Shri Rajiv Gupta, Sirsa V. ITO-Ward-2, Sirsa

ITA 123/CHANDI/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8503 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-07-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice; Source of fund
• Section: 131; 68; 143(3); 142(1); 234B; 143(1); 201; 143(2); 43; 13; 22; 20

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BE NCH SMC CHANDIGARH !', # BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER /. ITA NO. 123/CHD/2020 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2016-17 SHRI RAJIV GUPTA, GUPTA BHAWAN, KHAZANCHIAN STREET, SIRSA. VS THE ITO, WARD 2 SIRSA. ./ PAN NO. : ADCPG3419Q / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT & /. ITA NO. 124/CHD/2020 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2016-17 MRS. MONIKA GUPTA, GUPTA BHAWAN, KHAZANCHIAN STREET, SIRSA. VS THE ITO, WARD 2 SIRSA. ./ PAN NO. : ACTPG3056H / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ! / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH, ADVOCATE ' ! / REVENUE BY : SHRI ARVIND SUDERSHAN, JCIT-DR # $ % / DATE OF HEARING : 25.06.2020 &'() % / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.07.2020 / ORDER THESE TWO APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSE SSEES AND ARE BEING TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF CON VENIENCE. 2. IN THE RESPECTIVE APPEALS, THE ASSESSEES ASSAIL IDENTICAL ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) HISAR DATED 30.12.2019 PERTAIN ING TO ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAGE 2 OF 37 2016-17 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON IDENTICAL GROUNDS. IT W AS A COMMON STAND OF THE PARTIES BEFORE THE BENCH THAT T HE LEAD ORDER IS IN THE CASE OF SMT. MONIKA GUPTA AND SINCE THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS, FACTS AND ARGUMENTS IN THE TWO CASES REMAIN IDENTICAL, THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED IN THE CAS E OF SMT. MONIKA GUPTA IN ITA 124/CHD/2020 WOULD APPLY TO THE ASSESSEE IN ITA 123/CHD/2020 ALSO. 3. IN THE LIGHT OF THE SAID COMMON STAND THE LD. AR INVITED ATTENTION TO THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE SAID APPEAL REITERATING THAT THE GROUNDS IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAJIV GUPTA AR E ALSO IDENTICAL. FOR READY REFERENCE, THE GROUNDS FROM I TA 124/CHD/2020 ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S)-HISAR HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE DETERMINATION OF TOTAL IN COME OF THE APPELLANT AT RS. 42,84,650/- AS AGAINST DECLARED INCOME OF RS. 2,84,650/- IN AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT 24.12.2018 UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING AN ADDITION OF RS. 40,00,000 /- REPRESENTING ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 2.1. THAT WHILE MAKING THE ABOVE ADDITION, THE LEAR NED INCOME TAX OFFICER HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTUAL SUBSTRATUM OF THE CASE, S TATUTORY PROVISIONS OF LAW AND AS SUCH, ADDITION SO MADE IS HIGHLY MISCONCEIVED, TOTALLY AR BITRARY, WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED AND THEREFORE, UNSUSTAINABLE. 2.2. THAT WHILE CONFIRMING THE ABOVE ADDITION, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTUAL SUBSTRATUM OF THE CASE, STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF LAW AND AS SUCH, ADDITION SO SUSTAINE D IS HIGHLY MISCONCEIVED, TOTALLY ARBITRARY, WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED AND THEREFORE, UNSUST AINABLE. 2.3 THAT FINDING AND CONCLUSION THAT 'AFFIDAVITS AN D STATEMENTS ARE SELF SERVING DOCUMENTS AND CANNOT BE ACCEPTED FULLY IF THEY ARE CONTRADICTORY TO CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE' IS ENTIRELY UNSUBSTANTIATED AND HAS BEEN RECORDED WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY AND ANY FURTHER ENQUIRIES AND OTHERWISE TOO ILLEGAL, IN VALID AND UNSUSTAINABLE. ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAGE 3 OF 37 2.4 THAT FURTHER FINDING THAT 'THE WHOLE TRANSACTIO N IN BOTH THE CASES NOW CLEARLY COMES OUT AS PERFECTLY ORCHESTRATED AND THE STORY O F THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE JUDGED ON THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITY AND THE DOCUMENTS ARE TO BE SEEN WITH REFERENCE TO THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES' IS FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED, LEGALLY ERRONEOUS, FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND THUS UNTENABLE APART FROM BEING ARBIT RARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 2.5 THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT CASH RECEIVED REPRESENTED CONSIDERATION RECEIV ED AGAINST SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND AS SUCH ENTIRE CASH COULD NOT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT 2.6 THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) HAS PROCEEDED TO SUSTAINED IMPUGNED ADDITION WITHOUT APPRECIATING TH E SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT, IT IS NOT FOR THE APPELLANT TO EXPLAIN THE SO URCE OF SOURCE OF THE CREDITOR AND THEREFORE, ANY ADDITION MADE AND SUSTAINED ON IRREL EVANT AND EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED AND HENCE UN TENABLE. 2.7 THAT FURTHER RELIANCE PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. DURGA PRASAD MORE REPORTED IN 82 ITR 540 IS WHOLLY INAPPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.8 THAT THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE AND SUSTAINED IS BASED ON SURMISES, CONJECTURES AND SUSPICION AND THEREFORE ILLEGAL, IN VALID AND UNSUSTAINABLE. 2.9 THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) HAS OVERLOOKED RELEVANT EVIDENCE PLACED ON RECORD AND, DRAWN FACTU ALLY INCORRECT AND LEGALLY UNSUSTAINABLE INFERENCES BASED ON IRRELEVANT AND EX TRANEOUS CONSIDERATION AND THUS, ADDITION SUSTAINED IS WHOLLY UNWARRANTED AND NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 3. THAT IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE AND SUSTA INED WITHOUT GRANTING FAIR AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT AND AS SUCH THE SAME IS VITIATED FOR THE SAME HAS BEEN MADE IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES O F NATURAL JUSTICE. 4. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAS ALSO ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF I NTEREST OF RS. 72,222/-U/S 234A OF THE ACT AND INTEREST OF RS. 3,97,221/- U/S 234B OF THE ACT WHICH ARE NOT LEVIABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE. PRAYER : IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT, IT BE HELD T HAT ADDITION MADE AND SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BE DELETED AND APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT BE ALLOWED. 4. ADDRESSING THE GROUNDS, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THA T THE ISSUE AT HAND IS FULLY ADDRESSED VIDE GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 AND THE MAIN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPECTIVE ASSE SSEES ARE ADDRESSED VIDE GROUND NOS. 2.3, 2.6 AND 2.9. ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAGE 4 OF 37 4.1 OTHER GROUNDS WERE STATED TO BE SUPPORTING ARGU MENTS ASSAILING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 4.2 GROUND NO. 3, IT WAS SUBMITTED, IS NOT BEING PR ESSED AND GROUND NO. 4 IS CONSEQUENTIAL, AS SUCH REQUIRES NO SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 5. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, THE LD. AR INVITED ATTENTION TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER SO AS TO HIGHLIGHT THE RELEVANT FACTS AS ARGUED BEFORE THE AO. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE POS ITION OF FACTS AS MADE AVAILABLE AND CONSIDERED LARGELY HAVE BEEN EXTRACTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN PARA 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE SAID SUBMISSION OF FACTS WAS NOT DISPUTE D BY THE LD. SR.DR. 6. REFERRING TO THE RECORD, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BEFORE THE AO HAVE ALSO BEEN EXTRACTED IN PARA 5. CARRYING THE BENCH THROUGH TH E FACTS ON RECORD AND THE PROPOSITIONS OF LAW APPLICABLE THERE TO ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE ASSAILED AS ARGUED BEFORE THE CIT( A), IT WAS SUBMITTED, HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED FROM PAGES 7 TO 28. THESE SUBMISSIONS WERE HEAVILY RELIED UPON. ADDRESSING T HESE ALONGWITH THE RELEVANT PAPER BOOK PAGES RELIED UPON , ON THE BASIS OF THESE FACTS, IT WAS HIS ARGUMENT THAT THE FINDING ARRIVED AT IN PARA 5 TO PARA 5.2 FROM PAGES 28 TO 3 2 WERE ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAGE 5 OF 37 INCORRECT ON FACTS AND LAW AND IS MORE OR LESS REPE TITION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FAILING TO ADDRESS THE SPECIFIC GR IEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH PURPOSES, ATTENTION AGAIN WA S INVITED TO PARA 1.13 EXTRACTED AT PAGE 27 WHICH WAS AGAIN HIGH LIGHTED. ATTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN TO PARA1.16 AT PAGE 28. T HESE DOCUMENTS READ ALONGWITH THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN THE COPY OF THE REPLY BEFORE AO AT PAGES 12 TO 13, COPY OF THE IKRARNAMA AVAILABLE AT PAGES 19 TO 21 IT WAS ARGUED, WOULD SH OW THAT IT WAS ENTERED INTO ON 15.05.2015. IT WAS AGREED THAT IT IS A MATTER OF FACT AND NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT WAS EXTENDED MULTIPLE TIMES AND ULTIMATEL Y THERE WAS A COMPROMISE IN 2019 INVOLVING A PANCHAYAT AND ITS MEMBERS WHEREIN IT WAS AGREED THAT IN THE EVENT OF NON- CONCLUSION OF THE CONTRACT/NON EXECUTION OF THE SAL E DEED FOR LACK OF PAYMENT OR LACK OF AVAILABLE FUNDS WITH THE PURCHASERS, 50% OF THE ADVANCE PAYMENT MADE WOULD BE FORFEITED. FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE, IT WAS SUBMITTED HE WOULD WANT TO INVITE ATTENTION TO THE COMPROMISE DEED ENTERED INTO BY TH E PURCHASERS AND THE SELLERS. IT WAS HIGHLIGHTED THA T THE PURCHASERS AND SELLERS ARE STRANGERS. ATTENTION WA S INVITED TO PAPER BOOK PAGE 37 ON WHICH A LOT OF HUE AND CRY HA VE BEEN MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT. REFERRING TO THE DOCUMENTS , IT WAS ARGUED THAT THERE IS NO WRITING OR OVER-WRITING. I T WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT SINCE THE AGREEMENTS ARE ENTERED IN TO ON ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAGE 6 OF 37 DIFFERENT DATES AND IN THE CASE OF THE HUSBAND AND WIFE, THE NARRATIONS ARE CLEAR. IN THE CASE OF SMT. MONIKA G UPTA AGREEMENT ENTERED ON 15.05.2015, THE ENTRY IS AT SR .NO. 439 WHEREIN THE NAME OF SMT. MONIKA GUPTA IS CLEARLY SH OWN AND THE SIGNATURES OF SHRI RAJIV GUPTA ARE AVAILABLE AN D IN THE SAME, THERE IS NO OVER-WRITING OR LACK OF CLARITY E TC. FOR READY REFERENCE, THE RELEVANT EXTRACT IS REPRODUCED HEREU NDER : 7. SINCE THIS ISSUE IS A COMMON ISSUE IN BOTH THE A PPEALS, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO REFER TO THE RELEVANT DOCUM ENT IN THE CASE OF THE HUSBAND SHRI RAJIV GUPTA WHICH IS AT PA PER BOOK PAGE 40 OF THE SAID APPEAL. ATTENTION WAS INVITED T O THE RELEVANT ENTRY 255 WHEREIN THE NAME OF SHRI RAJIV G UPTA S/O BHAGIRATH GUPTA ALONGWITH SIGNATURES OF SHRI RAJIV GUPTA ARE CLEARLY GIVEN. IN THE SIGNATURES, THERE APPEARS TO BE A G IN ENGLISH ALSO APPEARS TO BE WRITTEN AND IT WAS HIS S UBMISSION THAT POSSIBLY THE ENTRY NO. 254 WHO WAS GURVINDER, MAY HAVE INITIALLY SIGNED THIS NAME AT THE WRONG PLACE. THUS , AS FAR AS SHRI RAJIV GUPTA IS CONCERNED, THERE IS NO OVER-WRI TING. THE ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAGE 7 OF 37 SIGNATURE, IT WAS SUBMITTED, IS CLEAR. THE LD. SR.D RS SPECIFIC ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THIS DOCUMENT ALSO. 8. REVERTING BACK TO THE CASE OF SMT. MONIKA GUPTA AS ALL THE OTHER FACTS REMAINED IDENTICAL, ATTENTION WAS I NVITED TO PAPER BOOK PAGES 25 TO 29 WHICH CONTAIN THE STATEME NT DATED 10.12.2018 RECORDED BY THE AO OF SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ONE OF THE PURCHASERS, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT SHRI RA JESH KUMAR AND SHRI RAVINDER KUMAR WERE BROTHERS AND THEIR STA TEMENTS ARE NEAR IDENTICAL. ALL NECESSARY FACTS ARE ACKNOWL EDGED AND ACCEPTED. BOTH PURCHASERS HAD REFERRED TO ALL FACTS REGARDING THEIR SOURCES OF INCOME AND ALSO EFFORTS FOR RAISIN G FURTHER CASH FOR ENSURING EXECUTION OF THE SALE. INVITING A TTENTION TO THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS OF SHRI RAJESH KUMAR WHIC H ARE MORE OR LESS IDENTICAL TO SHRI RAVINDER KUMAR AS TH EY WERE COUSIN BROTHERS, REFERENCE WAS MADE TO SOURCE OF PA YMENT MADE. ATTENTION WAS ALSO INVITED TO RESPONSE TO QUE STION NO. 10 WHERE HE EXPLAINS THAT HE IS OWNER OF AGRICULTUR AL LAND AND HAS BUFFALOS AND THUS, HIS INCOME IS FROM AGRICULTU RAL SOURCES AND DAIRY. IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO. 3, READING FROM THE STATEMENT, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SHRI RAJESH KUMAR ACCEPTS THAT HE HAS PAID SMT. MONIKA GUPTA RS. 40 LACS ON 15.05.2015. REFERRING TO PAPER BOOK PAGE 26, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT HE EXPLAINS THAT THE AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE WAS SIGNED IN THE HOUSE OF SHRI SITA RAM WHO WAS SARPANCH OF GAON -HANDI ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAGE 8 OF 37 BHEDA, SIRSA AND AS ALLEGED BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES THAT THE DOCUMENT WAS WITNESSED BY SELLERS WITNESS, IT WAS SUBMITTED, THAT FACTS HAVE BEEN SELECTIVELY IGNORED. SHRI SIT A RAM, IT WAS SUBMITTED, WAS SHRI RAJESH KUMARS SISTERS HUSBAND AND INFACT AFTER EXTENDING THE DATE OF EXECUTION A FEW TIMES, ULTIMATELY THE MATTER WAS SETTLED BEFORE A PANCHYAT WHEREIN HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW SHRI SITA RAM WAS PRESENT AND TH US AGREEMENT HAS BEEN RECORDED AND MADE AVAILABLE TO T HE TAX AUTHORITIES AND IS AVAILABLE AT PAPER BOOK PAGES 35 TO 36. ATTENTION WAS FURTHER INVITED TO QUESTION NO. 4 WHE REIN IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SHRI RA JESH KUMAR WAS FURTHER ASKED TO ELABORATE THE SOURCE OF INVEST MENT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS WAS CLARIFIED THAT IT WAS F ROM SALE OF LAND OWNED BY HIM FOR WHICH RS. 7.5 LACS WAS RECEIV ED AND RS. 14 TO 15 LACS WAS AVAILABLE FROM AGRICULTURAL SOURC ES AND SOME HAVE BEEN TAKEN ON LOAN FROM NEAR RELATIVES AND FRI END. FOR READY REFERENCE, THE RELEVANT QUESTION AND ANSWERS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 26 ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER : ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAGE 9 OF 37 9. INVITING ATTENTION TO QUESTION NO. 5 AT PAGE 27 IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE AO FURTHER QUESTIONED AS TO FROM WH AT SOURCES, HE WAS CONTEMPLATING RAISING FUNDS FOR PUR CHASE OF THE SPECIFIC LAND. THE RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO. 5 RELIED UPON BEFORE THE AO AND THE CIT(A) WAS HEAVILY RELIED UPO N. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE PURCHASER HAS ELABORATED TH AT HE HAD 21 ACRE OF LAND AND PART OF IT WAS CONTEMPLATED FOR SALE, HOWEVER THE LAND PRICES NOSE-DIVED ( MANDI AANE KI VEJAH SE) HE COULD NOT SELL, HOWEVER, IT WAS SUBMITTED, SHRI RAJ ESH KUMAR CLEARLY EXPRESSED THAT HE WAS HOPEFUL THAT HE WOULD BE ABLE TO STILL RAISE THE FUNDS AND COMPLETE THE PURCHASE AS STILL ON THE DATE OF RECORDING THE STATEMENT, THERE WAS STILL TI ME AVAILABLE. ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO QUESTION NO. 6 WHEREIN THE AO DIGGING DEEPER ENQUIRED THAT AS RESIDENT OF HANSI, WHY WAS HE CONTEMPLATING SETTLING OR PURCHASING LAND NEAR MANG ALA WHICH WAS QUITE FAR. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, IT WAS REA D OUT BY THE LD. AR THAT SHRI RAJESH KUMAR STATED THAT MOST OF H IS RELATIVES RESIDE NEAR HANSI KHEDA, SIRSA WHICH IS WHY HE WANT ED TO SELL LAND AND SETTLE THERE. APART FROM THAT, THERE WAS A PAUCITY OF WATER IN THE AREA WHERE HE WAS LIVING AND OPPOSED T O THAT IN THE AREA WHERE HE WAS CONTEMPLATING PURCHASE, THERE WAS AN EXISTING TUBE-WELL IN THE LAND AND THE WATER WAS GO OD, SUFFICIENT AND CONDUCIVE FOR RICE GROWING. INVITIN G ATTENTION TO QUESTION NO. 7, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO NOT ST ILL BELIEVING ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAGE 10 OF 37 THE REASONS FURTHER QUESTIONED THE PURCHASER THAT H AD HE PERSONALLY SEEN THE LAND WHICH HE WAS CONTEMPLATING PURCHASING AND COULD HE DESCRIBE IT ? ATTENTION WA S INVITED TO THE DETAILED RESPONSE GIVEN TO QUESTION NO. 7 RECOR DED BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES THEMSELVES WHERE IT IS CATEGORICALL Y ACCEPTED THAT HE HAD SEEN THE LAND AND GAVE A DETAILED DESCR IPTION OF ITS LOCATION AND LANDMARKS WERE GIVEN STATING THAT THER E WERE GODOWNS AVAILABLE CLOSE BY AND THE LAND IS GOOD FOR RICE CROP BECAUSE OF ADEQUACY OF WATER AND RIGHT NEXT TO MODH IA KHEDA ROAD, THERE WAS A WATER TANK BUILD RIGHT IN FRONT O F THE SPECIFIC LAND. THE AO, IT WAS SUBMITTED, AGAIN QUESTIONED AS TO WHY HE HAS NOT GET THE LAND REGISTERED IN HIS NAME. SHRI R AJESH KUMAR, IT WAS SUBMITTED, STATED THAT IT IS ON ACCOU NT OF PAUCITY OF FUNDS AND IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON 1 0.12.2018 HE SUBMITTED THAT HE STILL HAS TIME UP TO 31.01.201 9 TO RAISE FUNDS BY SELLING LAND ETC. AND WAS HOPEFUL OF RAISI NG FUNDS : ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAGE 11 OF 37 10. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DETAILED QUESTIONS AN D ANSWERS GIVEN, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE DECISIONS REL IED UPON BY THE LD. CIT(A) WERE NOT APPLICABLE. IN THE FACTS O F THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE BEING THE OWNER OF SPECIFIC PIEC E OF LAND UNDERTOOK TO SELL THE SAME TO THE IDENTIFIED PARTIE S WHO WERE STRANGERS. THEY HAVE EXPLAINED THEIR SOURCES FROM WHICH THE AGREEMENT WAS CONTEMPLATED TO BE FULFILLED BUT LACK OF FUNDS DUE TO FALL IN THE PRICE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH WAS BEING SOLD IS NOT SOMETHING WHICH IS IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTIES AND THE FACT THAT THE PURCHASER WAS HOPEFUL OF STILL AC TING ON THE AGREEMENT WOULD SHOW THAT THE DEPARTMENTAL BELIEF T HAT IT IS AN AFTER-THOUGHT HAS NO LEGS TO STAND ON. THE TAX A UTHORITIES REASONS FOR DENYING RELIEF IS ENTIRELY BASED ON SUS PICIONS, CONJECTURES, SURMISES AND BIASES. THE STATEMENT RE CORDED BY THE AO ITSELF IS DISCARDED WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECO RD ANY CONTRARY EVIDENCE EXCEPT SUSPICIONS. FOR THIS PURPO SE, ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PARA 1.16 AT PAGE 28 OF TH E IMPUGNED ORDER WHEREIN THE DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF T HE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN EXTRACTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). SPECIFIC AT TENTION WAS INVITED TO PAPER BOOK PAGE 35, 36 WHICH IS THE COMP ROMISE ENTERED INTO BY THE PARTIES BEFORE THE PANCHAYAT. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS ARGUED THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALLEGED THAT THE AGREEMENT TO SELL W AS SIGNED BY PEOPLE KNOWN TO THE SELLER. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSI ON THAT THEY ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAGE 12 OF 37 HAVE CONVENIENTLY IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE AGREEME NT TO SELL WAS MADE IN THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI SITA RAM, EX-PANC HAYAT MEMBER, RELATIVE OF SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ONE OF THE P URCHASERS WHICH IS AN UNREBUTTED FACT. EVEN OTHERWISE, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THERE WAS NO NEED TO RECORD THE AGR EEMENT TO PURCHASE IN WRITING. THE FACT THAT THE PARTIES HAV E EXCHANGED MONIES RELYING UPON THERETO AND ULTIMATELY SETTLED THE ISSUES RELYING UPON THE COMPROMISE ENTERED INTO ARE A MATT ER OF RECORD. ALL PARTIES HAVE BEEN EXAMINED, NO CONTRAR Y EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE EXCEPT CONJECTURES. SPECIFIC ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE FACT THAT ALL THE DATES ON WHICH THE AGREEME NT TO EXECUTE THE SALE DEED WAS EXTENDED IS CLEARLY SET O UT THEREIN, NONE OF THE PARTIES DISPUTE IT. THE FACT THAT THE P URCHASERS COULD NOT FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONTRACT IS EVIDENCED BY THE SAID DOCUMENT WHICH WAS ENTERED INTO ON 29.0 1.2017. IT HAS DULY BEEN SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE SMT. MONIKA GU PTA, SHRI RAJESH KUMAR AND SHRI RAVINDER KUMAR, SHRI SITA RAM M, ERSTWHILE SARPANCH OF HANSI KHERA, SIRSA. RELATIVE OF SHRI RAJESH KUMAR IS ALSO A WITNESSES ALONGWITH SHRI ASH OK GOYAL AND SHRI BHAGIRATH GUPTA, NO DOUBT WHO WERE THE ASS ESSEE'S WITNESSES, HOWEVER, SHRI BHUPINDER VINAYAK, SHRI SU RINDER KUMAR GARG, SHRI GOBIND KANDA WERE INDEPENDENT WITN ESSES/ PANCHAYAT MEMBERS. ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAGE 13 OF 37 ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAGE 14 OF 37 11. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THOUGH THERE WAS NO NEED TO DO SO, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE PURCHASERS AVAILABLE WHO HAVE EVEN EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE SOURCE EVEN WHEN THERE WAS NO SUCH ONUS UPON THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AS A PERSON CONTEMPLATING SALE OF LAND THROUGH A PARTY, ALL HE NEEDS TO DO IS IDENTIFY THE PARTY. THE PARTY HAS B EEN IDENTIFIED AND HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE, STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN R ECORDED AND EVEN THE SOURCE OF SOURCE HAS BEEN EXPLAINED AN D NO CONTRARY FACT OR EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE. IT HAS BEEN DISCARDED BY THE REVENUE BASED ONLY ON CONJECTURES AND SURMISES AND NOT REBUTTED BY ANY SPECIFIC EVIDENCE. IT WAS HIS SUBM ISSION THAT THE REVENUES CASE BASED ON SUSPICION IS ON THE GRO UND THAT IN THE RECORDS OF THE STAMP SELLER, THERE IS OVER-WRIT ING. REFERRING TO THE SPECIFIC PAGES IN THE PAPER BOOK O F THE TWO ASSESSEES, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THERE IS NO O VER-WRITING AVAILABLE. THE STAMP PAPERS WERE PURCHASED ON DIFFE RENT DATES BY THE HUSBAND AND WIFE AND THE REQUISITE ENTRIES A RE CLEAR. THE TAX AUTHORITIES CASE IS ALSO BUILT ON THE INCOR RECT ALLEGATION THAT THE AGREEMENT TO SELL HAS BEEN WITN ESSED ONLY BY THE SELLERS ADVOCATE. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION TH AT FOR REASONS BEST KNOWN TO THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A), TH E SPECIFIC QUESTIONS PUT TO THE PURCHASERS WHICH DEMONSTRATED THAT THE AGREEMENT TO SELL WERE MADE AT THE RESIDENCE OF SHR I SITA RAM, ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAGE 15 OF 37 THE RELATIVE OF SHRI RAJESH KUMAR IS CONVENIENTLY I GNORED. IT IS ALSO CONVENIENTLY IGNORED THAT THE COMPROMISE AG REEMENT IS SIGNED BY ALL THE PARTIES INCLUDING THE TWO SO CALL ED WITNESSES OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE SARPANCH AND THE OTH ER PANCHAYAT MEMBERS AND THE SARPANCH IS THE RELATIVE OF ONE OF THE PURCHASERS. THE FACT THAT THE COMPROMISE AGREEM ENT DULY CORRECTLY RECORDS THE DATE OF AGREEMENT AND ALL THE DATES ON WHICH THE AGREEMENT WAS EXTENDED ARE CLEARLY SUPPOR TED BY COMPROMISE AGREEMENT ALSO AND IS FULLY SUPPORTED BY DETAILED QUESTIONING CARRIED OUT BY THE AO WHO AFTER HAVING REQUIRED THE PRESENCE OF THE PURCHASERS AND HAVING QUESTIONE D THEM IN DETAIL CHOOSES TO IGNORE THE EVIDENCE FOUND INCONVE NIENT TO SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. 12. THE OBSERVATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE AN A GREEMENT ON 15.05.2015 JUST A FEW DAYS BEFORE THE INTRODUCTI ON OF AMENDMENT IN SECTION 269SS OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 01.06.2015 WAS AN IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATION AND THE CONJECTURES ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY FACT OR LEGAL CONSIDERATION. ASSESSEES HAVE GIVEN VALID REASONS FOR WANTING TO RELOCATE AND ALL THESE EVIDENCES CANNOT BE DISCA RDED. 13. THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT WAS FORFEITED AFTER AB OUT 4 YEARS OF SERIOUS EFFORTS TO CONCLUDE THE DETAIL IS A MATT ER OF RECORD. THUS, WHERE DESPITE THE BEST EFFORTS OF THE PURCHAS ERS, THEY COULD NOT GO AHEAD AND PURCHASE THE LAND DUE TO LAC K OF FUNDS ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAGE 16 OF 37 WHICH ALSO HAS BEEN DULY EXPLAINED AS DIRECT RESULT OF FALL IN AGRICULTURAL LAND PRICES ARE UNREBUTTED FACTS ON RE CORD. THE FACT THAT THE PRICE CONSIDERED TO BE CORRECT PRICE FOR SALE DID NOT MATERIALIZE SO AS TO ENABLE RAISING FUNDS BY TH E PURCHASER WHO WANTED TO SELL AND INVEST THOSE PROCEEDS IN THE PURCHASE OF THE SPECIFIC AGRICULTURAL LAND FROM THE ASSESSEE S ARE UNREBUTTED FACTS CLEARLY ON RECORD. THE FACT THAT U LTIMATELY RS. 10 LACS EACH HAS BEEN RETURNED BACK TO THE RESPECTI VE PURCHASERS THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS BY THE ASSESSEE AS IS EVIDENCED FROM PARA 1.16 OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IS ALSO A F ACT WHICH HAS CONVENIENTLY BEEN IGNORED AND THE STATEMENTS, E VIDENCES, DOCUMENTS ARE NOT CARED TO BE REBUTTED AND INSTEAD REPETITIVELY REPEATING THE REASONS OF THE AO AND HI S FINDINGS, THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED IN THE IMPUGNED O RDER. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS HIS PRAYER THAT THE DECISION MA Y NOT BE UPHELD AND INFACT BE REVERSED. THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED, IS INAPPLICABLE WHERE IN THE FACTS OF DURGA PRASAD MORE RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COMMISS IONER IN THE EXTRACT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ITSELF, IT WAS SU BMITTED THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE OTHER DIFFERENCES, IT IS EVIDEN T THAT IT WAS A CASE OF FAMILY ARRANGEMENT. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE CONTEMPLATED TRANSACTION IS BETWEEN STRANGERS. EVEN OTHERWISE, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT SOURCE OF SOU RCE CANNOT ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAGE 17 OF 37 BE ENQUIRED INTO IN A CASE LIKE THE PRESENT CASE FO R WHICH PURPOSES, HE WOULD RELY UPON THE DECISION OF THE JU RISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RAM NARAIN GOEL [1997] 224 ITR 180 (PUNJ. & HARYANA). FOR SIMILAR P ROPOSITION, RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON SUMER CHAND JAIN VS CIT 29 2 ITR 241 (M.P) WHERE MERE EVIDENCE OF IDENTIFYING THE PU RCHASE WAS HELD TO BE SUFFICIENT. THE COURT HELD THAT IT WAS NOT FOR THE SELLER TO IDENTIFY THE SOURCES OF HIS FUNDS. IT WA S ARGUED THAT IT WAS PLACING AN IMPOSSIBLE BURDEN ON A SELLER. I T WAS ALSO HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE GAP OF 11 MONTHS CONTEMPLAT ED IN THE AGREEMENT TO SELL IN THE EYES OF THE REVENUE WAS CO NSIDERED TO BE VERY ABNORMAL. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT BY WHA T YARDSTICK GAP OF 3 MONTHS FIXED IS REASONABLE. THE PARTIES ARRIVED AT A CONCLUSION KEEPING THE PRACTICALITIES AND REALITIES OF THE PURCHASER WHO HAD TO FIRST SELL HIS LANDS TO RAISE THE FUNDS. THE SELLERS AGREED TO WAIT OUT FOR 11 MONTH S, ULTIMATELY THE LAND COULD NOT BE SOLD DUE TO FALL I N PRICES IN THE LAND WHICH THE PURCHASERS HAD PLANNED TO SELL T HEM, EVEN 11 MONTHS WERE NOT SUFFICIENT. THE FACTS HAVE BEEN IGNORED PURELY BASED ON PREJUDICES AND BIASES. THE GROUNDS , IT WAS HIS PRAYER, MAY ACCORDINGLY BE ALLOWED. 14. THE LD. SR.DR MR. A. SUDERSHAN RELIES UPON THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT WHATEVER THE DEP ARTMENT HAS TO SAY HAS BEEN SAID THEREIN. HOWEVER, THE CLA IMS ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAGE 18 OF 37 ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE DOCUMENT S REFERRED TO AND THE INTERPRETATIONS PUT THEREIN WERE NOT EIT HER UPSET, REBUTTED OR INTERFERED WITH. 15. I HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, ADMITTED LY THE ASSESSEE WAS THE OWNER OF SPECIFIC PIECE OF LAND ME ASURING 43 KANAL 11 MARLE 2 SARSAI LOCATED IN VILLAGE MANGALA, SIRSA THE OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT DISPUTED. THE PER SONS WITH WHOM THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE WAS ENTERED INTO BY SMT . MONIKA GUPTA ARE IDENTIFIED AS SHRI RAVINDER KUMAR S/O SHR I NATHU RAM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR S/O SHRI NATHU RAM RESIDE NT OF VILLAGE SEKUPURA, HANSI ON 15.05.2015. IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAJIV GUPTA, THE AGREEMENT IS DATED 27.04.2015, THE PURCHASERS ARE THE SAME. THE DATE FOR REGISTRATION IN BOTH THE AGREEMENTS WAS FIXED AS 19.04.2016 AND AS PER THE A GREEMENT, THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES HAD RECEIVED, AS PER THEIR CLAIM, RS. 40 LACS AS EARNEST MONEY EACH. IT IS A COMMON STAN D IN THE CASE OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES THAT PURCHASES BEING COM MON, SHRI RAVINDER KUMAR AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR COULD NOT ARRA NGE THE FUNDS. 15.1 ON A PERUSAL OF THE GROUNDS, IT IS SEEN THAT IN BOTH THE CASES THE ASSESSEES ARE AGGRIEVED BY THE ADDITION O F RS. 40 LACS MADE BY THE AO. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESS EE THAT THE ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAGE 19 OF 37 SAME EMANATED FROM RECEIPT OF EARNEST MONEY FROM SH RI RAVINDER KUMAR AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR ON ACCOUNT OF AGREEMENT, PART SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS NOT A CCEPTED. THE OWNERSHIP OF THE SPECIFIC PIECE OF LAND CONSTIT UTING IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THE CAUSE FOR CONCERN FOR THE AO WAS TH E FACT THAT IN THE ALLEGED AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 15.05.2015 I N THE CASE OF SMT. MONIKA GUPTA AND DATED 27TH APRIL, 2015 IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAJIV GUPTA, THE DATE OF REGISTRATION OF AG RICULTURAL LAND WAS CONSIDERED TO BE INORDINATELY LONG AS ACCO RDING TO THE AO NORMALLY THERE IS A TIME LAG OF ONLY THREE MONTH S AND MOREOVER THE FACT THAT ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED FAILUR E OF THE PURCHASERS TO ARRANGE THE REQUIRED FUNDS, THE DATE OF REGISTRATION OF LAND WAS EXTENDED TO 30.09.2016 AND THEREAFTER AGAIN 19.01.2017. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE FACT THAT ALL DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM WERE AVAILABL E AND THE LACK OF PRESENCE OF THE PURCHASERS BEFORE THE LAND REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON 19.01.2017 IS A MATTER OF RECORD. TH E ASSESSEE RELIED ON A COMPROMISE DEED RECORDED BEFORE THE PAN CHAYAT AMONGST THE PURCHASERS AND THE SELLERS ALSO REGARDI NG THE FACT THAT SIMILAR TWO ATTEMPTS AT COMPROMISE FAILED EARL IER. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN EXTRACTED IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER. THE AO REQUIRED THE PURCHASERS TO BE PRESENT. THEY WERE QU ESTIONED AND AS PER THE ASSESSEE'S VERSION THE CONFIRMATION OF ALL THESE FACTS BY THE PURCHASERS WAS RECORDED BY THE AO AND STILL ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAGE 20 OF 37 DISCARDED AND THE ADDITION WAS MADE. THE EVIDENCES WERE CONSIDERED TO BE AN AFTER-THOUGHT. THE AO QUESTIONE D THE TIME LAG. HE QUESTIONED THE NEED OF THE PURCHASERS ATTE MPTING TO SETTLE AT A PLACE MUCH DISTANT TO WHERE THEY ORIGIN ALLY STAYED I.E. VILLAGE SHEKH PURA, HANSI AND RELOCATING TO MA NGALA, SIRSA. THE DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON IN SUPPORT OF THE PAYMENT OF MONEY WHEREIN THE WITNESSES WERE THE WITNESSES OF T HE SELLER AND NOT THE PURCHASERS WERE QUESTIONED. AT THIS JUN CTURE, IT WOULD BE APPOSITE TO EXTRACT THE RELEVANT STATEMENT OF SHRI RAJESH KUMAR RECORDED BY THE AO : ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAGE 21 OF 37 ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAGE 22 OF 37 ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAGE 23 OF 37 ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAGE 24 OF 37 ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAGE 25 OF 37 15.2 HOWEVER, NOT CONVINCED, THE AO MADE THE ADDIT IONS TREATING THE EVIDENCES AND EXPLANATIONS AS AN AFTER THOUGHT. 15.3 THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE ISSUE IN APPEAL BEF ORE THE CIT(A). THE RELEVANT EXTRACT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER REPRODUCED BY THE CIT(A) SUMMING UP THE FACTUAL POS ITION ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS : 'RETURN DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.2,7 1,360/- WAS E-FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 25.01.2017 WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. LATER ON, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECT ED FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY UNDER CASS ON THE PARAMETER 'HIGH CASH IN HAND SHOW N IN BALANCE SHEET AS COMPARED TO PRECEDING YEAR AND RETURN OF INCOME FILED AFTER 07.11.2016'. NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 18.09.2017 THROUGH 1TBA AND SENT ON EMAIL. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING QUESTIONNAIRE D ATED 12.07.2018 WAS ISSUED ALONGWITH NOTICE U/S 142(1) THROUGH ITBA AND SEND ON EMAIL. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO GIVE A NOTE ON BUSINESS ACTIV ITIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED COMMISSION INCOME, INTEREST, INTEREST INCOME AND ALSO EARNED THE AGRICULTURE INCOME DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION. THE ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETED WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE CASH BOOM FOR THE F.Y . 2015-16 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2016 17 TO JUSTIFY THE CASH IN HAND OF RS. 83, 39,887/- AT THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. FROM THE PERUSAL OF CASH BOOK, IT I S NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN CASH RECEIPT AMOUNTING TO RS. 40,00,000/- ON 15.05.2015 WITH THE NARRATION THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN RECEIVED AS 'EARNEST MONEY F ROM REC. FROM RAVINDER KUMAR & RAJESH KUMAR ON A/C OF AGREEMENT FOR SALE O F AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY THE SOURCE O SAME WIT H NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. 2.2. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE VIDED HIS REPLY DATED 03.10. 2018 HAS SUBMITTED THAT:- '.. THAT THE ASSESSEE ALSO RECEIVED THE EARNED M ONEY FOR AMOUNTING RS. 40,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF SALE AGREEMENT OF AGRICU LTURE LAND. THAT PHOTOSTAT COPY OF SALE OF AGREEMENT OFAGRI. LAND IS ALSO ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR YOUR KIND INFORMATION AND NECESSARY RECORD. IT MAY BE MENTIONED HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE OWN AND POSSES AGRICULTURE LAND O F VILLAGE BHAMBOOR, MANGALA AND VILLAGE SAHINDWALI AD EARNED AGN. INCOM E AMOUNTING RS. 3,80,000/- ' 2.3. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE OF A GRICULTURE LAND, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERS INTO THE AG REEMENT FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND MEASURING APROX. 43 KANAL 11 MARIE 2 SARSAI LOCATED IN VILLAGE MANGAALA, SIRSA WITH SH. RAVINDER KUMAR S/O SH. NATHU RAM AND ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAGE 26 OF 37 SH. RAJESH KUMAR S/O SH. NATHU RAM RESIDENT OF VILL AGE SEKUPURA, HANSI ON 15.05.2015. THE DATE OF REGISTRATION OF AGRICULT URE LAND WAS FIXED FOR 19.04.201 6. THE AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE WAS MADE AT THE RATE OF RS. 30 LAKH PER ACRE. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS. 40,00,000/' - AS EARNEST MONEY ON THE TIME OF ENTERING INTO THE AGREEMENT. THE ASSESS EE HAS STATED THAT ON THE DALE OF REGISTRATION I.E. 19.04.2016, SALE DEED COU LD NOT BE EXECUTED. THE PURCHASERS SH. RAVINDER AND RAJESH COULD NOT ARRANG E THE REQUIRED FUNDS ON THE DATE OF REGISTRATION OF LAND. THEREFORE, WIT H MUTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND PURCHASERS SH. RAVINDER AN D RAJESH COULD NOT ARRANGE THE REQUIRED FUNDS ON THE DALE OF REGISTRAT ION. THEREFORE, WITH MUTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND PURCHASER , THE DATE OF REGISTRATION OF LAND WAS EXTENDED TILL 30.09.2016. ON THE NEW DATE FIXED FOR REGISTRATION I/E. 30.09.2016, AGAIN/DUE TO INSUFFIC IENT FUNDS IN THE HANDS OF PURCHASERS, THE DATE OF REGISTRATION WAS EXTENDED T O 19.01.1201 7. ON THE EXTENDED DATE FIXED FOR REGISTRATION I.E. 19.01.201 7, DUE T O INSUFFICIENT FUNDS IN THE HANDS OF PURCHASERS, THE REGISTRATION OF LAND COULD NOT BE E XECUTED. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER STATED THAT A PANCHAYAT WAS ALSO CALLED ON THIS MATTER AND PANCHAYAT HAD DECIDED THAT THE FINAL DATE OF REGISTRATION IS EXTE NDED UPTO 15.04.2019 FAILING OF WHICH HALF THE AMOUNT OF EARNEST MONEY I.E. RS. 20, 00,000/- WILL BE FORFEITED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REST OF THE EARNEST MONEY OF RS. 20,00 ,000/- WILL BE RETURNED TO THE PURCHASERS. 2.4 THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE STAMP PAPERS ON 15.05.2015 FROM THE STAMP VENDER SH. SATPAL MIDDHA STAMP VENDER. RAMA. THE CO PY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF STAMP SALE REGISTER WAS CALLED FROM THE ABOVE MENTI ONED VENDOR AND COPY OF THE SAME IS PLACED ON RECORD. THE SECANNED COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE IS PRODUCED AS UNDER:- 2.5 WHEN THIS PAGE IS CLOSELY MONITORED, TI CAN EASILY BE SEEN THAT THERE IS OVERWRITING ON ENTRY 439 TO INCORPORATE THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IN PLACE OF THE ORIGINAL PURCHASER'S NAME. IN THE NAME COLUMN, ALPH ABETS 'MONIKA' AND ALPHABET W/O IS WRITTEN OVERWRITING THE NAME OF ORIGINAL PUR CHASER. FURTHER, THERE ARE SIGNATURES OF SH. RAJIV GUPTA AND ONE MORE PERSON A T THIS ENTRY, WHICH CLEARLY SUBSTANTIATES THE FACT THAT STAMP PAPER WAS PURCHAS ED ON FUTURE DALE AND SAME WAS ENTERED AT SR. NO. 439 DOLED 27.04.201 5 WAS OVER WRITING THE NAME OF ORIGINAL PURCHASER. THEREFORE, THE ABOVE AGREEMENT WAS MADE TO ADJUST THE UNACCOUNTED CASH IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 2.6 IN ORDER TO UNEARTH THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE, SUMMONS U/S 131 WAS ISSUED TO THE PURCHASERS SH. RAVINDER KUMAR S/O SH. NATHU RAM AND SH. RAJESH KUMAR S/O SH. NATHU RAM RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SEKHUPU RA, HANSI ON 29.11.2018 DIRECTING THEM TO PERSONALLY ATTEND THE OFFICE ON 0 5.12.2018, BOTH THE PURCHASERS PERSONALLY ATTENDED THE OFFICE ON 10.12.2018 AND TH EIR STATEMENT U/S 131(1) OF THE ACT WAS RECORDED. 2.7 FROM THE PERUSAL OF STATEMENT OF PURCHASERS, IT IS NOTICED THAT PURCHASERS SH. RAVINDER KUMAR S/O SH. NATHU RAM AND SH. RAJESH KUMAR S/O SH. NATHU RAM RESIDENT OF VILLAGE, SHEKUPURA, H ANSI ARE REAL BROTHERS. IN THEIR STATEMENT, THEY HAVE STATED THAT BOTH OF T HEM COLLECTIVELY POSSES TOTAL 21 ACRES OF AGRICULTURE LAND LOCATED IN SHEKU PURA AND HAVING AGRICULTURE INCOME OF 12-15 LAKH FROM THE SAID AGRICULTURE LAND. FURTHER, ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAGE 27 OF 37 THEY ARE INVOLVED IN THE DIARY BUSINESS AND POSSES 12-13 COWS / BUFALLOES EACH AND HAVING THE DIARY INCOME FROM THE SALE OF M ILK AND SALE PURCHASE OF COWS AND BUFALLOES. BUT, BOTH THE PURCHASERS HAD NOT FILED THEIR RETURN OF INCOME FOR ANY FINANCIAL YEAR. THE DAIRY INCOME EAR NED BY THE ASSESSEE COMES UNDER THE PURVIEW OF TAXATION. BUT, BOTH THE PURCHASERS DID NOT FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME OF ANY FINANCIAL YEAR. THEY WE RE ALSO REQUIRED TO FILE THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF SOURCE OF P URCHASE OF LAND FROM ASSESSEE. BUT, BOTH THE PURCHASERS HAVE NOT SUBMITT ED ANY DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF DIARY BUSINESS CONDUCTED BY THEM. 2.8 FURTHER, DURING THE STATEMENT, IT WAS ASKED AS TO WHY THEY WANTED TO PURCHASE THE AGRICULTURE LAND LOCATED IN MANGLA, SIRSA FAR FROM THEIR NATIVE PLACE I.E. KUKRAWALI FATEHABAD. THEY REPLIED THAT THERE IS INSUFFICIENT AVAILABILITY OF WATER IN AGRICULTURE L AND LOCATED IN VILLAGE SHEKUPURA, HANSI AND THEY HAVE TO ARRANGE THE WATER FROM, FAR PLACE THROUGH PIPELINE TO CULTIVATE THE CORPS. BOTH THE B ROTHERS WANTED TO PURCHASE THE, LAND LOCATED IN MANGALA BECAUSE THERE IS ARRANGEMENT FOR TUBEWELL ON THIS AGRICULTURE LAND AND THIS LAND IS APPROPRIATE FOR CULTIVATING THE PADDY CORP. IN ORDER TO PROVE THE SOURCE FOR TH E PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURE LAND, THEY HAVE SUBMITTED THAT THEY ARE EARNING AGR ICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 12-15 LAKH FROM THE AGRICULTURE LAND LOCATED IN SEK HUPURA, HANSI AND NOW THEY ARE CLAIMING THAT LAND LOCATED IN SHEKUPURA, H ANSI IS NOT HAVING THE SUFFICIENT AVAILABILITY OF PORTABLE WATER. EARNING OF RS. 12-15 LAKH PER ANNUM FROM THE BRINE WATER LAND IS NEXT TO IMPOSSIB LE. THEREFORE, THE PURCHASER HAD MADE THE CONTRADICTORY STATEMENT. 2.9 THEY FURTHER STATED THAT THEY WANTED TO PURCHAS E THE AGRICULTURE LAND LOCATED IN MANGALA. SIRSA, BECAUSE MOST OF THE IR RELATIVES ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HANDIKHERA, SIRSA AND THEY WANTED TO SHI FT NEAR TO THEIR RELATIVES. THE DISTANCE BETWEEN VILLAGE MANGALA AND HANDI KHER A IS APROX. 20 K.M. AND AGRICULTURISTS MOSTLY LIVES AT THE PLACE WHERE HIS AGRICULTURE LAND IS LOCATED. HENCE, THEY HAVE JUST MADE A FAKE STORY TO JUSTIFY THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURE LAND. 2. 10 PURCHASERS DURING THE STATEMENT HAVE SUBMI TTED THAT. AS A SOURCE OF ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURE LAND FROM THE A SSESSEE, THEY HAVE ARRANGED THE FUNDS FROM FOLLOWING SOURCES:- (I) RS. 7.5 LAKH FROM THE SALE OF AGRICULTUR E LAND. (II) 14 15 FROM THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE L ANDS. (III) REAMINMG MONEY INCOME FROM RELATIVES AND RELA TIVES WERE LATER PAID OUT OF THE WITHDRAWAL FROM THE KCC LIMIT OF RS. 10 LAKH AN D RS. 6.40 LAKH IN THE NAME OF BOTH THE BROTHERS. BUT, PURCHASER HAD NOT SUBMITTED ANY DOCUMENT EVID ENCE IN SUPPORT HIS CLAIM MADE DURING THE STATEMENT. 2.11 BOTH THE PURCHASERS DURING THE STATEMENT WER E ASKED FROM WHERE THEY WERE PLANNING TO ARRANGE THE FUNDS OF RS. 1.25 CRORES TO PURCHASE THE LAND FROM ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF REGISTRATION. THEY STATED T HAT THEY WERE PLANNING TO SALE SOME PART OF AGRICULTURE LAND LOCATED IN SHEKUPURA, HANSI. BUT, IN MEAN LIME THERE IS SLOW DOWN IN THE RATES OF PROPERTY AND AGR ICULTURE LAND COULD NOT BE SOLD ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAGE 28 OF 37 AT THE PACES AT WHICH HE DESIRES TO SELL. THEREFORE , NECESSARY FUNDS COULD NOT BE ARRANGED FOR REGISTRATION, THERE IS GAP AROUND I I MONTHS IN AGREEMENT AND REGISTRATION PERIOD FOR AGRICULTURE LAND UNDER CONS IDERATION. THE PURCHASERS STATED THAT DURING THE PERIOD, DUE TO DECLINE IN PR ICE THEY COULD NOT SELL THEIR AGRICULTURE LAND TO ARRANGE THE FUNDS ON REGISTRATI ON. NORMALLY, A PERSON FIRST ARRANGES THE FUNDS FOR THE REGISTRATION AND THEN TH INK ABOUT MAKING SUCH A HUGE DEAL IN PROPERTY. A PRUDENT PERSON NEVER MAKES AN A GREEMENT AND PAID A HUGE SUM OF MONEY WHEN HE IS DOUBTFUL FOR ARRANGING SUCH A LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY IN A SHORT SPAN OF TIME. 2.12 FROM THE PERUSAL OF SALE AGREEMENT, IT IS NOTICES T HAT THERE IS GAP OF AROUND 11 MONTHS BETWEEN AGREEMENT AND REGISTRATION OF LAND. IN NORMAL COURSE , THERE IS A GAP OF 3 MONTHS BETWEEN AGREEMENT AND REGISTRATION OF LAND, FURTHER, ON THE AGREEMENT TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE S ALE OF LAND IS NOT MENTIONED. IN NORMAL COURSE, IT IS MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT. AS SESSEE'S SPOUSE SH. RAJIVE GUPTA HAS ALSO ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE O F LAND, ON 27.04.2015 AND DALE OF REGISTRATION IS SAME IN BOTH THE CASES I.E. 19.04.2010. THESE FACTS PROVE THAT AGREEMENT OF SALE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND PUR CHASERS WAS NOT AUTHENTIC. 2.13 BOTH THE PURCHASERS WERE ASKED TO PRODUCE THE FOLLO WING DOCUMENTS ON THE DATE FIXED I.E. 05.12.2018: 1. COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURN ALONGWITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2010- 11 TO A.Y. 2016-17 2. COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF ALL THE BANK ACCOUNTS IN YOUR NAME FOR THE F.Y. 2015-6 3. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF OURCE OF PURCHA SE OF LAND FROM SMT. MONIKA GUPTA, GUPTA BHAWAN, BADRA BAZAAR, SIRS A. BUT , BOTH THE PURCHASERS HAD NOT FURNISHED THE ABO VE DOCUMENTS/ INFORMATION ON THE SATE F MAKING THE STATEMENT I.E. 10.12.2018. 2.14 THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE AGREEMENT ON 15.05.2015, JUST 15 DAYS BEFORE THE INTRODUCTION OF AMENDMENT IN SECTION 269SS OF T HE L.T. AD, 1961 ON 01.06.2015, WHICH STATES THAT NO ADVANCE IN FORM OF SPECIFIED SUM CAN BE TAKEN OR ACCEPTED OTHERWISE THAN THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQU E, BANK DRAFT OR USE OF ELECTRONIC CLEARING SYSTEM IF THE AMOUNT IS GRATER THAN RS. 20,00,000/-. THE ABOVE ARRANGEMENT WAS MADE TO ESCAPE THE SAID AMENDMENT A ND INTRODUCE THE UNEXPLAINED CASH INTO THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE THE AMENDMENT MADE INTO THE ACT. 2.15 THE ASSESSEE BELONGS TO SIRSA AND THE PURCHASERS A RE THE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SEKHUPURA, HANSI. THE AGRICULTURE LAND UNDE R CONSIDERATION IS LOCATED IN MANGALA, NEAR SIRSA CITY. BUT, THE STAMP PAPER FOR THE AGREEMENT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND WAS PURCHASED FROM RAMA, SIRSA. TH E DISTANCE OF RANIA FROM THE PURCHASERS AND. SELLER IS APROX 140 KM. AND 22 KM. RESPECTIVELY AND DISTANCE OF AGRICULTURE LAND UNDER CONSIDERATION FROM RANIA IS APROX./ 15 K.M.. IN A NORMAL AGREEMENT STAMP IS PURCHASED FROM NEARBY AREA. THES E, FACTS PROVE THAT THE AGREEMENT OF SALE BETWEEN THE ASSESSE AND THE PRUCH ASERERS WAS NOT AUTHENTIC. 2.16 FROM THE PERUSAL OF AGREEMENT FOR SALE, IT IS NOTIC ED THAT IN THE WITNESS'S SIGNATURE, SH. BHAGIRATH GUPTA, FATHER-IN-LAW OF TH E ASSESSEE AND SH. ASHOK GOYAL, RELATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD SIGNED AS A WIT NESS. THEREFORE, BOTH THE WITNESS ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAGE 29 OF 37 WERE FROM THE SELLER'S SIDE. IN NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCE S, THERE ARE WITNESS FROM BOTH THE SIDES, PURCHASERS AS WELL AS SELLER, THEREFORE, NORMALLY, PURCHASER MADE THE PAYMENT IN PRESENCE OF HIS OWN WITNESS, TO WHOM HE KNOWS, BECAUSE PURCHASER IS MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY TO EARNEST MONEY IN THE AGREEMENT. BUT, IN THIS CASE BOTH T HE WITNESS WERE FROM SELLER SIDE. AS ALREADY MENTIO NED, ASSESSE'S SPOUSE SH. RAJIV GUPTA HAS ALSO ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE OF LAND ON 27.04.2015. IN THIS AGREEMENT WITNESS WERE THE SAME PERSON I.E. BHAGIRATH GUPT AND SH. ASHOK GOYAL. THESE FACTS PROVE THAT AGREEME NT OF SALE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND PURCHASERS WAS NOT AUTHENTIC. 2.I7 THE ASSESSEE IS REPUTED PERSON AND HAVING B ANK ACCOUNTS. EVEN THEN THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEPOSITED THE CASH IN HER BANK ACC OUNT UPTO THE DEMONETIZATION PERIOD I.E. 08.11.2016. FURHER, IT IS NOTICED THAT DURING THE PROCEEDINGS FINANCIAL, YEARS, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN VERY NOMINAL CASH IN HAND, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED THE FIGURE OF CASH IN HAND DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND FURTHER HELD THIS CASH BALANCE TI LL THE DEMONETIZATION PERIOD. 2.18 FROM THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS VERY MUCH CLEAR TH AT ASSESSEE HAD CREATED A FICTITIOUS STORY IN THE FORM OF AGREEMENT OF SALE O F LAND AND INTRODUCED THE UNEXPLAINED CASH OF RS. 40,00,000/ - IN HIS BOOKS. THEREFORE, CASH AMOUNTING RS. 40,00,000/'- INTRODUCED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AR E DISALLOWED AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AND ADDED THE T AXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE 15.4. THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE ACTION BEFORE THE CIT(A) AS PER PAGE 9 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER RELIED UPON THE FO LLOWING DOCUMENTS : S.NO. EVIDENCE PAGE PAPER BOOK 1 COPY OF IQRARNAMA FOR SALE OF LAND BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS 19 TO 22 2 COPY OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND 22 PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS FOR EXTENDING THE TIME FOR PAYMENT OF LAND 3 COPY OF STATEMENT DATED 10. 12.2018 OF SHRI RAJESH 25 29 KUMAR, ONE OF THE PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS OF THE LAN D 4 COPY OF STATEMENT DATED 10.12.2018 OF SHRI 30-34 RAVINDER KUMAR; ONE OF THE PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS OF THE LAND 5 COPY OF COMPROMISE DEED DATED 29.1.2017 35 - 36 BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS 6 COPY OF AFFIDAVIT OF PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS NAMELY 40- 41 SHRI RAVINDER KUMAR AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR 7 COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DATED 19.1.2018 OF THE APPELLANT 42- 43 8 COPY OF CASH FLOW STATEMENT FURNISHED BY THE 39 APPELLANT 9 COPY OF LETTER DATED 19.1.2017 BY THE APPELLANT TO 38 THE REGISTRAR ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAGE 30 OF 37 15.5 THE ASSESSING OFFICERS OBSERVATIONS AND RE ASONING POINT-WISE AND PARA-WISE WAS ASSAILED WITH A DETAIL ED TABULATED REPLY EXTRACTED AT PAGE 10 TO 26 OF THE I MPUGNED ORDER. THE ISSUE OF OVER-WRITING WAS ADDRESSED. T HE CASE-LAW RELIED UPON IN SUPPORT OF THE FACT THAT FOR AGRICUL TURE INCOME, RETURNS WERE NOT REQUIRED TO BE FILED AND EVEN IF A CCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, FOR DAIRY INCOME, THE PURCHA SER OUGHT TO HAVE FILED THE RETURN, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE HE LD LIABLE. CASTING THE ONUS UPON THE ASSESSEE FOR ENSURING THE FILING OF RETURN BY THE PURCHASERS, IT HAS BEEN ARGUED, WAS A N UNFAIR BURDEN AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NO OCCASION TO ADVICE TH E PURCHASERS. ARGUMENTS AND DECISIONS WERE RELIED UP ON TO ASSAIL THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF FUNDS FROM THE PURCHASERS, HOWEVER, S INCE THE PURCHASERS THEMSELVES HAVE APPEARED AND GIVEN VALID EXPLANATION, THE SAME CANNOT BE IGNORED. IT HAS BE EN ARGUED THAT THE AOS ACTION TO CONSIDER SOURCE OF SOURCE W AS CONTRARY TO THE LEGAL POSITION AND EVEN OTHERWISE THE SOURCE S ARE NOT UPSET OR REBUTTED. THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSIONS FURT HER SUMMED UP IN PARA 1.10 TO 1.16 ARE REPRODUCED HEREU NDER : 1.10 IN NUTSHELL, THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLA NT IS THAT DURING THE GEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ASSESSEE SOLD HER AGRICULTURE LAND OF VILLAGE MANGALA AND AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF HIS AGRICULTURE LAND OF VILLA GE MANGALA MEASURING 43 KANALS 11 MARLA 2 SARSAI AT THE RATE OF RS 30,00,000/ PER .ACRE WAS MADE IN THE INSTANT YEAR WITH SHRI RAVINDER KUMAR SON OF NAT HIT RAM AND RAJ ESH KUMAR SON OF NETHU RAM ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAGE 31 OF 37 RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SHEKUPRA (HANSI) ON 15.05.2015 AND RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 40,00,000/ '- AS EARNEST MONEY ON THE SAME DATE IN THE PRESENCE O F THE WITNESSES. THAT THE DATE WAS FIXED 19 04 2016 FOR REGISTRATION AND ON THAT DATE BALANCE PAYMENT WAS PAYABLE BY THE PURCHASER TO THE ASSESSEE. THAT ON T HAT DATE PURCHASER COULD NOT ARRANGE THE BALANCE AMOUNT AND AS SUCH WITH THE MUT UAL OF BOTH THE PARTIES DATE WAS EXTENDED TO 30.0 9 2016 AND ON THAT DATE THE PU RCHASER COULD NOT ARRANGE THE BALANCE AMOUNT AND WITH THE MUTUAL CONSENT OF THE S ELLER- ASSESSEE AND PURCHASERS THE DATE OF AGREEMENT/FINAL REGISTRATION WAS EXTEND ED TO 19.01.2017. THAT ON THE SAID DALE PURCHASER-DID NOT CAME AND ULTIMATELY SEL LER-ASSESSEE APPEARED, BEFORE THE SUB REGISTRAR (TEHSILDAR) SIRSA, AND FILED AFFI DAVIT BEFORE HIM AND AS SUCH HIS PRESENCE OF SELLER WAS RECORDED BEFORE THE 'TEHSILD AR. 1.11 THAT THEREAFTER PURCHASERS CONTACTED THE ASS ESSEE TO GIVE FURTHER, TIME AND A PANCHAYAT WAS HELD AND IN THAT PANCHAYAT IT WAS DEC IDED BY THE PANCHAYAT WITH THE MUTUAL CONSENT OF BOTH THE PARTIES (PURCHASERS AND SELLER) THAT FINAL DATE FOR EXECUTION OF SALE DEED WAS EXTENDED UPTILL .311 201 9 AND IT WAS AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT THE PURCHASER WILL MAKE THE BALANCE PA YMENT UPTO 31.1.2019 TO THE SELLER FOR EXECUTION OF SALE DEED IN THEIR FAVOUR A ND IN CASE THEY ARE UNABLE TO MAKE THE PAYMENT A SUM OF RS. 20,00,000/- WILL BE RETURN ED BY CHEQUE/ RTGS TO THE PURCHASERS BY THE SELLER OUT OF THE TOTAL EARNEST M ONEY OF RS. 40,00,000/- WITHOUT ANY INTEREST AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 20,00,000/- WILL BE FORFEITED BY THE SELLER. THAT A WRITTEN AGREEMENT WAS ALSO EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PAR TIES WHO ALONGWITH PANCHAYAT MEMBERS HAVE ALSO SINGED THE SAME. 1.12 THAT THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE THE INCOME -TAX OFFICER, WARD. 2. SIRSA AND SUBMITTED REPLY AND ALSO PRODUCED HER COMPLETE BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS, COPY OF AGREEMENT EXECUTED FOR SALE OF HER AGRICULTURE LAND , DOCUMENTS REGARDING APPEARANCE BEFORE THE TEHSILDAR, COPY OF PANCHAYATIRAZINAMA. THAT CASH BOOK ALONGWITH COPY OF STATEMENT OF INCOME, STATEME NT OF AFFAIRS AND CAPITAL ACCOUNTS WAS ALSO SUBMITTED ALONGWITH REPLY. THAT S UMMONS FOR APPEARANCE OF PURCHASERS WERE ALSO ISSUED THAT THE PURCHASER APPE ARED BEFORE THE LD INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, SIRSA ON 10 12 2018 AND THEIR STAT EMENT WAS RECORDED THAT BOTH THE PURCHASERS HAVE CONFIRMED FOR EXECUTION OF AGREEMEN T FOR SALE OF LAND BY THE ASSESSEE TO THEM THEY HAVE ALSO EXPLAINED THE EARNE ST AMOUNT OF RS 40.00,000/ - GIVEN BY THEM IN CASH THEY HAVE ALSO EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THEIR INVESTMENT AND ALSO PRODUCED THE DOCUMENTS REGARDING OWNERSHIP OF AGRICULTURE LAND OWNED BY THEM THAT THEY HAVE ALSO CONFIRMED TLIE PANCHAYAT IREZINAM. THAT THE DATE EXTENDED FOR EXECUTION OF SALE DEED I E. 31 01 2019 IS STILL PENDING AND IN THEIR STATEMENT THEY HAVE CONFIRMED THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO ARRANGE THE BALANCE AMOUNT FOR GETTING SALE DEED OF AGRICULTURE LAND IN THEIR FAVOUR. 1.13 THAT ON LAW FACTS OF THE CASE THE LEARNED I NCOME TAX OFFICER HAS ERRED THAT THERE IS OVERWRITING ON ENTRY NUMBER 439 OF RE GISTER OF STAMP VENDOR FROM WHOM STAMPS WERE PURCHASED FOR EXECUTION OF AG REEMENT THAI THE LD INCOME TAX OFFICER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE IS NO OVERWRITING AS ALLEGED BY HER RATHER AND THE NAME OF ASSESSEE MONI KA WIFE OF RAJIV GUPTA, SIRSA THROUGH RAJIV GUPTA AND AGREEMENT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE ENTRY AND ALSO THERE IS SIGNATURE OF RAJIV GUPTA (HUSBAND OF ASSESSEE WHO ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAGE 32 OF 37 PURCHASED THE STAMP PAPERS) AND THERE IS NO OVERWRI TING AS HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THAT THE LD. INCOME TAX OFFICER ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE REGISTER OF REGULARLY CHECK BY THE OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SIRSA ON MONTHLY BASIS AND NO ONE CAN PURCHASE STAM P PAPER ON BACK/FUTURE DATE AS ALLEGED BY HER. 1.14 THAT THE LD. INCOME TAX OFFICER ALSO FAILED , TO APPRECIATE THAT BOTH THE PURCHASERS HAVE APPEARED BEFORE HER AND THEIR ST ATEMENT WAS ALSO RECORDED AND IN THEIR STATEMENT WAS ALSO RECORDED. THEY HAVE ALS O PRODUCE THEIR ID. THEY HAVE ALSO CONFIRMED THE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT AND HAVE ALSO Y CONFIRMED THE EARNEST MONEY FOR AMOUNTING TO RS. 40,00,000/-GIVEN BY THEM THEY HAVE ALSO EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF EARNEST MONEY GIVEN BY THEM-Y AND HAVE AL SO PRODUCED THE FARDJAMABANDI REGARDING PROOF OF HOLDING OF AGRICULTURE LAND OWNE D BY THEM THAT BOTH THE PURCHASERS ARE AGRICULTURIST AND THEIR INCOME NEVER EXCEEDED THE TAXABLE QUANTUM AND THEY HAVE GOT SOURCE OF THEIR INCOME MAINLY OF AGRICULTURE SOURCES WHICH IS NOT TAXABLE HENCE DRAWING OF INFERENCE ON ACCOUNT OF NON FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURN IS BASICALLY WRONG. 1.15 THAT ON LAW FACTS OF THE CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS P ROVED ONUS ON HER PART BY PRODUCING THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF HER AGRICULTURE LAND. THAT ON THE DIRECTION OF LD. INCOME TAX OFFICER PURCHASERS WERE ALSO APPEARE D BEFORE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER. THEY HAVE ALSO PRODUCED THEIR ID. THEY HAV E ALSO CONFIRMED, THE EARNEST MONEY GIVEN BY THEM AND HAVE ALSO EXPLAINED THE SOU RCE OF EARNEST MONEY GIVEN BY THEM. MOREOVER THE DATE FOR EXECUTION OF SALE DEED IS STILL PENDING HENCE THE INFERENCE DRAWN BY THE LD ITO IS AGAINST THE PRINCI PLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 WITHOUT GIVING ANY NOTICE. 1.16 IT IS FURTHER RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT APPELL ANT AFTER THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 24.12.2018 UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT MADE THE PAYMENT TO PURCHASER ARE AS UNDER: SR. NO. DATE NAME OF PURCHASER AMOUNT I) 28.01.2019 SH. RAVINDER KUMAR 10,00,000 II) 28 01 2019 SH RAJESH KUMAR 10.00,000 TOTAL - 15.6 HOWEVER, THE ARGUMENTS WERE CONSIDERED TO B E NOT ACCEPTABLE AND THE VIEW OF THE AO FOR THE REASONS S ET OUT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT PARA 5.1 WHICH IS MORE OR LES S REPETITION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN CONFIRM ED. ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAGE 33 OF 37 15.7 FOR SIMILAR REASONS, THE ADDITION HAS BEEN C ONFIRMED IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAJIV GUPTA ALSO. 15.8 ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS, ARG UMENTS AND THE RESPECTIVE FINDINGS, I NOTICE THAT THE LD. CIT( A) DID NOT CARE TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC PARA 1.13 IN SMT. MONIKA GUPTA S CASE. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO HAS NOT CARED TO ADDRESS THE FACTS REPRODUCED IN THE ORDER ITSELF IN PARA 1. 16. I NOTICE THAT NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD TO DISCA RD THE PLETHORA OF EVIDENCE BY WAY OF DOCUMENTS, COMPROMIS E DEED BEFORE PANCHAYAT, THE STATEMENTS OF THE PURCHASERS ETC. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT NO REASONING HAS ALSO BEEN PLACED ON RECORD TO SHOW HOW THE EVIDENCES RELIED UPON CAN BE OUTRIGHTL Y DISCARDED. FOR THE SAKE OF REPETITION, IT NEED BE M ENTIONED THAT THE COMPROMISE DEED IS A DEED WHEREIN THE SIGN ATORIES TO THE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT ALL RELATED TO THE SELLERS, I NFACT THE ERSTWHILE SARPANCH SHRI SITA RAM IS A RELATIVE OF T HE PURCHASER. THE OTHER WITNESSES/PANCHAYAT MEMBERS AR E ALL AT ARMS LENGTH PARTNERS. THE TAX AUTHORITIES FURTHER IGNORED THE FACT THAT THOUGH IN THE AGREEMENT TO SELL, WITNESSE S ARE KNOWN TO THE SELLERS, HOWEVER, THE FACT THAT THE AGREEMEN T TO SELL WAS RECORDED IN THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI SITA RAM, RELATIV E OF SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ONE OF THE PURCHASERS IS AGAIN CONVEN IENTLY IGNORED. THIS FACT IS RECORDED BY THE AO HIMSELF W HICH GIVES CAUSE TO RAISE THE ALLEGATION OF SELECTIVE REASONIN G. FOR ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAGE 34 OF 37 REASONS BEST KNOWN TO THE TAX AUTHORITIES, THEY DID NOT WANT TO ADDRESS THE FACT THAT JUSTIFIABLE REASONS ARE GIVEN BY THE PURCHASERS FOR CONTEMPLATING SALE OF THEIR AGRICULT URAL LAND AND PURCHASING LAND UNDER CONSIDERATION STATED TO B E CLOSE TO THEIR RELATIVES. THE ARGUMENT THAT AT THE SITE OF CONTEMPLATED PURCHASE, RELATIVES OF THE PURCHASERS RESIDED ETC. WERE FACTS WHICH ALL REMAIN UNREBUTTED ON RECORD AND ARE NOT S HOWN TO BE INCORRECT. SIMILARLY THE FACTUAL POSITION THAT THE AREA WHERE THEIR AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS SITUATED, THERE WAS A P AUCITY OF WATER AND IN THE AREA WHERE THEY WERE CONTEMPLATING RELOCATING, WATER WAS IN ABUNDANCE CONDUCIVE TO RI CE GROWING, IS AGAIN AN UNREBUTTED STATEMENT ON RECORD RECORDED BY THE AO HIMSELF. SIMILARLY THE OWNERSHIP OF SUFFICIENT LAND S TO JUSTIFY CONTEMPLATED PURCHASE HAS REMAINED UNREBUTTED. THE INSISTENCE THAT THERE IS NO RETURNED INCOME IGNORIN G THE FACT THAT LARGELY IT IS AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND AND RELATED ACTIVITIES WHICH THE PURCHASERS HA D PLACED ON RECORD. CASTING UPON THE ASSESSEE THE BURDEN THAT T HE PURCHASERS OUGHT TO HAVE FILED THE RETURN FOR DAIRY INCOME, IS AN UNFAIR BURDEN AS NO SUCH ROLE OR RESPONSIBILITY CAN BE FIXED ON A SELLER. THE PERSON CONTEMPLATING SALE OF HIS PROPERTY OR AN ASSET NEEDS TO JUST ASCERTAIN THAT THE PURCHASER HAS FUNDS AND IS IN A POSITION TO GATHER THEM AND MAKE THE PA YMENT. IT IS NOT HIS ONUS OR DUTY TO ENSURE THAT THE FUNDS MA DE ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAGE 35 OF 37 AVAILABLE ARE FROM DISCLOSED SOURCES AS HE HAS NO S UCH AUTHORITY TO CALL UPON HIM TO EXPLAIN THE FACT. THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A TIME LAG OF 11 MONTHS CONTEMPLATED AS O PPOSED TO THE TIME LAG OF 3 MONTHS WHICH WAS DEEMED TO BE NOR MAL ACCORDING TO THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A) IGNORES THE FACT THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PARTIES WHEREIN THE PU RCHASERS SHRI RAJESH KUMAR AND SHRI RAVINDER KUMAR ADMITTEDLY DID NOT HAVE THE ENTIRE FUNDS AVAILABLE IN CASH AND THEY WERE RE QUIRED TO LIQUIDIFY THEIR ASSETS BY SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND RAISING LOANS FROM THEIR RELATIVES ETC. AND THE FACT THAT ULTIMAT ELY DESPITE THEIR BEST EFFORTS AND ATTEMPTS OF THE PARTIES AFTER EXTE NDING THE DATE A FEW TIMES, ULTIMATELY THE FUNDS COULD NOT BE RAISED IS A FACT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACT THAT BEFORE THE PANC HAYAT AS PER THE COMPROMISE DEED AVAILABLE ON RECORD WHICH ALSO STAN DS UNREBUTTED ON RECORD, THE PURCHASERS WERE STILL HOPEFUL OF SEL LING THEIR LANDS AND HAVE MADE THEIR STATEMENTS BEFORE THE AO AND RE CORDED IN THE COMPROMISE DEED ALSO THAT THE LAND PRICES AT THE TI ME OF SALE NOSE- DIVED AND THIS FACT ALSO STANDS UNREBUTTED ON RECOR D. NO EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES TO SHOW THAT THE P URCHASERS DID NOT OWN THE SPECIFIC LAND CONTEMPLATED FOR SALE AND THAT THE PRICES INFACT DID NOT DROP AND WERE INFACT RELATIVELY STAB LE OR RISING. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER UPSETTING THE PLETHORA OF EVIDENCES PLACED ON RECORD, I FIND NO GOOD ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAGE 36 OF 37 REASON TO ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE REVENUE BASED ON SUSPICION, SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. WHAT IS NORMAL FOR A PER SON TODAY MAY VARY FROM WHAT IS CONTEMPLATED TO BE NORMAL IN ANOTHER DAY AND TIME. SO FOR THE TAX AUTHORITIES TO CONCLUD E THAT THREE MONTHS TIME LAG WAS A NORMAL TIME, NO FACTS OR REA SONING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD. FURTHER, NO SUCH DISCRETION OR AUTHORITY HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE STATUTE TO ARBITRAR ILY AND RANDOMLY CONCLUDE WHAT IS A REASONABLE TIME WITHOUT CARING TO REFER TO RELEVANT FACTS. ACCORDINGLY, ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES, THE REASONS S ET OUT THEREIN, THE CONSISTENT ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, EXTRACTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND CANVASSED IN TH E PRESENT APPEALS ALONGWITH THE STATEMENTS OF THE PURCHASERS ON RECORD WHICH I NOTICE HAVE REMAINED LARGELY IGNORED AND TH E COMPROMISE DEED ENTERED WITH BY THE ASSESSEES AND P ARTIES, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEES HAVE MORE THAN ADEQUATELY E XPLAINED THE SOURCES OF DEPOSITS OF RS. 40 LACS EACH IN THEI R ACCOUNTS. NO CONTRARY FACT OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN REFERRED TO B Y THE TAX AUTHORITIES TO JUSTIFY THE DISCARDING OF THE EVIDEN CES AND THE CLAIMS. THE ORDERS BASED ON MERE SUSPICIONS, CONJE CTURES AND INFACT BIASES CANNOT BE UPHELD. SATISFIED BY THE E XPLANATION OFFERED, THE ADDITIONS ARE DIRECTED TO BE DELET ED. SAID ORDER ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAGE 37 OF 37 WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEA RING ITSELF. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEES ARE ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH JULY,2020. SD/- ( ) (DIVA SINGH) / JUDICIAL MEMBER POONAM / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. / CIT 4. ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. , , / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR