SHRI PAPPU RAM SARAN, KISHANGARH V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KISHANGARH

ITA 1303/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7269 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-09-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 22-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANCHAL MEENA ACIT
• Assessee Lawyers: O P BATHEJA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Additional evidence; Tangible material; Competent authority
• Section: 2(14); 142(1); 234B; 143(2); 147; 69; 148; 144; 139

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S,D.B. JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 1303/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SHRI PAPPU RAM SARAN 283, MITRA NIWASH COLONY, VILL- RALAWATA, KISHANGARH (AJMER) CUKE VS. THE ITO, WARD-2, KISHANGARH. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: CXJPS 9188 R VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI O.P. BATHEJA JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : MISS CHANCHAL MEENA (ACIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 02/09/2020 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 03/09/2020 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 03.10.2018 OF LD. CIT (A), AJMER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. DUE TO PREVAILING COVID-19 PANDEMIC CONDITION THE HEARI NG OF THE APPEAL IS CONCLUDED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE. THE ASSESSE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- GROUND NO.1:- THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT ON HI S ITA NO. 1303/JP/2018 SHRI PAPPU RAM SARAN VS. ITO 2 GROUND THAT THE ID. ITO,WARD-2, KISHANGARH HAS ERRE D ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/ S 144/147/148 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ON 19.12.2017 WITHOUT RECORDING HIS REASONS & WITHOUT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 BY HIM, WHICH IS A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED BY HIM IS BAD IN LAW AND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 BY ITO, WARD-1, KISHANGARH ON 30.03.2017 WAS WITHOUT ANY JURISDICTION, INVALID AN D AB- INITIO VOID. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUND NO.2:- THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT ON HIS GROUN D THAT IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED BY THE SUCCESSOR ASSESSING OFFICER (SH. DINESH KAJOT,ITO,W ARD- 1,KISHANGARH) ON THE BASIS OF REASONS RECORDED BY H IS PREDECESSOR ASSESSING OFFICER ( SH. RADHEY SHYAM VERMA, ITO, WARD-1, KISHANGARH). SINCE THE LD. AO W HO HAD ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION148 WAS DIFFERENT THAN T HE OFFICER WHO HAD RECORDED THE REASONS, THEREFORE, THE NOTICE ISS UED U/S 148 WAS BAD IN LAW AND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. GROUND NO.3:- THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT ON HIS GR OUND THAT ITO , WARD-1,KISHANGARH ERRED IN INVOKING CLAUSE (A ) OF EXPLANATION-2 OF SECTION 147 WITHOUT FULFILLING THE MANDATE OF PROVISO TO SECTION 147 AND ISSUING NOTICE U/S 14 8 ON THE BASIS OF HIS FALLACIOUS ASSUMPTIONS, SURMISES, CONJ ECTURES AND WRONG FACTS . THEREFORE, THE NOTICE ISSUED BY H IM IS BAD IN LAW AND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. GROUND NO.4:- THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT ON HIS GR OUND THAT THE ID. PCIT, AJMER HAS ACCORDED APPROVAL FOR ISSUI NG NOTICE ITA NO. 1303/JP/2018 SHRI PAPPU RAM SARAN VS. ITO 3 U/S 148 IN A MECHANICAL MANNER WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND HAS THUS NOT FULFILLED THE MANDATE OF PROVISION S OF SECTION 151 OF THE I.T. ACT. NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 ON THE BASIS SUCH APPROVAL IS BAD IN LAW AND DESERVES TO B E QUASHED. GROUND NO.5:- THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 21,05,000/- OUT OF ADDITION OF RS.27,50,000/ - MADE BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. GROUND NO.6- THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT ON THE GROUN D OF INCORRECT CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE ACT. GROUND NO. 7. THAT THE APPELLANT RESERVES ITS RIGHT TO ADD, ALTER, MODIFY, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF THE A PPEAL DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139 OF THE IT ACT. THE AO RECEIVED INFOR MATION FROM ITS DATA REGARDING CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 32,56,000/- IN T HE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. T HE AO ALSO CONDUCTED ENQUIRY AND ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE AN Y EXPLANATION REGARDING THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS BUT THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSEE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO. CONSEQ UENTLY, THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 30.03.2017 AFTE R RECORDING THE REASONS AND APPROVAL FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.04.2017 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,27,430/- . THE AO ISSUED ITA NO. 1303/JP/2018 SHRI PAPPU RAM SARAN VS. ITO 4 NOTICED U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT ON 21.08.2017 AND THE REAFTER NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT ON 07.11.2017 BUT THERE IS NO RES PONSE FROM THE ASSESSEE TO THESE NOTICES AND EVEN NOBODY ATTENDED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. DESPITE NOTICE U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE AC T WAS ISSUED BY THE AO THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT APPEARED BEFORE THE AO NOR MADE ANY COMPLIANCE TO THE EARLIER NOTICE ISSUED. ACCORDINGL Y, THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT ON 19.12.2 017 WHEREBY THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS. 27,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE AO BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A) AND EXPLAINED THAT THE SOURCE OF CASH AS SALE PROCEEDS OF THE LANDS SO LD BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHER CO-OWNERS FOR A CONSIDERATION OF R S. 27,50,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADMISSIO N OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. TH E LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO ON THE ADDITIONAL E VIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN THE BANK A CCOUNT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO SUBMITTED REMAND REPORT WHEREI N THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE DEALT WITH BY THE AO AS WELL AS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO EXAMINED BY THE AO. THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT POINTED OUT THAT THOUGH THERE IS SALE OF LAN D MEASURING 4 BIGHA ITA NO. 1303/JP/2018 SHRI PAPPU RAM SARAN VS. ITO 5 AND 6 VISHWA VIDE SALE DEED DATED 09.04.2009 HOWEVE R, AS PER SALE DEED THE SALE CONSIDERATION IS SHOWN AS RS. 6,45,00 0/- ONLY AND NOT RS. 27,50,000/- AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. EXCEPT THE SALE DEED THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVI DENCE OR MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE LAND SOL D BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHER JOINT OWNERS WAS MORE THAN RS. 6,4 5,000/-. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT AS WELL AS SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS RESTRICTED ADDITION OF RS. 21,05,0 00/- AFTER GIVING THE CREDIT OF RS. 6,45,000/- BEING THE SALE CONSIDERATI ON OF THE LAND MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED. AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGN ED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL. 3. FIRST WE TAKE UP GROUND NO. 5 REGARDING THE MERI TS OF THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 4. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT TH E AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS. 27,50,000/- WHICH WAS DEPOSITED ON 09.04.2009 IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPL AINED THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSIT ON 09.04.2009 AS THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE LAND WHICH WAS SOLD JOINTLY BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHER C O-OWNERS WHO WERE ALL FAMILY MEMBERS VIDE SALE DEED DATED 08.04.2009 AND THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, ITA NO. 1303/JP/2018 SHRI PAPPU RAM SARAN VS. ITO 6 THE LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE LAND AND DEPOSIT MADE ON THE V ERY NEXT DAY IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE LAND SOLD BY THE FAMILY WAS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND THEREFORE, IT DOES NOT FALL IN TH E DEFINITION OF CAPITAL ASSET U/S 2(14) OF THE ACT. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTE NTION, HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 09.10.2018 IN CASE OF M/S OM PLANTATION VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 1047/JP/2017. THUS, T HE LD. AR HAS PLEADED THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE NEC ESSARY EVIDENCE BEING SALE DEED AND THIS SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ESTABLISHED THE DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE TRANSACTION OF THE SALE O F LAND AND DEPOSIT MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE , THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) NOT JUSTIFIED. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SALE DEED PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE STATES THE SALE CONSIDERAT ION OF RS. 6,45,000/- ONLY AND THEREFORE, THE EVIDENCE PRODUCE BY THE ASSESSEE ESTABLISHES THE FACT THAT THE LAND WAS SOLD FOR A C ONSIDERATION OF RS. 6,45,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY OTHER EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM THAT THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERA TION OF THE LAND WAS RS. 27,50,000/-. SHE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A). ITA NO. 1303/JP/2018 SHRI PAPPU RAM SARAN VS. ITO 7 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION ON ACC OUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 27,50,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF T HE ASSESSEE ON 09.04.2009. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT APPEARED BEF ORE THE AO NOR MADE COMPLIANCE TO THE VARIOUS NOTICES ISSUED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED EX-PARTE U/ S 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE PROD UCED SALE DEED AS WELL AS BANK ACCOUNT AND ALSO DETAILED SUBMISSIONS IN RESPECT OF THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. TH E LD. C(IT(A) CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT WHEREIN THE AO HAS POINTED OUT TH AT THE SALE DEED DATED 08.04.2009 SHOWS THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS . 6,45,000/-. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSEQUENTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 6,45,000/- AS STATED IN THE SALE DEED. THE BENCH HAS RAISED A QUERY ABOUT THE DISCREPANCY IN THE NAME ME NTIONED IN THE SALE DEED AND THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARING IN OTHE R RECORDS. THE LD. AR HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE SHRI PAPPU RAM IS ALSO KNOWN AS @ PRABHU RAM. THUS, IN THE SALE DEED OF THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARING AS SHRI PRABHU RAM. AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE RECORD WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE NAME APPEARING IN THE SALE DEED ALIAS NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THE FACT THA T THE ASSESSEE IS ITA NO. 1303/JP/2018 SHRI PAPPU RAM SARAN VS. ITO 8 ONE OF THE JOINT OWNERS OF THE LAND WHICH WAS SOLD VIDE SALE DEED 08.04.2009. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THE CASH OF RS. 27 ,50,000/- WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, KISHANGARH ON 09.04.2009. THE DATE OF CAS H DEPOSIT IS SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF SALE DEED DATED 08.04.200 9 WHICH PRIMA FACIE SHOWS THAT THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT HAS A D IRECT NEXUS WITH THE SALE TRANSACTION OF THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE J OINTLY WITH OTHER CO- OWNERS VIDE SALE DEED DATED 08.04.2009. THOUGH THE SALE DEED SHOWS THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 6,45,000/- WHICH IS A LSO THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION HOWEVER, ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD THE RELEVANT FACTS AS WELL AS NEXUS BETWEEN TRANSACTION OF SALE AND DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT THEN ONLY INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN FR OM THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IS THAT THE SOURCE OF DEP OSIT OF RS. 27,50,000/- IS THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE LAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING CONTRARY ON THE RECORD DU RING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS SUCH AS EXAMINATION OF THE PURCHASER. T HEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUN T CANNOT BE DISPUTED. THIS TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF M/S OM PLANTATIO N VS. ITO (SUPRA) HAS CONSIDERED AN IDENTICAL ISSUE IN PARA 6 AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 1303/JP/2018 SHRI PAPPU RAM SARAN VS. ITO 9 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WEL L AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE LAND SITUATED AT BHANKROTA, JAIPUR VIDE TWO SALE DEEDS B OTH DATED 11/8/2005 FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION MENTIONED IN TH E SALE DEEDS AT RS. 1,76,34,000/-. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R RECEIVED THE REPORT OF THE DDIT(INV) ALONGWITH THE DETAILS OF TH E CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE SELLERS AND THEIR RELAT IVES AND FURTHER AN AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 11/5/2005 WHEREIN THE CO NSIDERATION @ RS. 28,25,000/- PER BIGHA WAS AGREED UPON BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND PART CONSIDERATION WAS STATED TO HAVE B EEN PAID AT THE TIME OF AGREEMENT IN CASH AS WELL AS IN CHEQUE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPUTED THE TOTAL PURCHASE C ONSIDERATION BY ADOPTING THE RATE OF RS. 28,25,000/- PER BIGHA A S STATED IN THE AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 11/5/2005. THOUGH THE SAID AGREEMENT IS NOT SIGNED BY BOTH THE PARTIES AND IT WAS SIGNED ON LY BY THE SELLER, HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE DETAILS GIVEN IN THE AGREEMENT REGARDING THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS, ITS KHASARAS NUMB ERS AS WELL AS THE PART CONSIDERATION OF RS. 15,50,000/- THROUGH A CHEQUE NO. 582863/- DATED 10/6/2005 IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THE DEA ILSOF THE SAID CHEQUE ALSO FIND PLACE IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 11/8/2005. THUS, THE CONTENTS OF THE AGREEMENT TO T HE EXTENT OF PART PAYMENT OF CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE SALE DEED DATED 11/8/2005. THEREFORE, EVEN IF THE SAID A GREEMENT IS NOT ENFORCEABLE IN LAW DUE TO THE NON-BEARING OF TH E SIGNATURE OF THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER DUE TO NON-REGISTRATION, T HE CONTENTS OF THE SAID AGREEMENT WHICH HAS BEEN PROVED AND CORROB ORATED BY THE SALE DEED GO TO ESTABLISH THE EXISTENCE OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES. FURTHER THE DETAILS OF THE CAS H DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE SELLERS AND THEIR RELATIVES HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS AT PAGE NO. 4 AND 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT O RDER AS UNDER: S. NO. NAME OF PERSON BANK ACCOUNT NO. DEPOSITED CASH AMOUNT DATE RELATION WITH THE SELLER 1. SMT. DHAPU DEVI 210501000 32,74,000/ - 12/08/2005 SELLER OF LAND ITA NO. 1303/JP/2018 SHRI PAPPU RAM SARAN VS. ITO 10 MEENA 00001 2. SH. DULHARAM MEENA 1007813 1,50,000/ - 10,00,000/- 1,60,000/- 14/05/2005 12/08/2005 16/08/2005 DO 3. SH. BALLU RAM MEENA 1007108 4,00,000/ - 11,70,666/- 14/05/2005 12/08/2005 DO 4. SH. HARPHOOL MEENA 1004534 11,70,667/ - 12/08/2005 DO 5. SH. SATENDRA BASANWAL 1007978 14,00,000/ - 12/08/2005 SON OF SH. BAGWATARAM SELLER 6. SH. RAJENDRA KUMAR MEENA 1003946 1,50,000/ - 14,00,000/- 12/05/2005 12/08/2005 DO 7. SH. OM PRAKASH MEENA 1004337 1,50,000/ - 14,00,000/- 12/05/2005 12/08/2005 DO 8. SH. ASHOK KUMAR MEENA 1001168 14,00,000/ - 12/08/2005 DO 9. SH. ROSHAL LAL MEENA 1006877 1,50,000/ - 14,00,000/- 12/05/2005 12/08/2005 GRANDSON OF SH BAGWATARAM, SELLER 10. SH. JAGDISH PD. MEENA 100131 7,50,000/ - 12/08/2005 SON OF SMT. DHAPU DEVI MEENA, SELLER 11. SH. MANNA LAL MEENA 1008064 7,15,800/ - 12/08/2005 SON OF SMT. DHAPU DEVI MEENA, SELLER 12. SH. NEMI CHAND MEENA 1005293 7, 50,000/ - 12/08/2005 SON OF SMT. DHAPU DEVI MEENA, SELLER 13. SMT. SUSHILA MEENA W/O PRABHU DAYAL MEENA 210501000 07726 7,50,000/ - 12/08/2005 W/O - SH. PRABHU DAYAL MEENA, S/O- SMT. DHAPU DEVI MEENA, SELLER THE DATES OF DEPOSIT OF CASH AS WELL AS CHEQUES IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE SELLERS, THEIR SONS, GRANDSONS AND WIFE ARE CLEARLY MATCHING TO THE DATES OF AGREEMENT TO SELL AND SALE DEED I.E. 11/5/2005 AND 11/8/2005. ALL THE DEPOSITS OF CASH I N THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THESE PERSONS WERE MADE ON THE VERY NEX T DAY OF EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT AND SALE DEED RESPECTIVELY. IN ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE SELLERS, THE ONLY INFERENCE WHICH CAN BE DRAWN FROM THE DETAILS OF THE BANK ACC OUNTS AND PARTICULARLY THE DEPOSITS MADE ON THE PARTICULAR DA TES WHICH IS JUST ONE DAY AFTER THE EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT T O SELL AND SALE DEEDS THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS O F THE SELLERS AND THEIR RELATIVES IS ONLY FROM THE SALE CONSIDERA TION RECEIVED AGAINST THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN QUESTION. THERE IS NO OTHER TRANSACTION EITHER ON THOSE DATES OR IN AROUN D THOSE DATES OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OTHER THAN THE PRE SENT TRANSACTION OF SALE OF LANDS BY THE SELLERS. FURTHE R THE ASSESSING ITA NO. 1303/JP/2018 SHRI PAPPU RAM SARAN VS. ITO 11 OFFICER HAS REPRODUCED THE STATEMENTS OF THE BRANCH MANAGER WHEREIN THE AMOUNTS WERE DEPOSITED AS WELL AS THE R ELATIVES OF THE SELLERS WHO HAVE CONFIRMED THE RECEIPT OF CASH AND DEPOSIT OF THE SAME IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THUS, WE FIND THAT TH E ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SOLELY BASED ON THE STATEMENTS RECORDED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING BUT T HERE WAS TANGIBLE MATERIAL IN THE SHAPE OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS STATEMENTS, AGREEMENT TO SELL AND SALE DEEDS WHICH ARE OF COURS E NOT IN DISPUTE. THE ONLY DISPUTE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REGARDING THE PHOTO COPY OF THE AGREEMENT AND ITS EVIDENTIARY VAL UE, HOWEVER, IT IS NOT THE ISSUE OF LEGAL ENFORCEABILITY OF THE SAID AGREEMENT AND THE CLAIM UNDER THE AGREEMENT BUT THE CONTENTS OF THE AGREEMENT WHICH ARE TO THE EXTENT CORROBORATED BY T HE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE BEING SALE DEEDS AND FURTHER T HE BANK STATEMENTS OF THE SELLERS CANNOT BE DENIED ON THE T ECHNICAL GROUND OF ADMISSIBILITY. THEREFORE, ONCE THE PAYMEN T OF CASH IS REFLECTED FROM ALL THESE DOCUMENTS AS WELL AS STATE MENTS OF THE PARTIES THEN THE TECHNICAL OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT HELP THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHEN THE DEPOSIT OF CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IS CONTEMPORANEOUS TO THE TRANSACTION OF SALE OF LAND THEN IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIA L THE SOURCE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE REJECTED. HENCE , THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS DELETED. 7. GROUND NO. 1 TO 4 REGARDING VALIDITY OF REOPENIN G OF THE ASSESSMENT. SINCE WE HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE ON MERI TS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THESE ITA NO. 1303/JP/2018 SHRI PAPPU RAM SARAN VS. ITO 12 GROUNDS BECOME ACADEMIC IN NATURE HENCE, WE DO NOT PROPOSE TO DECIDE THE SAME. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03/09/2020 . SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO FOT; IKY JKO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 03/09/2020. * SANTOSH. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI PAPPU RAM SARAN, KISHANGARH. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ITO, WARD-2, KISHANGARH. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 1303/JP/2018} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR