SMT. SANTOSH GUPTA, JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR

ITA 1128/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4782 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 01-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANURADHA JCIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: S L PODDAR
• Keywords: Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 133(6)

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH JES'K LH 'KEKZ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA -@ ITA NO. 1128/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 SMT. SANTOSH GUPTA, 15, CHANKYAPURI, BEHIND TEEJ HOTEL, BANIPARK, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. I.T.O., WARD 3(2), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA -@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ABRPG 5294 J VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.L. PODDAR (ADV) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : MS. ANURADHA (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 18/03/2019 MN?KKS 'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15/05/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A)-I, JAIPUR DATED 25/09/2018 FOR THE A.Y. 2014-15 IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED FOR ADDITION OF RS. 29,12,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITED IN HER BANK ACCOUNT. 2. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PERUSED. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DERIVED INCOME FROM ITA 1128/JP/2018 SANTOSH GUPTA VS ITO 2 HOUSE PROPERTY, CAPITAL GAINS AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. RETURN WAS FILED ON 30/12/2016 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 4,12,490/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH IN HER BANK ACCOUNT. IN SUPPORT OF AVAILABILITY OF CASH ON THE DATE OF DEPOSIT, THE ASSESSEE FILED CASH FLOW STATEMENT. AFTER REJECTING THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED RS. 29,12,500/- IN HER INCOME. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FOUND FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH IN HER BANK ACCOUNT NO. 51009004348 WITH SBBJ GANPATI PLAZA, JAIPUR. WHILE EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT SHE HAS SOLD A PIECE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND TO SHRI DILIP JAIN URF DEEPAK JAIN FOR A SUM OF RS. 32,62,500/- OUT OF WHICH AMOUNT OF RS. 29,12,500/- WAS RECEIVED IN CASH. IT WAS THIS CASH WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. IN SUPPORT OF THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A COPY OF AGREEMENT OF SALE EXECUTED ON 23.01.2014. A COPY OF THIS SALE AGREEMENT IS AVAILABLE ON PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 1 TO 4. AS PER THIS SALE ITA 1128/JP/2018 SANTOSH GUPTA VS ITO 3 AGREEMENT THE ASSESSEE WAS POSSESSING/OWNING AGRICULTURAL LAND AT VILLAGE SINWAR PATWAR HALKA SINWAR TEHSIL JAIPUR BEARING KHASRA NO. 907/1200. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED EVIDENCE OF PURCHASE OF THIS AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A COPY OF THE REGISTERED PURCHASE DEED DATED 20.04.2011 WHICH EVIDENCES THE PURCHASE OF LAND FROM SHRI KAJOD S/O SHRI RAMNATH BY CASTE JAT OF VILLAGE SINWAR. COPY OF PURCHASE DEED IS AVAILABLE ON PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 5 TO 9. HOWEVER IT SO HAPPENED THAT IN THE PURCHASE DEED THE KHASRA NO. WAS DIFFERENT. THE PURCHASE DEED DISCLOSED KHASRA NO. 907/1143 WHEREAS IN THE SALE DEED IT WAS 907/1200. IN VIEW OF THE DIFFERENCE IN THE KHASRA NO. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RAISED DOUBTS REGARDING THE GENUINENESS OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE ASSESSEE DID HIS BEST TO CONVINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN THIS REGARD THE PURCHASER SHRI DILIP JAIN WAS PRODUCED. HIS STATEMENTS WERE ALSO RECORDED. BUT THIS DID NOT CONVINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO WROTE A LETTER DIRECTLY TO THE TEHSILDAR, JAIPUR, TO CONFIRM THE ACTUAL KHASRA NO. SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER INSTEAD OF WAITING AND GETTING REPLY FROM TEHSILDAR, JAIPUR THE ASSESSING OFFICER HASTILY PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 30.12.2016 AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 29,12,500/- HOLDING THE SALE AGREEMENT AS SELF SERVING DOCUMENT AND THE SALE WAS REJECTED. NO EFFORT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ITA 1128/JP/2018 SANTOSH GUPTA VS ITO 4 TO DEPUTE INSPECTOR FOR GETTING REPLY ON PRIORITY BASIS FROM THE TEHSILDAR, JAIPUR. HOWEVER THE TEHSILDAR, JAIPUR SUBMITTED HIS REPORT AND HIS REPLY UNDER HIS SIGNATURE DATED 28.12.2016 THE SAME IS AVAILABLE ON PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 15 AND SCANNED BELOW: - 4. I HAVE PERUSED THE REPORT OF TEHSILDAR DATED 28/12/2016 WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PASSED ORDER ON 30/12/2016. AS PER ITA 1128/JP/2018 SANTOSH GUPTA VS ITO 5 REPORT OF TEHSILDAR AFTER DIVISION OF LAND ON SALE, NEW KHASRA NO. WAS 907/1200. THUS THERE IS NO REASON TO DISBELIEVE THE SALE DEED MENTIONING KHASRA NO. 907/1200, WHICH WAS 907/1143 WHEN THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED IT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO DOUBTED STATEMENT OF SHRI DILIP JAIN. HE ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE STATEMENT OF SHRI DILIP JAIN WAS TUTOURED. FROM THE RECORD I FIND THAT, THE SAME LAND WAS FURTHER SOLD BY SO CALLED COOPERATIVE SOCIETY BY BACKDATING TO 28 PERSONS. THE INFORMATION WAS CALLED U/S 133(6) FROM THOSE PERSONS AND SOME OF THEM HAVE ONLY ACCEPTED THE TRANSACTION, THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISBELIEVED THE TRANSACTION AND ADD THE RS. 29,12,000/- IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. FROM THE RECORD, I FOUND THAT THE TEHSILDAR VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 28/12/2016 HAS CLARIFIED THAT ON BREAKUP OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BEARING KHASRA NO. 907/1143 A FURTHER KHASRA NO. 907/1200 WAS GENERATED. THEREFORE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE DOUBTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS BASELESS IN SO FAR AS THE CONTROVERSY OF DIFFERENCE IN KHASRA NUMBER IN PURCHASE AND SALE DEEDS IS SETTLED, THE ADDITION DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 6. I ALSO FOUND THAT WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS STATED AT PAGE NO. 8 OF HIS ORDER THAT THE SOURCE OF THE SOURCE IS NOT ITA 1128/JP/2018 SANTOSH GUPTA VS ITO 6 PROVED BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD WHICH MAY ESTABLISHED THAT THE PLOTS WERE NOT ALLOTTED IN THE YEAR 1997 AS STATED BY NUMBER OF BUYERS OF THESE PLOTS. I FOUND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT CONSIDER THE STATEMENT OF DILIP JAIN WHO HAS CONFESSED THAT THE PATTAS WERE ALLOTTED ON SAME LAND BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE TO VARIOUS PERSONS AND CASH WERE RECEIVED WHICH WAS PAID AGAINST THE SALES CONSIDERATION OF LAND TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED THE SAME SALES CONSIDERATION IN HER BANK ACCOUNT AND THE SALE OF LAND WAS DULY DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER INCOME TAX RETURN AND TAX ON CAPITAL GAINS WAS ALSO PAID. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ADDITION SO MADE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE SAME. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH MAY, 2019 SD/- JES'K LH 'KEKZ ( RAMESH C SHARMA ) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 15 TH MAY, 2019 ITA 1128/JP/2018 SANTOSH GUPTA VS ITO 7 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANTS- SMT. SANTOSH GUPTA, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE I.T.O., WARD 3(2), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 1128/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR