTH BY THE APPELLANT AND ALSO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE CASE LAWS CITED HAVE ALSO BEEN PERUSED BY ME. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT FILED THE BANK STATEMENTS OF PURCHASERS WITH HDFC BANK, MOHALI SB A/C NO. 03431000052259 AND SB A/C NO. 03431000052269, COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED WITH THE ADDL. DC, FATEHGARH SAHIB REGARDING EVASION OF STAMP DUTY ON THE PART OF PURCHASERS AND AFFIDAVITS OF SH. PREHLAD SINGH S/O SH. BABU SINGH R/O VILL. AJNER TEHSIL KHUMANO DISTT. FATEHGARH SAHIB AND S. SUKHDEEP SINGH S/O S. SURJIT SINGH R/O VILL. MARWA TEHSIL BASSI PATHANA, WHO HAPPEN TO BE WITNESSES TO THE AGREEMENT TO SELL DT. 10.10.2008 AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN ADMITTED TO BE TREATED ON MERITS. THE AO IN HIS REPORT DATED 5 22.08.2016 U/R 46A OF THE IT RULES, 1962 AND U/S 250 (4) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 HAS NEITHER OPPOSED NOR CONTROVERTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE RATHER VERIFIED THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAME IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE IMPUGNED BANK DEPOSITS REPRESENTED THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND HAS BEEN NOW VERIFIED AND FOUND TRUE BY THE AO. THE ADDITION MADE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CONSIDERING THE BANK DEPOSITS AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME IS THUS, UNCALLED FOR. THE SAME IS, THEREFORE, DELETED. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSE SSEE REITERATED HIS CONTENTION MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUT HORITIES AND FURTHER RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT( APPEALS). 6. WE HAVE HEARD CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, P ERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO GONE THROU GH THE DOCUMENTS PLACED BEFORE US. 7. THE DETAILS OF THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 1,50,50, 000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE HELD UNEXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE AS UNDER:- DATE OF DEPOSIT BANK A/C AMOUNT (RS.) 23.04.2008 STATE BANK OF PATIALA, BAASI PATHANA. S. B. ACCOUNT NO.56107616895 SB A/C NO. 55107616895 150000/- 10.10.2008 HDFC BANK BASSI PATHANA. S.B. ACCOUNT NO. 0800153302492 SB A/C NO. 08001530002492 3800000/- 10.10.2008 STATE BANK OF PATIALA, BAASI PATHANA. S.B. ACCOUNT NO. 56107616895 SB A/C NO. 55107616895- 100000/- 6 04.02.2009 STATE BANK OF PATIALA, BAASI PATHANA. S.B. ACCOUNT NO. 56107616895 11000000/- 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED T HAT ON THESE DATES THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED CASH AS P ART OF CONSIDERATION FOR THE SALE OF HIS AGRICULTURAL LAND IN TERMS OF AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 10.10.2008 AND WHICH WAS ENTERED INTO WITH S. JAGVIR SINGH AND S. BHUPENDER SINGH. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AS EVIDENCE OF THE PAYMENT IN CASH DREW OUR ATTENTION THE BANK STATEMENT OF TH E AFORESAID TWO PERSONS MAINTAINED IN HDFC BANK MOHAL I AND POINTED OUT THE WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM THE SAID BANK ACCOUNTS DURING THE PERIOD OF ENTERING INTO THE AGR EEMENT TO SELL I.E. 10.10.2008 AND ENDING WITH THE DATE OF REGISTERING THE SALE DEED I.E. 04.02.2009. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THEREFROM THAT CASH COMMENSURATE TO THE AMOUNT PAID IN CASH FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE SALE OF HIS LAND AMOUNTING TO RS.1,11,54,685/- WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK ACCOUN TS OF THESE TWO PERSONS DURING THIS PERIOD. THE LD. COUNS EL OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SAME PERIOD AND POINTED OUT THE DEPOSITS MADE OF CASH IN THE SAME PERIOD.THUS THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE NEXU S BETWEEN THE AGREED SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.3,12,0 4,685/-, 7 ITS WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE PURCHAS ERS IN CASH AND DEMAND DRAFT AND CONSEQUENT DEPOSIT OF CAS H IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ON RECEIPT ,STANDS ESTABLISHED. THE DETAIL SHOWING WITHDRAWAL OF CASH FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE PURCHASERS AND DEPOSIT OF THE S AME IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE PLACED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND REPRODUCED AT PAGE 12 OF HIS ORDER IS AS UNDER: - PAYMENTS RECEIVED B Y MR.AMRIK SINGH WITHDRAWALS MADE BY S. BHUPINDER SING H AND S. JAGVIR SINGH DATE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN SB A/CS DATE MODE AMOUNT WITHDRAWALS FROM HDFC BANK MOHALI 10/10/2008 4000000/- (CASH) 3900000/- 10.10.2008 CASH 4000000/- A/C NO. 03431000052259 02/04/2009 11154685/- 11000000/- 27.01.2009 CASH 7800000/- A/C NO. 03431000052259 (CASH) 27.01.2009 CASH 13000000/- A/C NO - 03431000052269 03.02.2009 CASH 350000/- A/C NO - 03431000052269 04.02.2009 CASH 1450000/- A/C NO - 03431000052269 02/04/2009 6300000/- 6300000/- 04.02.2009 DD 6300000/- A/C NO - 03431000052269 02/04/2009 9750000/- 9750000/- 04.02.2009 DD 9750000/- A/C NO. 03431000052259 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT TH E AFORESAID FACTS WERE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSING OF FICER ALSO DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS, WHO DID NOT CONTROVERT T HE SAME. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE CONSIDERATION IN CA SH HAD ALSO PASSED FOR THE SALE OF THE IMPUGNED LAND AND M ERE 8 RELIANCE CANNOT BE PLACED ON THE REGISTERED SALE DE ED TO RULE OUT ANY CASH HAVING BEEN EXCHANGED HANDS IN LIEU OF THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE SALE OF THE LAND. THE LD. COU NSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THIS FACT IS FURTHER CORROBORATED BY THE FACT THAT IT IS THE SAME DEMAND DRAFT MADE FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE AFORESAID TWO PER SONS S. BHUPENDER SINGH AND S. JAGVIR SINGH WHICH FINDS MEN TION IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED. 10. LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED T HAT THERE WERE APPARENT DISCREPANCIES IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED WHICH SHOWED THAT THE LANDS HAD ACTUALLY BEEN SOLD FOR A HIGHER PRICE BUT REGISTERED AT A LOWER PRICE .THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT AS PER T HE REGISTERED SALE DEED FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND MEASURING 6.4 ACRE IN VASIKA 1721, THE AGREED PRICE WAS AT CI RCLE RATE OF RS.13 LAKH PER ACRE AND THE SALE CONSIDERATION T HEREFORE WORKED OUT TO RS.83,33,000/-,WHILE CONSIDERATION PA ID FOR THE SAME AS PER THE DEED WAS RS.97,50,000/-. THE L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT APPARENTLY THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN PAID MORE THAN THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION BY RECEIVING RS.97,50,000/-, WHICH IS NOT LOGICALLY POSSIBLE AT ALL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THIS DISCREPANCY ACTUALLY OCCURRED ON A CCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT THE EXCESS PAYMENT MADE WAS ADJUSTED IN FINAL CASH PAYMENT TO KEEP THE AGGREGATE PAYMENT MADE THROUGH DD AND CASH AT RS.3,12,04,685/- AS AGREED I N THE AGREEMENT TO SELL. 9 11. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THER EFORE THAT THE CONSIDERATION ACTUALLY PASSED WAS AS PER T HE AGREEMENT TO SELL AND NOT THE REGISTERED SALE DEED. HE FURTHER DREW OUT ATTENTION TO THE AFFIDAVITS OF THE WITNESSES TO THE AGREEMENT TO SELL SH. PREHLAD SINGH AND SH. SUKHDEEP SINGH PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 52 AND 59 AND POINTED OUT THAT THEY HAD CONFIRMED THAT THE AGREEM ENT TO SELL WRITTEN ON 10.10.2008 WAS ENTERED INTO IN THEI R PRESENCE AND CASH HAD BEEN PAID TO THE ASSESSEE OF RS.40 LAKH AS BAYANA ON THE DATE OF THE ENTERING INTO THE AGREEMENT AND RS.1,11,54,685/- ON THE DATE OF EXECU TION OF THE SALE DEED ON 4.2.2009 ALONG WITH THE TWO DEMAND DRAFT OF RS.62 LAKH AND RS.97,50,000/-. THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT I N REMAND PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF THE TWO WITNESSES WHO HAD CONFIRMED TH E CONTENTS OF THEIR AFFIDAVIT. 12. THE LD. DR IN RESPONSE, CONTENDED THAT THE AGRE EMENT TO SELL NOT BEING A REGISTERED DOCUMENT HAS NO EVI DENTIARY VALUE AND IT IS ONLY THE REGISTERED SALE DEED WHICH COULD BE RELIED UPON. THE LD. DR, THEREFORE, CONTENDED THAT NO COGNIZANCE COULD BE GIVEN TO THE AGREEMENT TO SELL AND SINCE THE REGISTERED SALE DEED MENTIONED NO CASH HAVING B EEN PAID IN VIEW OF THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE STOOD UNEXPLAINED. THE LD. DR ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT 10 THAT PURCHASERS IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED HAD REF USED RECEIVING ANY CASH. 13. ON CAREFULLY CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS/CONTE NTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND ALSO THE DETAILS AND DOCUME NTS REFERRED TO BEFORE US, WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENT ION OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AND WE ALSO AGREE WITH THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE OF RS.1,50,50,000/- STANDS EXPLAINED ON ACCOUNT OF CASH RECEIPTS FROM THE SALE OF HIS AGRICULTURAL LAND. 14. WE AGREE WITH THE LD.CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS SUFFICIENTLY CORRELATED THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN FROM T HE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE PURCHASERS MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMEN T TO SELL AND COMMENSURATE WITH THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATI ON OF RS.3,12,04685/-, WITH THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT IN THE SAME PERIOD, I.E. BETWEEN THE DATE OF ENTERING INTO THE AGREEMENT TO SELL ON 10.10.2008 A ND THE DATE OF REGISTERING THE SALE DEED I.E. 04.02.2009. THE SAID FACT WAS CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO H AS NOT CONTROVERTED THE SAME. FURTHER THE WITNESSES TO THE AGREEMENT TO SELL HAVE TIME AND AGAIN AFFIRMED THE AFORESAID FACTS, FIRST BY WAY OF THEIR AFFIDAVIT AN D THEN DURING THE COURSE OF STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS. WE ARE, THEREFORE, I N COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD LED SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FOR THE SALE OF HIS L ANDS WAS 11 MUCH MORE THAN THAT STATED IN THE REGISTERED SALE D EED AND IT WAS CASH RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF THE SAME WHICH STOOD DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. FURTHER THE ASSESSE E IS AN AGRICULTURIST AND HAS NO OTHER DECLARED SOURCE OF I NCOME EXCEPT MEAGRE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES OF RS.82,82 0/- DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED Y EAR. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSE SSEE WAS HAVING ANY OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME WHICH COULD BE GI VEN MORE WEIGHTAGE THAN THE EXPLANATION PREFERRED BY HI M. THE PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY IS THEREFORE MORE IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION AND THEREFORE, WE AGREE W ITH THE LD CIT(A) THAT THE CASH DEPOSITED AMOUNTING TO RS.1,50,50,000/- STANDS EXPLAINED. AS FOR THE CONTE NTION OF THE REVENUE THAT COGNIZANCE NEED TO BE TAKEN ONLY T O THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT I.E. REGISTERED SALE DEED, AS P ER WHICH NO CONSIDERATION IN CASH HAS PASSED TO THE ASSESSEE , WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE SAME. FIRSTLY, AS HAS BEEN RIG HTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , THERE ARE GLARING DISCREPANCIES IN THE REGISTERED DOCUMEN T WHICH SHOWS RECEIPT/PAYMENT OF EXCESS CONSIDERATION FOR C HUNK OF LAND VASIKA NO. 1721 FOR WHICH THERE APPEARS TO BE NO EXPLANATION AND THE ONLY EXPLANATION WHICH SEEMS PL AUSIBLE IS THAT THE SAID PAYMENT STOOD SETTLED AND ADJUSTED IN THE FINAL CASH PAYMENT TO KEEP THE AGGREGATE PAYMENT MA DE THROUGH DD AND CASH OF RS.3,12,04,685/- AS AGREED I N AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 10.10.2008.FURTHER WE DRAW SUPPORT FROM THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE ALLAHBAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. 12 INTEZAR ALI REPORTED IN 372 ITR 651,RELIED UPON BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WHEREIN WE FIND THAT I N IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS, WITH THE ASSESSEE IN THE SA ID CASE, ATTRIBUTING THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED IN HIS BAN K TO THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FROM SALE OF HIS LAND, WHILE THE REGISTERED SALE DEED SHOWED A MUCH LOWER CONSIDERAT ION, IT WAS HELD THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDE NCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE HIS CASE, THE ADDITION COU LD NOT BE MADE MERELY RELYING ON THE REGISTERED SALE DEED. IN THE SAID CASE ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED EVIDENCES BY WAY O F COMPARABLE SALE INSTANCES, STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES TO THE SALE AND OF THE BANK MANAGER IN WHOSE BRANCH THE CA SH HAD BEEN DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE CONFIRMING THE RECEI PT OF CASH. CONSIDERING THE SAME, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCES TO PROVE H IS CASE AND HAD SUFFICIENTLY DISCHARGED THE BURDEN PLACED O N HIM . THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ARE AS UNDER: 10. WE MAY OBSERVE HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE AS AN HON EST CITIZEN NOT ONLY MADE A COMPLAINT TO THE REGISTERIN G AUTHORITY THAT THE SALE DEED HAS BEEN REGISTERED AT A VALUE MUC H BELOW THE AMOUNT, WHICH HE HAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED, HE DEPOSIT ED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT IN THE BANK AND VOLUNTARILY FILED RETUR N. THERE WAS NO MATERIAL WHATSOEVER OR ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, WHICH COULD HAVE SUGGESTED THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY HIM FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE. THE DEPOSITION OF WITNESS OF THE SA LE DEED, THE BANK MANAGER AND THE EVIDENCE FILED WITH REGARD T O VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY WAS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT T O DISCHARGE THE BURDEN, WHICH THE A.O. HAD UNREASONABLY PLACED ON THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. IN DISBELIEVING THE E VIDENCE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASONS WHATSOEVER TO DISCARD THE STATEMENT OF THE WITNESSES, DEPOSIT OF THE ENTIRE SAL E CONSIDERATION IN BANK AND THE DEPOSITION OF THE BAN K MANAGER. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ONLY DEPOSITED THE ENT IRE 13 AMOUNT IN THE BANK BUT ALSO INFORMED THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY OF THE DEFICIENCY OF THE STAMP IN THE SALE DEED. 11. WE FURTHER NOTICE THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE O RDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT IN THE CASE OF MOHD. RAISUDDIN, ONE OF THE PURCHASER, THE A.O. HAD ACCEPTED THAT HE WAS THE OWNE R OF THE MONEY I.E. RS.97,80,000/- AND ACCORDINGLY ADDITION OF RS.77,80,000/- WAS MADE IN HIS HAND ON SUBSTANTIAL BASIS AS HIS INCOME DURING THE YEAR FOR WHICH A COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS FILED ON RECORD. 12. THE INCOME TAX APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 15. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF TH E LD.CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF RS.1,50,50,000/- 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 4 TH DECEMBER, 2017 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A)S 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH