NARAYAN MEENA, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 139/JPR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2081 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROSHANTA MEENA CIT DHK
• Keywords: Gift; Income from undisclosed sources; Peak credit; Non compliance; Onus to prove
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3); 142(1); 131; 68; 69; 144

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS [KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YAD AV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 139/JP/14 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHREE N ARAYAN MEENA, A-163, ASHOK VIHAR, JAGATPURA, MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE ITO, WARD-6(1), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO.: ALCPM5201E VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRHDH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJEEV SOGANI (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. ROSHANTA MEENA (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 09/06/2017 ?KKS'K .KK DH R KJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 06/09/2017. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)- II, JAIPUR DATED 09.12.2013 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 WHEREI N THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 63,38,820/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED C ASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT. THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEAS E BE GRANTED BY DELETING THE SAID ADDITION OF RS. 63,38,820/-. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN MAKING ADDITION OF ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 2 RS. 16,10,491/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED C HEQUES DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT. THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEAS E BE GRANTED BY DELETING THE SAID ADDITION OF RS. 16,10,491/-. 3. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 31,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED INCOME ON SAL E OF PLOT NO. 143 SWAROOP VIHAR, JAGATPURA, JAIPUR. THE ACTION OF LD . CIT(A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY DELETING THE SAID ADDITION OF RS. 31,50,000/-. 4. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN NOT ACCEPTING THE GIFT OF RS. 2,00,000/- RECEIVED FROM BROTHER ALTHOUGH NO SEPARATE ADDITION IS MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT. THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) I S ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY DELETING THE SAID ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,0 00/-. 2. REGARDING FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL, BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DECLARIN G AN INCOME OF RS. 1,48,340/- WHICH WAS ASSESSED AT RS. 1,12,57,13 0/- U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT , MAINTAINED WITH PUNJAB NATION BANK, BAPU NAGAR, JAIPUR, EXCEEDING RS. 10,0 0,000/- DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TH AT BASED ON THE POWER ATTORNEY ISSUED IN HIS NAME BY THE LAND OWNERS AND ON BEHALF OF THE LAND OWNERS, HE HAS SOLD LAND DURING THE YEAR TO SHRI SH RAVAN KUMAR S/O RAMU R/O ASHOK PUR, NEW SANGANER, SODALA, JAIPUR. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT FROM TIME TO TIME MONEY WAS RECEIVED FROM SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR AND BASED ON THE SAME, THE POST-DATED CHEQUES ISSUED BY HIM IN FAVOUR OF THE LAND OWNERS WERE PRESENTED BY THE LAN D OWNERS AND CLEARED FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERV ED THAT THE LAND WAS SOLD ON 28.10.2006 AND 11.01.2007 BUT THE SALE CONSIDERA TION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 3 ASSESSEE ALMOST AFTER 15 TH TO 18 TH MONTHS WHICH CANNOT BE BELIEVED. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN THE COMPLETE ADDRESS OF SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR AND EVEN HIS PAN DETAILS WERE NOT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSE SSEE. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE STARTED AVOIDING ATTENDING TO THE ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS AND AS A RESULT, NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS ISSUED REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND IT WAS ALS O STATED IN THE SAID NOTICE THAT IN CASE OF NON COMPLIANCE, ASSESSMENT WILL BE COMPLETED U/S 144 AND ENTIRE DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WILL BE ADDED T O HIS TOTAL INCOME. SUBSEQUENTLY, ON RECEIPT OF SUCH NOTICE, THE ASSESS EE CAME FORWARD AND ATTENDED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND FILED AN AF FIDAVIT FROM SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR WHERE HE HAD ADMITTED THAT HE HAD PURCHASED L AND ON POWER OF ATTORNEY AND PAID CASH TO THE ASSESSEE FROM TIME TO TIME IN LIEU OF WHICH ASSESSEE HAS ISSUED CHEQUES TO THE LAND OWNER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FIND THE AFFIDAVIT AS RELIABLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE FO R VARIOUS REASONS DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. SOME OF THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE WORTH NOTING WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. HE HAD NOT MENTIONED ANY DETAILS OF CASH PAID B Y HIM I.E. DATES AND AMOUNTS WHEN HE HAD PAID CASH TO SHREE NARAYAN MEEN A. 2. DETAILS OF COLONY DEVELOPED BY HIM WERE NOT MENT IONED. 3. THE LAND WAS PURCHASED BY HIM IN OCTOBER, 2006 A ND JANUARY, 2007 AND PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN MAY 2008 ONWARDS, MAKING PAYMENTS AFTER 15 TH TO 18 MONTHS AND REASONS FOR DELAYED PAYMENTS WERE NOT GIVEN. 3. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE SH RI SHRAVAN KUMAR BUT HE AVOIDED PRESENTING HIM AND IN TURN REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ISSUE SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IN ABSEN CE OF COMPLETE ADDRESS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT ISSUE THE SUMMONS T O SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR. ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 4 4. IN THE MEAN TIME, ON 12.12.2011, THE ASSESSEE F ILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION BEFORE THE LD. AO WHICH INTERALIA CONTAINS FOLLOWING SUBMISSION:- 3. THAT MR. SHARWAN LAL HAS PURCHASED LAND AT SHRI KISHANAPURA (JAGATPUR TEHSI SANGANER, JAIPUR BY REGISTERED SALE DEED THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY OF MR. SHRI NARAIN MEENA AND DET AILS OF ALL THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE ALREADY ON RECORD AND AFTER PURCHA SING ABOVE LAND, SHRI SHARWAN LAL HAS DEVELOPED SCHEME KNOWN AS NEHR U ENCLAVE EXTENSION AND GET THE LAND DIVIDED IN VARIOUS PLOT S AND STARTED SELLING THE SAME AND OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS, MR. SHARWAN LAL STARTED MAKING PAYMENT TO ME SO THAT I CAN CLEAR THE CHEQUES MENTI ONED IN REGISTERED SALE DEED AND I WILL SUBMIT DETAILED SITE PLAN, LIS T OF PLOT HOLDERS TO WHOM PLOTS WERE SOLD AND AREA OF EACH PLOT AND AMOU NT RECEIVED AGAINST EACH PLOT WITHIN A WEEKS TIME. 4. I HAD GIVEN COMPLETE ADDRESS OF SHRI SHARWAN LAN AND SMT. RUBY SRIVASTAV AND I FURTHER REQUEST YOU TO PLEASE ISSUE SUMMONS FOR GETTING OTHER DETAILED INFORMATION FROM THEM AND I AM PREP ARED TO BEAR THE COST OF SUMMONING THEM. 5. I AM ALSO TRYING TO COLLECT ALL THOSE RELEVANT I NFORMATION FROM THOSE PERSONS AND NO SOONER I GET THE INFORMATION I WILL SUBMIT THE SAME TO YOU IMMEDIATELY. 5. THEREAFTER, SUMMONS U/S 131 WERE ISSUED TO SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR WHO FINALLY APPEARED BEFORE THE AO ON 16.12.2011 WHERE HIS STATEMENT WERE RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER FOR DETAILS RE ASONS GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO DID NOT BELIEVE THE SAID S TATEMENT TO BE RELIABLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCE OF CAS H DEPOSITS IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNTS AND IN PARTICULAR THE CREDITWORTHINES S OF SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR. ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 5 6. THEREAFTER ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN GIVEN AN OPPORTUNI TY TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS OF MONEY RECEIVED FROM SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR A ND DATES WHEN IT WAS RECEIVED AND DETAILS OF PAYMENTS MADE TO THE FARMER S WHEN THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE HOWEVER THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINALLY MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 63,38,820/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS WITH THE F OLLOWING FINAL FINDINGS:- IN ABSENCE OF DETAILS MENTIONED AT SL. NO. A TO O, IT CANNOT BE BELIEVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ANY CASH FROM SHRI SHARWA N KUMAR DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, I HOLD THAT THE CAS H DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE WAS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF ASSESSEE WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT. THE PEAK OF CASH DEPOSIT ED AND WITHDRAWN FROM ALL THE THREE BANK ACCOUNTS IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE -A TO THIS ORDER. AS PER THIS ANNEXURE TOTAL PEAK COMES AT RS. 63,38,820/-. THE SAME IS HELD AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED TO HIS TOTAL INCOME. THUS RS. 63,38,820/- IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS BENEFICIARY, HENCE THE ADDITI ON IS MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS. THE MATTER IS REFERR ED TO THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(3), JAIPUR FOR MAKING ADDITION ON PROTECTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF SHRI SHARWAN KUMAR. 7. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHEREIN FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE AND WHICH WERE AGAIN REITERATED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US: 7. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE APPELLANT AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS COMPLETED HIS MA IN SOCIOLOGY IN THE YEAR 1996 AND BELONGS TO A SMALL VILLAGE BASSI WHERE HIS FATHER IS INVOLVED IN FARMING AND IS CURRENTLY RESIDING AT JAGATPURA, JAIPUR. AFTER COMPLETING HIS EDUCATION, HE WAS IN SEARCH OF SOME LIVELIHOOD. ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 6 7.1 HE WAS A MAN OF MEAGRE MEANS. HE BELONGED TO AN AGRICULTURIST FAMILY. HE HAD NO RESOURCES TO DO ANY REAL ESTATE BUSINESS. HOWEVER, SINCE HE WAS OF RURAL BACKGROUND HE THOUGHT IF FIT TO DO DALALI BUS INESS WHERE HE COULD LOCATE PROSPECTIVE SELLERS OF THE FARM LAND AND GET THEM A PPROPRIATE BUYERS. 7.2 THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT, UNDER HIS NORMAL COURSE OF DALALI BUSINESS, CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE FOLLOWING PERSONS: A. SMT. GANGA DEVI B. SHRI MOOL CHAND C. SHRI RAMJILAL D. SHRI RAMDHAN 7.3 THE ABOVE PERSONS HAD A LAND SITUATED NEAR A NU LLAH, IN VILLAGE VIDHANI, GONER ROAD. THE LAND OWNERS WERE BELONGING TO SCHED ULED CASTE, AND THEREFORE, THEIR LAND COULD BE PURCHASED BY OTHER P ERSONS OF THE SAME CASTE ONLY. MOREOVER, THE LAND OF THESE PERSONS WAS LOCAT ED NEAR A NULLAH AND THE LAND OWNERS WERE UNABLE TO FIND A BUYER BY THEMSELV ES. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT FOUND A WILLI NG BUYER OF THIS LAND, SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR. HOWEVER, LOOKING TO SO MANY STRINGS ATTACHED ( LIMITATION OF SC AND LOCATION NEAR A NULLAH) TO THE LAND DEAL; I T WAS AGREED AMONGST THE BUYER AND THE SELLERS THAT THEY WILL EXECUTE REGIST RIES IN FAVOUR OF THE BUYER SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR. IT WAS ALSO MUTUALLY AGREED THA T THEY WILL RECEIVE POST DATED CHEQUES AGAINST THE SALE CONSIDERATION WHICH WILL BE PRESENTED FOR CLEARING ON A LATER DATE WITH THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR. UNFORTUNATELY, SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR, THE BUYER OF THE LAND DID NOT HAVE ANY BANK ACCOUNT AT THAT POINT OF TIME. THE BANK ACCOUN T OF SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR WAS OPENED IN MARCH, 2012, SHRI SHRAVAN KUMARS EAR LIER BANK ACCOUNT WITH UCO BANK IN NBC CAMPUS, JAIPUR BECAME INOPERATIVE A FTER HIS RETIREMENT FROM NBC IN THE YEAR 1999. IGNORANT OF THE LEGAL CO NSEQUENCES AND DRIVEN BY HIS ZEAL TO COMPLETE THE DEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLA NT ISSUED CHEQUES OF HIS ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 7 OWN BANK ACCOUNT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT CASH W ILL BE MADE AVAILABLE BY SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR WHICH WILL BE DEPOSITED BY THE A SSESSEE APPELLANT AND THE CHEQUES WILL BE CLEARED IN FAVOUR OF THE LAND OWNER S (SELLERS). IT WAS ALSO DECIDED THAT SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR WILL BE ALLOWED SOM E TIME TO DEVELOP THE SAID LAND AND FIND PROSPECTIVE BUYERS FROM WHOM SHR I SHRAVAN KUMAR COULD RECEIVE MONEY FOR PAYMENT TO THE LAND OWNERS (SELLE RS). 7.4 ON THE BASIS OF BEING A LOCAL ACQUAINTANCE TO T HE LAND OWNERS, THE LAND OWNERS EXECUTED POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT AND THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT, IN TURN, ON THE BASIS OF TH AT AUTHORITY EXECUTED THE SALE DEEDS IN FAVOUR OF SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR. THE LAND OWNERS EXECUTED THE FOLLOWING POWER OF ATT ORNEY IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT: NAME DATE OF EXECUTION OF POWER ATTORNEY SMT. GANGA DEVI 6 TH SEPTEMBER, 2006 SHRI MOOL CHAND 6 TH SEPTEMBER, 2006 SHRI RAMJILAL 6 TH SEPTEMBER, 2006 SHRI RAMDHAN 6 TH SEPTEMBER, 2006 THE LAND OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED LAND OWNERS WERE SO LD BY THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT ON THE BASIS OF POWER OF ATTORNEY TO SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR THROUGH THE FOLLOWING SALE DEEDS: NAME DATE OF EXECUTION OF SALE DEED SMT. GANGA DEVI 11 TH JANUARY, 2007 SHRI MOOL CHAND 11 TH JANUARY, 2007 SHRI RAMJILAL 28 TH OCTOBER, 2006 SHRI RAMDHAN 28 TH OCTOBER, 2006 ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 8 7.5 IN TERMS OF THE ABOVE UNDERSTANDING AMONGST THE PARTIES, THE SALE DEEDS WERE EXECUTED BY THE SELLERS THROUGH THE POWE R OF ATTORNEYS WHEREIN POST DATED CHEQUES WERE ISSUED. IN SALE DEED, THE C HEQUE NUMBERS WERE MENTIONED THAT WERE ISSUED AS CONSIDERATION. THESE VERY CHEQUES WERE CLEARED IN FAVOUR OF THE SELLERS BY DEPOSITING THE CASH RECEIVED FROM SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR. 7.6. THE ABOVE FACTS WERE PLACED BEFORE THE LD AO D URING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR ALSO APP EARED BEFORE THE LD. AO ON 16 TH DECEMBER, 2011. HIS STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED BY TH E LD. AO SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR CONFIRMED THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION A ND ALSO CONFIRMED THAT THE LAND WAS PURCHASED BY HIM (SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR). SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR ALSO CONFIRMED HAVING MADE AVAILABLE CASH TO THE AS SESSEE APPELLANT FOR CLEARING THE CHEQUES. 7.7 THE LD. AO, WITHOUT BRINGING ANY MATERIAL TO SU PPORT HIS ACTION, DISREGARDED THE COMPLETE FACTS INCLUDING THE STATEM ENT AND THE AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR. THE LD. AO TREATED THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT AS UNEXPLAINED CA SH DEPOSITS AND ADDED A SUM OF RS. 63,38,820/- BY CALCULATING THE PEAK AMOU NT. 8. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AO TOTALLY DISREGARDED THE FACTS CONFIRMED BY SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR DURING THE COURSE O F HIS STATEMENTS RECORDED BY THE LD. AO. THE LD. AO HAS GIVEN REASON S FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE FACTS SO EMERGING OF HIS ORDER. THE REASONS SO GIVE N BY THE LD. AO HAVE NO RELEVANCE TO THE ISSUE WHICH HE WAS EXPECTED TO DEC IDE. SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR HAD CATEGORICALLY CONFIRMED THAT HE HAD MADE AVAILA BLE THE CASH AND THE CHEQUES TO THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT SO THAT THE CHEQU ES ISSUED TO THE LAND OWNERS COULD BE CLEARED FROM THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT. ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 9 THE SAME FACTS WERE ALSO CONFIRMED BY SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR VIDE CERTIFICATE GIVEN BY SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR. FURTHER, THESE FACTS WERE ALSO CONFIRMED BY WAY OF HIS SWORN AFFIDAVIT BY SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR. THE LD. AOS REASON FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE SAID CONF IRMATIONS BY SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR WERE THAT SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR DID NOT MENTION THE DATES ON WHICH HE HANDED OVER THE CASH TO THE ASSES SEE APPELLANT. NOT REMEMBERING THE DATES CANNOT BE SO FATAL TO DISBELI EVE THE ENTIRE CONFIRMATION. FURTHER, THE LD. AO DISREGARDED SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR S STATEMENTS BECAUSE HE DID NOT REMEMBER THE DETAILS OF PLOTS SO LD BY HIM RATES AT WHICH PLOTS WERE SOLD, COLONY WHICH WERE DEVELOPED, HE WAS ASSESSED TO TAX OR NOT ETC.. ALL THESE ISSUES ARE NOT RELEVA NT. THE LD. AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACT OF THE LANDS HAVING BEEN PURCHASE D BY SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR. ONCE THIS FACT IS UNDISPUTED, DETAILS OF SUB SEQUENT SALE BY SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR CAN HAVE NO BEARING ON THE EARLIER PA RT OF THE DEAL. THE LD. AO HAS ALSO TAKEN A PLEA THAT IF CASH IS PA ID BY SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR THEN THE SAME IS DISALLOWED IN HIS HANDS U/S 40A(3). THIS CANNOT BE A REASON FOR NOT BELIEVING THE PROOF OF CASH HAV ING BEEN RECEIVED FROM SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR. THE OTHER REASONS LIKE SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR BEING A C HECKER IN NBC, JAIPUR AND AFTER RETIREMENT PURCHASED MINI BUS AND TRUCK AND SOLD THE SAME AT LOSS HAD NO BEARING ON THE ISSUE BEFORE THE LD. AO. ANOTHER REASONS MENTIONED BY THE LD. AO IS THAT PAY MENTS BY SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR BEING MADE AFTER A LAPSE OF 15-18 MON THS FROM THE DATE OF PURCHASE OF LAND CANNOT BE BELIEVED. THIS I S A FACT NOT ONLY CONFIRMED BY THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT BUT ALSO BY SHR I SHRAVAN KUMAR AND IS FULLY CORROBORATED BY THE GAP IN EXECUTION IF REGISTRYAND CHEQUES ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 10 CLEARED IN FAVOUR OF LAND OWNERS. NOTHING MORE IS N EEDED TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS ASPECT WHICH THE LD. AO HAS IGNOR ED WITHOUT GIVING ANY COGENT REASON. 8.1 ANALYSIS OF THE SALE DEEDS EXECUTED BY THE ASSE SSEE APPELLANT IN FAVOUR OF SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR WILL REVEAL THE FOLLOWING VIT AL FACTS WHICH WERE BEFORE THE LD. AO HIMSELF: A. THE CHEQUE NUMBERS MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEEDS A RE CLEARED FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT IN FAVOUR OF THE ORIGINAL LAND OWNERS: PARTICULARS DETAILS OF CHEQUES IN SALE DEED AMOUNT DATE OF CLEARANCE OF CHEQUE P.B IN PASS BOOK IN SALE DEED SALE DEED FOR SMT. GANGA DEVI EXECUTED ON 11 TH JANUARY 2007 AT RS. 99,00,000 183270 11,00,000/- BY SHRAVAN KUMAR - 29 183271 11,00,000/- BY SHRAVAN KUMAR - 29 183272 11,00,000/- 26.09.2011 59 29 183273 11,00,000/- 03.07.2008 55 29 183274 11,00,000/- 29.07.2008 55 29 183275 11,00,000/- 04.09.2008 55 29 183276 11,00,000/- 08.07.2010 59 29 183277 11,00,000/- 04.03.2009 57 29 183278 11,00,000/- 24.09.2009 58 29 TOTAL 99,00,00/- SALE DEED FOR SHRI MOOL CHAND EXECUTED ON 11 TH JANUARY 2007 AT RS. 33,00,000 183267 11,00,000/- REPLACED BY NEW CHEQUE - 25 183268 11,00,000/- 03.06.2008 55 25 183269 11,00,000/- 16.09.2008 56 25 TOTAL 33,00,000/- SALE DEED FOR SHRI RAMDHAN AND RAMJILAL 671609 7,44,000/- REPLACED BY NEW CHEQUE - 21 ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 11 EXECUTED ON 28 TH OCTOBER, 2006 AT RS. 14,88,000 671608 7,44,000/- REPLACED BY NEW CHEQUE - 21 TOTAL 14,88,000/- THE FACT THAT THE CHEQUES WERE GIVEN IN ADVANCE IS ESTABLISHED FROM THE FACT THAT THEY ARE NOT CLEARED IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER. B. FOLLOWING CHEQUES BECAME STALE, AND THEREFORE, WERE REPLACED BY THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT. THE REPLACED CHEQUES WERE ALSO CLEARED IN FAVOUR OF THE LAND LONERS: NAME AMOUNT OLD CHEQUE NO. NEW CHEQUE NO. P.B. DATE OF CLEARANCE OF CHEQUE SHRI RAMJILAL 7,44,000 671609 883893 56 19.12.2008 SHRI RAMDHAN 7,44,000 671608 883892 56 17.12.2008 TOTAL 14,88,000 C. FOLLOWING CHEQUE WAS LOST BY THE LAND OWNER AND WAS REPLACED BY THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT WHICH WAS CLEARED IN FAVOUR OF T HE LAND OWNER: NAME AMOUNT OLD CHEQUE NO. NEW CHEQUE NO. P.B. DATE OF CLEARANCE OF CHEQUE SHRI MOOL CHAND 11,00,000 183267 883894 56 23.12.20 08 TOTAL 11,00,000 D. FOLLOWING CHEQUES ORIGINALLY ISSUED TO SMT. GANG A DEVI BY ASSESSEE APPELLANT WERE MISPLACED BY HER AND WERE REPLACED B Y SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR HIMSELF: NAME AMOUNT OLD CHEQUE NO. NEW CHEQUE NO. P.B. DATE OF CLEARANCE OF CHEQUE RECEIPT PASS BOOK SHRI GANGA DEVI 11,00,000 183270 008282 44 67 17.05 .2012 11,00,000 183271 008281 45 67 09.05.2012 ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 12 TOTAL 22,00,000 THE ABOVE TWO CHEQUES WERE NOT CLEARED FROM THE ASS ESSEE APPELLANTS BANK ACCOUNT BUT WERE DIRECTLY CLEARED FROM THE BANK ACC OUNT OF SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR. SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR HAD OBTAINED RECEIPTS FROM SMT. GANGA DEVI TO THIS EFFECT. THE SAID RECEIPTS DO FURTHER CONFIRM THAT T HE LAND WAS SOLD BY SMT. GANGA DEVI TO SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR THROUGH SHRI NARAY AN MEENA. THE PASS BOOK OF SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR IS NOT ADDITION AL EVIDENCE BUT IS ONLY A FURTHER EVIDENCE TO FURTHER SUBSTANTIATE WHAT WAS S UBMITTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE LD. AO. THESE FACTS W ERE ADMITTED BY SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR, WHEN HE APPEARED FOR HIS STATEMENTS BEFORE THE LD. AO. HOWEVER, A MATTER OF ABUNDANT PRECAUTION APPLICATIO N UNDER RULE 46A IS BEING MOVED FOR ADMITTING THIS EVIDENCE. 8.2 AT NO POINT OF TIME THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT EVER BECAME THE OWNER OF THE LAND. NOR, AT THE TIME OF OBTAINING THE POWER O F ATTORNEY, THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO THE LAND OWNERS. BOTH THE ASPECTS ARE SUBSTANTIATED BY THE BANK STATEMENT WHEREIN THE CHEQUES MENTIONED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED ARE CLEARED IN FAVOUR OF THE LAND OWNERS. 8.3 THE CASH WHICH WAS RECEIVED FROM SHRI SHRAVAN K UMAR AND DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT, DULY CONFIRMED BY SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR, HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE LD. AO WITH SO MANY CO RROBORATIVE EVIDENCES, THE TRANSACTION HAVING TAKEN PLACE IN THE MANNER EX PLAINED CANNOT BE DENIED. THE LD. AO HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE SAID EXPLANATION WI THOUT BRINGING ANYTHING ON RECORD TO SUPPORT HIS ACTION. 8.4 THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN APPLYING PEAK THEORY. P EAK THEORY IS RELEVANT WHEN IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE MONEY BELONGS TO TH E ASSESSEE. IN THE INSTANT ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 13 CASE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BEYON D DOUBT. HENCE, THE PEAL THEORY APPLICATION IS UNJUSTIFIED AND DESERVES TO B E QUASHED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE CASH DEPOSITS ARE FULLY E XPLAINED. THE ADDITION OF THE PEAK AMOUNT IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 9. THE LD CIT(A) HOWEVER DIDNT AGREE WITH THE CONT ENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO. THE RE LEVANT FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH ARE UNDER CHALLENGE BEFORE US ARE REPR ODUCED AS UNDER:- 3.5 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ASSES SMENT ORDER AND APPELLANTS WRITTEN SUBMISSION. ASSESSING OFFICER M ADE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF PEAK OF SUBSTANTIAL CASH DEPOSITS IN APP ELLANTS BANK ACCOUNT. TOTAL RS. 99 LACS WERE DEPOSITED ON VARIOUS DATES A ND AFTER CONSIDERING THE CASH WITHDRAWALS, ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE AD DITION IN RESPECT OF PEAK CASH DEPOSITED IN APPELLANTS BANK ACCOUNT. AP PELLANT SUBMITTED THAT SUCH HUGE CASH WAS GIVEN TO HIM BY THE PROSPEC TIVE BUYER OF THE PROPERTY SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR. WHY APPELLANT DEPOSITE D THE CASH ALLEGEDLY GIVEN BY SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR IN HIS BANK A CCOUNT IS NOT CLEARLY EXPLAINED. WHEN MONEY IS DEPOSITED IN THE APPELLANT S BANK ACCOUNT, ONUS IS ON THE APPELLANT TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF SUCH CASH DEPOSIT. THIS BURDEN CAN NEVER BE SHIFTED TO THE AS SESSING OFFICER. APPELLANT ONLY PRODUCED SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR BEFORE T HE AO WHO RECORDED HIS STATEMENT AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION T HAT THERE WERE MANY MISSING LINKS IN THE STATEMENT AND THERE WAS N O EVIDENCE OF POSSESSION OF SUCH HUGE CASH WITH SHRI SHRAVAN KUMA R. EVEN IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR COULD NOT PRO VIDE THE SOURCE OF SUCH HUGE CASH PARTICULARLY WHEN HE WAS IN EMPLOYME NT AS VERY LOW- PAID EMPLOYEE TILL 1999 AND THEREAFTER NOT DOING AN Y MAJOR ANYTHING WHICH CAN GIVE HIM SUCH CASH. HOW SUCH HUGE CASH CA N BE AVAILABLE WITH A PERSON LIKE HIM IS NOT EXPLAINED BY ANYBODY. WHY WITH SUCH SUBSTANTIAL CASH HE DID NOT HAVE ANY BANK ACCOUNT W HICH HE OPENED SUBSEQUENTLY AFTER THIS CONTROVERSY AROSE. JUST BY ADMITTING THAT HE HAS GIVEN SUCH HUGE CASH TO THE APPELLANT IS NOT SUFFIC IENT. THERE HAS TO BE EVIDENCE OF SOURCE OF SUCH SUBSTANTIAL CASH WHICH I S COMPLETELY MISSING EVEN IN THE CASE OF SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR. THEREFORE A SSESSING OFFICER AFTER ANALYSING THE AFFAIRS OF SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR C ONCLUDED THAT THE ADMISSION OF GIVING CASH BY SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR IS W ITHOUT ANY BASIS ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 14 AND THE MONEY DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT BELONGE D TO THE APPELLANT ONLY AND THE SAME WAS HIS UNACCOUNTED CREDIT. DURING APPELLATE STAGE, APPELLANT SUBMITTED ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF RECEIPT GIVEN BY SELLER AND COPY OF PASSBOO K OF SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR. BUT NONE OF THESE EVIDENCES PROVIDE ANY INDI CATION WITH REGARD TO SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN APPELLANTS BANK ACCO UNT. THESE EVIDENCES ARE OF THE PERIOD AFTER ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AN D THESE ARE NOT OF THE PERIOD DURING WHICH CASH WAS DEPOSITED. SUBSEQU ENT EVIDENCES CAN BE CREATED AND THEREFORE THESE DO NOT HAVE EVIDENTI ARY VALUE. IN ANY CASE, APPELLANT TRIED TO DIVERT THE MAIN ISSUE I.E. THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE APPELLANTS BANK ACCOUNT. TILL DATE APPELLANT WAS NOT ABLE TO PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. EVEN IF FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT IT IS ACCEPTED THAT APPELLANT WAS PROVIDED CASH BY SHRI S HRAVAN KUMAR THEN THE SOURCE OF CASH NEED TO BE PROVED IN HIS CASE WH ICH WAS ALSO NOT DONE. PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT IN HIS HAND RECOMMENDED BY AO DOES NOT ABSOLVE APPELLANT FROM HIS ONUS. SINCE APPELLANT DE POSITED THE MONEY IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND THERE IS NO SOURCE FOR SUCH DEPOSIT EXCEPT CLAIMING THAT IT WAS GIVEN BY SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR WH O IN TURN DOES NOT HAVE A SOURCE, I HAVE NO HESITATION IN HOLDING THAT MONEY DEPOSITED IN APPELLANTS BANK ACCOUNT WAS UNEXPLAINED AND ACCORD INGLY ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONFIRMED. 10. FURTHER, DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD A R SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE, IN CORRECT PERSPEC TIVE, THE VITAL EVIDENCES WHICH BEYOND DOUBT PROVE THAT FOLLOWING PERSONS NAM ELY SMT. GANGA DEVI, SHRI MOOLCHAND, SHRI RAMJI LAL AND SHRI RAMDHAN HAD SOLD THEIR RESPECTIVE PIECES OF LAND TO SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR AND THE APPELLANT ACTED AS A BROKER USING HIS BANK ACCOUNT FOR TRANSFERRING THE MONEY F ROM BUYER TO SELLERS. 10.1 THE VITAL EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WERE AS BELOW: I. SALE DEEDS: A. COPY OF SALE DEED EXECUTED ON 28/10/2006 BETWEEN S HRI SHRAVAN KUMAR AND SHRI NARAYAN MEENA . ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 15 B. COPY OF SALE DEED EXECUTED ON 11/01/2007 BETWEEN S HRI SHRAVAN KUMAR AND SHRI NARAYAN MEENA . C. COPY OF SALE DEED EXECUTED ON 11/01/2007 BETWEEN S HRI SHRAVAN KUMAR AND SHRI NARAYAN MEENA . II. POWER OF ATTORNEY: A. COPY OF POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED ON 06/09/2006 B ETWEEN SMT. GANGA DEVI AND SHRI NARAYAN MEENA . B. COPY OF POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED ON 06/09/2006 B ETWEEN SHRI MOOLCHAND, SHRI RAMJILAL AND SHRI RAMDHAN WITH SHRI NARAYAN MEENA. III. STALE CHEQUES REPLACED BY ORIGINAL BUYER SHRI SHRAV AN KUMAR . IV. COPY OF PASS BOOK OF P.N.B. OF APPELLANT TO PROVE D EPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT FOUND DESTINATION TO THE SELLERS OF TH E LAND . 10.2 LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE REASON FOR DEPOSITING THE CASH MADE AVAILABLE BY SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR IN APPELLANTS OWN BANK ACCOUNT. SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR GOT HIS BANK ACCOUNT OPENED AS LATE A S 06/04/2012 , WHEREAS SALE DEEDS WERE EXECUTED ON 28/10/2006 AND 11/01/20 07, ON WHICH DATES SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR HAD NO BANK ACCOUNT OF HIS OWN A ND THE CHEQUE NUMBERS WERE REQUIRED TO BE MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEEDS. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT AT THAT POINT OF TIME, THE BUYER SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR HAD NO CASH AVAILABLE WITH HIM. THIS MECHANISM OF MENTIONING THE CHEQUE N UMBERS OF APPELLANT COULD LEAD TO CONCLUDE THE DEAL AND THEREFORE, THE ACTION WAS LIKE A PRAGMATIC BUSINESSMAN WHICH NEEDS TO BE APPRECIATED BY TAX AU THORITIES. 10.3 THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR, IN TURN RECEIVED THE CASH FROM THE DIFFERENT BUYERS TO WHOM HE HAD SOLD/ AGREED TO SELL THE PLOTS OUT OF THE LAND PURCHASED BY HIM. SI NCE, THIS CASH WAS USED FOR CLEARING THE CHEQUES IN FAVOUR OF THE SELLERS, SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR DID NOT FEEL ANY NECESSITY TO DEPOSIT THE CASH IN HIS OWN ACCOUN T BY OPENING A NEW ACCOUNT. ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 16 10.4 ONE VITAL EVIDENCE OF REPLACING THE STALE CHEQ UES BY THE CHEQUES OF BUYER OF LANDS, SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR HAVE BEEN REJECT ED BY SIMPLY OBSERVING THAT THIS IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND IS AN EVIDENCE WHI CH IS CREATED SUBSEQUENTLY. NO ONE CAN LOSE/ MISPLACE CHEQUES IN RETROSPECT. TH E FOLLOWING CHEQUE NUMBERS WERE SUBSEQUENT TO CHEQUE NUMBERS 183270 AN D 183271: CHEQUE NO. DATE OF CLEARANCE OF CHEQUE 183272 26/09/2011 183273 03/07/2008 183274 29/07/2008 183275 04/09/2008 183276 08/07/2010 183277 04/03/2009 183278 24/09/2009 STILL, THE CHEQUE NUMBERS 183270 AND 183271 WERE NO T CLEARED BY SHRI GANGA DEVI BECAUSE SHE HAD LOST THESE CHEQUES. SINCE, ALL THESE CHEQUES WERE OF SAME AMOUNT OF RS. 11,00,000/- EACH, SMT. GANGA DEV I KEPT ON DEPOSITING OTHER CHEQUES AND ASKED FOR REPLACEMENT WHEN CHEQUE S AVAILABLE WITH HER WERE EXHAUSTED. THE TWO LOST CHEQUES WERE REPLACED BY THE CHEQUES OF SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR HIMSELF NUMBERING 8281 AND 8282 WHICH CLEARED ON 09/05/2012 AND 17/05/2012 RESPECTIVELY. THESE FACTS WERE EVIDENT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 10.5 LD. CIT(A) WAS INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE FACT OF CASH BEING MADE AVAILABLE TO THE APPELLANT BY SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR, YET HE DENI ED THE RELIEF FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT SOURCE IN THE HANDS OF SHRI SHRAVAN KUM AR WAS NOT PROVED. FOLLOWING OBSERVATION OF LD. CIT(A) AT PG 12 OF HIS ORDER IS WORTH NOTICING: EVEN IF FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT IT IS ACCEPTED TH AT APPELLANT WAS PROVIDED CASH BY SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR THEN THE SOURCE OF CASH NEED TO BE PROVED IN HIS CASE WHICH WAS ALSO NOT DO NE. PROTECTIVE ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 17 ASSESSMENT IN HIS HAND RECOMMENDED BY A.O. DOES NOT ABSOLVE APPELLANT FROM HIS ONUS. ONCE, THIS IS ESTABLISHED THAT SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR M ADE AVAILABLE THE CASH TO THE APPELLANT AS CONSIDERATION OF HIS PURCHASING TH E LAND FOR ONWARD TRANSFER OF MONEY TO THE SELLERS OF THE LAND, THE APPELLANT ACTING AS BROKER, THERE CANNOT BE ANY REASON TO INVOKE SECTION 68 IN THE HA NDS OF THE APPELLANT. SECTION 68 IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR RECEIVING THE SALE CONSIDERATION. SECTION 69 CAN BE INVOKED IN THE HANDS OF THE PAYER OF SUCH SU M. OTHERWISE ALSO EVEN FOR SECTION 68, THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT IN THE CASES OF KANHAIALAL JANGID V ASSTT CIT (2008) 217 CTR (RAJ) 354, ARAVAL I TRADING CO V ITO (2008) 220 CTR (RAJ) 622, LABH CHAND BOHRA V ITO (2010)189 TAXMAN 141 (RAJ) AND CIT, AJMER V JAI KUMAR BAKLIWAL (2014) 366 ITR 217(RAJ), HAS HELD THAT SOURCE OF SOURCE NEED NOT BE PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE ADDITION OF RS. 63,38,820/- MA DE BY THE LD. A.O. AND CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A), DESERVE TO BE DELETED BY A LLOWING THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 11. THE LD DR IS HEARD WHO HAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED TH E MATTER AND TOOK US THROUGH THE DETAIL FINDINGS OF THE AO AND THE LD CI T(A) AND SUPPORTED THE SAID FINDINGS. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PURUSE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION RELATES T O CASH FOUND DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED AND OPERATED BY THE ASS ESSEE AND WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO OFFER SUITABLE EXPLANATION REGA RDING THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF SUCH CASH DEPOSITS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER. 12.1 HERE, IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO REFER TO THE LEG AL PROPOSITIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 68 WHICH HAS EMERGED AFTER EXAMI NING VARIOUS LEGAL AUTHORITIES INCLUDING THOSE QUOTED BY THE LD AR ON THE SUBJECT AS UNDER: ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 18 A) WHERE ANY SUM IS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS MAINTA INED BY THE ASSESSEE, SECTION 68 REQUIRES THAT THE ASSESSEE SHO ULD OFFER AN EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF SUCH SUM FOUND CREDI TED IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. IN ABSENCE OF EXPLANATION, OR IN THE EVENT OF EXPLANATION BEING N OT FOUND SATISFACTORY, THE SUM SO CREDITED WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. B) THE PRIMARY REQUIREMENTS, WHICH SHOULD BE SATISFIED CUMULATIVELY BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUCH CASES IS IDENTIFICATION OF THE CREDITOR/SHAREHOLDER, CREDITWORTHINESS OF CREDITOR/SHAREHOLDER AND THE GE NUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. C) THE EXPLANATION OFFERED AND MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS EXPLANATION SHOULD BE WHOLESOME, CRE DIBLE AND VERIFIABLE. THESE THREE REQUIREMENTS THEREAFTER HAVE TO BE TESTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT SUPERFICIALLY BUT IN DEPTH HAVING REGARD TO THE HUM AN PROBABILITIES AND NORMAL COURSE OF HUMAN CONDUCT. IT IS ONLY WHEN THE EXPLAN ATION AND THE MATERIAL OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THIS STAGE PASSES THIS M USTER THAT THE INITIAL ONUS PLACED ON IT WOULD SHIFT LEAVING IT TO THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO START INQUIRING INTO THE AFFAIRS OF THE THIRD PARTY. D) WHILST IT IS TRUE THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CALLE D UPON TO ADDUCE CONCLUSIVE PROOF ON ALL THESE THREE REQUIREMENTS, I T IS NONETHELESS LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION OF THE PROCESS THAT HE WOULD BRING IN S UFFICIENT PROOF, WHICH IS CREDIBLE AND AT THE SAME TIME VERIFIABLE, SO AS TO DISCHARGE THE INITIAL BURDEN PLACED ON HIM. WHETHER INITIAL ONUS STANDS DISCHARG ED WOULD DEPEND UPON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE. ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 19 E) THE DEGREE OF BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE ASSESSEE WILL VARY FROM ASSESSEE TO ASSESSEE. WHERE AMOUNTS ARE BORROWED FROM OR SHA RES ARE ALLOTTED THROUGH PRIVATE PLACEMENT, TO PERSONS GENERALLY KNO WN TO DIRECTORS OR SHAREHOLDERS, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BURDEN OF PRO OF IS ON HIGHER PEDESTAL AND THE COURTS HAVE LAID DOWN A STRICT APPROACH IN TERM S OF SATISFYING SUCH BURDEN OF PROOF. F) THE WORD 'IDENTITY' MEANS THE CONDITION OR FACT OF A PERSON OR THING BEING THAT SPECIFIED UNIQUE PERSON OR THING. THE ID ENTIFICATION OF THE PERSON WOULD INCLUDE THE PLACE OF WORK, THE STAFF, THE FAC T THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY CARRYING ON BUSINESS AND RECOGNITION OF THE SAID CO MPANY IN THE EYES OF PUBLIC. MERELY PRODUCING CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATI ON, PAN NUMBER OR ASSESSMENT PARTICULARS DID NOT ESTABLISH THE IDENTI TY OF THE PERSON. PAN NUMBERS ARE ALLOTTED ON THE BASIS OF APPLICATIONS W ITHOUT ACTUAL DE FACTO VERIFICATION OF THE IDENTITY OR ASCERTAINING ACTIVE NATURE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY. THE ACTUAL AND TRUE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON OR A COM PANY WAS THE BUSINESS UNDERTAKEN BY THEM. FURTHER, THESE DOCUMENTS HAVE T HEIR LIMITATION AND CANNOT BE RELIED UPON BLINDLY WHEN THERE ARE SURROU NDING CIRCUMSTANCES TO SHOW THAT THE SUBSCRIBER WAS A PAPER COMPANY AND NO T A GENUINE INVESTOR. G) IN RESPECT OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AN D CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHAREHOLDER/LENDER, IT WOULD BE INCORRECT TO ST ATE THAT THE ONUS TO PROVE THE SAME STANDS DISCHARGED IN ALL CASES IF PAYMENT IS MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS AND THE FACT THAT THE MONEY ORIGINALLY LEN T HAS BEEN RETURNED THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. WHETHER OR NOT ONUS IS DI SCHARGED DEPENDS UPON FACTS OF EACH CASE. IT DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE TWO P ARTIES ARE RELATED OR KNOWN TO EACH OTHER; THE MANNER OR MODE BY WHICH TH E PARTIES APPROACHED EACH OTHER, WHETHER THE TRANSACTION WAS ENTERED INT O THROUGH WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION AND DUE DILIGENCE TO PROTECT THE INVE STMENT AND THE PAY BACK ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 20 ON SUCH INVESTMENT, WHETHER THE INVESTOR PROFESSES AND WAS AN ANGEL INVESTOR, THE OBJECT AND PURPOSE (PROFIT MOTIVE) BE HIND THE INVESTMENT AND WHETHER ANY DIVIDEND DECLARED AND DISTRIBUTED IN TH E PAST OR NOT. WHETHER SHARE SUBSCRIBERS HAVE THEIR OWN PROFIT MAKING APPA RATUS AND WERE INVOLVED IN ANY TANGIBLE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OR WERE THEY MERE LY ROTATED MONEY, WHICH WAS COMING THROUGH THE BANK ACCOUNTS, WHICH MEANS D EPOSITS BY WAY OF CASH AND ISSUE OF CHEQUES. CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINEN ESS OF THE TRANSACTION IS THEREFORE NOT PROVED BY SHOWING MERELY ISSUE AND RE CEIPT OF A CHEQUE OR BY FURNISHING A COPY OF STATEMENT OF BANK ACCOUNT OF S HARE SUBSCRIBER, WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRES THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME MO RE EVIDENCE OF POSITIVE NATURE TO SHOW THAT THE SUBSCRIBERS HAD MADE GENUIN E INVESTMENT. SIMILAR ANALOGY WILL APPLY IN RESPECT OF ANY LOAN TRANSACTI ON. H) THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD HAS TO BE C ONSIDERED AND A REASONABLE APPROACH HAS TO BE ADOPTED. THE FINAL CO NCLUSION MUST BE PRAGMATIC AND PRACTICAL, WHICH TAKES INTO ACCOUNT H OLISTIC VIEW OF THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE INCLUDING THE DIFFICULTIES, WHICH THE ASSE SSEE MAY FACE TO UNIMPEACHABLY ESTABLISH IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. I) WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE INITIAL BURDE N PLACED UPON HIM UNDER SEC. 68 TO PROVE AND ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY A ND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT/LENDER AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE T RANSACTION, THE BURDEN OF PROOF SHIFTS ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN SUCH A CA SE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT SIT BACK WITH FOLDED HANDS TILL THE ASSESSEE EXHAUSTS ALL THE EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL IN HIS POSSESSION AND THEN COME FORWARD TO MERELY REJECT THE SAME, WITHOUT CARRYING OUT ANY VERIFICATION OR ENQUIRY IN TO THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE HIM. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HARBOURS ANY DOUBTS O F THE LEGITIMACY OF ANY SUBSCRIPTION, HE IS EMPOWERED, NAY DUTY-BOUND, TO C ARRY OUT THOROUGH ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 21 INVESTIGATIONS. BUT IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILS TO UNEARTH ANY WRONG OR ILLEGAL DEALINGS OR HAS NO MATERIAL IN HIS POSSESSION, HE C ANNOT OBDURATELY ADHERE TO HIS SUSPICIONS AND TREAT THE SUBSCRIBED CAPITAL AS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE COMPANY. J) THE CASE OF CIT V. ORISSA CORPORATION (P.) LTD. [19 86] 159 ITR 78 /25 TAXMAN 80 (SC) EXEMPLIFIES THE CATEGORY OF CASES WH ERE NO ACTION IS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY OR CONDUCT AN ENQUI RY INTO THE PARTICULARS ABOUT THE CREDITORS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, INCLUDING THEIR INCOME-TAX FILE NUMBERS. IN THESE CASES, THE DECISION WAS BASED ON THE FUNDAMENTAL RULE OF LAW THAT EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL ADDUCED BY THE ASSESS EE CANNOT BE THROWN OUT WITHOUT ANY ENQUIRY. THE RATIO DOES NOT EXTEND BEYO ND THAT. THE BOUNDARIES OF THE RATIO CANNOT BE, AND SHOULD NOT BE, WIDENED TO INCLUDE THEREIN CASES WHERE THERE EXISTS MATERIAL TO IMPLICATE THE ASSESS EE IN A COLLUSIVE ARRANGEMENT WITH PERSONS WHO ARE SELF-CONFESSED 'AC COMMODATION ENTRY PROVIDERS'. 13. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE LEGAL PROPOSITIONS, WE NOW R EFER TO THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE MATTER. FIRSTLY, WE REFER TO THE BANK STATE MENT FOR THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE AS SESSEE IN THIS REGARD: DATE PARTICULARS RECEIPT PARTICULARS PAYMENTS BALANCE CASH CHEQUE 09/05/2008 SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR 500000 500000 13/5/2008 SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR 600000 1100000 03/06/2008 SHRI MOOLCHAND (183268) 1100000 0 ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 22 01/07/2008 SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR 600000 600000 02/07/2008 SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR 500000 1100000 03/07/2008 SMT. GANGA DEVI (183273) 1100000 0 28/7/2008 SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR 600000 600000 29/7/2008 SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR 500000 1100000 29/7/2008 SMT. GANGA DEVI (183274) 1100000 0 2/9/2008 SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR 500000 700000 1200000 4/9/2008 SMT. GANGA DEVI (183275) 1100000 100000 5/9/2008 SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR 516500 616500 16/9/2008 SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR 500000 1116500 16/9/2008 SHRI MOOLCHAND (183269) 1100000 16500 19/9/2008 SMT. RICHA CHAUDHARY 251000 267500 27/10/2008 SMT. RICHA CHAUDHARY 2899000 3166500 31/10/2008 SMT. RUBY SRIVASTAV (CASH) 1300000 1866500 24/11/2008 SMT. RUBY SRIVASTAV (CASH) 700000 1166500 ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 23 17/12/2008 SHRI RAMDHAN (883892) 744000 422500 18/12/2008 SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR 800000 1222500 19/12/2008 SHRI RAMJI LAL (883893) 744000 478500 20/12/2008 SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR 700000 1178500 23/12/2008 SHRI MOOLCHAND (883894) 1100000 78500 2/3/2009 SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR 600000 678500 3/3/2009 SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR 500000 1178500 4/3/2009 SMT. GANGA DEVI (183277) 1100000 78500 23/9/2009 SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR 500000 578500 24/9/2009 SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR 599500 1178000 24/9/2009 SMT. GANGA DEVI (183278) 1100000 78000 6/7/2010 SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR 1100000 1178000 8/7/2010 SMT. GANGA DEVI (183276) 1100000 78000 23/9/2011 SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR 500000 578000 24/9/2011 SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR 600000 1178000 26/9/2011 SMT. GANGA DEVI (183272) 1100000 78000 ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 24 78000 TOTAL 7616000 6950000 14488000 14. THE NARRATIONS REGARDING DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAW ALS IN THE ABOVE BANK STATEMENT ARE AS PER THE ASSESSEE. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM ABOVE, THERE IS A CLEAR PATTERN OF CASH DEPOSITS AND IMMEDIATE WITHDR AWAL BY WAY OF ISSUANCE OF CHEQUES FROM TIME TO TIME. EVERY TIME, A CHEQUE IS CLEARED, THERE IS PRIOR DEPOSIT OF CASH IN DENOMINATION OF RS 6 LACS AND RS 5 LACS. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THE CASH WHICH HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM SHR AWAN KUMAR HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT FROM TIME TO TIME AND SUBSEQUENT WITHDRAWAL BY WAY OF ISSUANCE OF CHEQUE IS IN FAVOUR OF VARIOU S PERSONS FROM WHOM THE LAND WAS PURCHASED BY SHRAWAN KUMAR. IN EFFECT, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THERE WERE TRANSACTIONS OF SALE AN D PURCHASE AMONG THE LAND OWNERS AND SHRAWAN KUMAR, THE CASH DEPOSITED BELONG S TO SHRAWAN KUMAR AND THE ASSESSEE ACTED AS A FACILITATOR BY ALLOWING THE USE OF HIS BANK ACCOUNT AS SHRAWAN KUMAR WAS NOT HAVING A BANK ACCOUNT OF H IS OWN AT THAT POINT IN TIME. REGARDING THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS BY SHR AWAN KUMAR, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO THAT SHARWA N KUMAR AFTER PURCHASING THE ABOVE LAND HAD DEVELOPED A SCHEME KN OWN AS NEHRU ENCLAVE EXTENSION AND GOT THE LAND DIVIDED IN VARIOUS PLOTS AND STARTED SELLING THE SAME AND OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS, SHRAWAN KUMAR STARTE D MAKING PAYMENT TO HIM FROM TIME TO TIME. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY TH E ASSESSEE THAT HE WILL SUBMIT DETAILED SITE PLAN, LIST OF PLOT HOLDERS TO WHOM PLOTS WERE SOLD AND AREA OF EACH PLOT AND AMOUNT RECEIVED AGAINST EACH PLOT. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUPPORT THE SAID CONT ENTION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING CASH DEPOSITS BY SHRAWAN KUMAR. NO VERIFI ABLE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT OR THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS REGARD. IF THE ASSESSEE IS AWA RE OF PARTICULARS OF SOURCE OF RECEIPTS IN HANDS OF SHRAWAN KUMAR AND HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE FACILITATED THE ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 25 WHOLE TRANSACTION, WE DONT UNDERSTAND WHAT STOPS T HE ASSESSEE IN BRINGING ON RECORD THE DOCUMENTATION IN SUPPORT OF SUCH RECE IPTS. IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF DETERMINING THE SOURCE OF SOURCE BUT IT IS A QUE STION OF DETERMINING THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF SHRAWAN KUMAR IN RESPECT OF WHOM IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED THAT THE CASH D EPOSITS BELONGS TO HIM. 15. WE KNOW REFER TO THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRAWAN KUMA R FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND STATEMENT OF SHRAWAN KUMAR RECORDED U/S 131 BY THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI SHARWAN KUMAR ESA JO.K DQEKJ IQ= JH JKEW FUOKLH VKKSDIQJK] U;W L KAXKUSJ JKSM] LKSMKYK] T;IQJ KIFKIWOZD FUEUFYF[KR C;KU DJRK GWWA FD & 1- ESUS RHU TEHU EQ[R;KJUKES DS EKQZR [KJHNH ,OA BLESA FOFHKUU PSADKSA }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`} O;FDR GWW EQ>S ISJSYKBFLL GKS PQDK GS ,OA E SA PY FQJ UGHA LDRK GSA STATEMENT OF SHRI SHARWAN KUMAR RECORDED U/S 131 OF ACT C;KU JH JO.K DQEKJ IQ= JH JKEW MEZ 65 OKZ FUOKL IY KV U0 100] XYH U0 2] VKKSDIQJK] U;WLKXKAUSJ JKSM] T;IQJ DS VKT FNUKAD 1 6-12-2011 DKS VIJKG~U 3-25 CTS VK;DJ VF/KFU;E 1961 DH /KKJK 131 DS RGR LKIFK C;KU NTZ FD;S TKRS GSA ESA KIFKIWOZD C;KU DJRK GWWA FD ESA TKS DQN DGWWX K LR; DGWAWXK] LR; DS FLOK DQN UGH DGWAWXKA GLRK{KJ KIFK FNYOKUS OKYS VF/KDKJH GLRK{KJ KIFK XZFGRK ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 26 IZU%1 D`I;K VIUK IW.KZ IFJP; NS ? MRRJ ESJK UKE JO.K DQEKJ GS ESA VKBOH QSY GWW ESA NBC T;IQJ ES BEARING CHECKER DS IN IJ DK;ZJR FKK ESA 16-1-1999 DKS NBC LS FJVK;MZ GQVK FKKA IZU%2 D`I;K CRK, FD OKZ 1999 ESA FJVK;MZ GKSUS DS CKN VKIUS D;K DK;Z FD;K ? MRRJ FJVK;MZ GKSUS DS CKN ESUS VIUS ISLKS LS ,D V D O ,D FEUH CL YH FKH] TKS FD YKSDY :I IJ PYRH FKH ;G O;OLK; ESAUS 2003 RD FD; K] O LU~ 2003 ESA ESUS ;S NKSUKS OKGU ?KKVK [KKDJ CSP FN;S BLDS I PKR ESAUS DKSBZ DK;Z UGHA FD;K] DJHC NKS LKY IGYS ESUS TEHUKSA DK /KU/KK FD;K A ESA TEHUS [KJHN DJ ML IJ IYKV DJRK FKK RFKK TSLS&2 ISLK ESJS IKL VKRK TKRK FKKA ESA DKRDKJ DKS HKQXRKU DJRK JGRK FKKA IZU%3 VKIDK CSAD [KKRK DAGK GS O D;K VKIDKS [KKRK UECJ ;KN GS ;FN GK RKS CRK, ? MRRJ ESJK CSAD [KKRK ;WDKS CSAD NBC DSEIL] T;IQJ ES GKSA IZU%4 D``I;K CRK,WA FD IYKV DKVUS DK O;OLK; VKI VI US UKE LS DJRS FKS VFKOK FDLH DEIUH ;K LKSLK;VH DS UKE LS DJRS FKSA MRRJ ESA IYKV LO;A DS UKE LS DKVRK FKK] FDLH DEIUH VFKOK LKSLK;VH DS UKE LS IYKV UGH DKVRK FKKA IZU%5 VKIDS }KJK DKSU&DKSU LH LDHE ESA IYKV DKVS X ;S ? MRRJ ESUS TKS HKH IYKV DKVS] MU LDHEL DK DKSBZ UKE UGHA J[KK DSOY IYKV DKVS FKSA IZU%6 VKIUS DKSU&DKSU LS XKWAO ESA IYKV DKVS ? MRRJ ESUS FKONKLIQJK DS IKL ESA TEHU YSDJ IYKV D KSV FKS ;G TEHU RIICO LS YXH GQBZ FKHA IZU%7 VKIUS FDRUS IYKV DKVS FKS ? MRRJ ESUS DJHC CHL&RHL IYKV GH DKVS FKSA IZU%8 VKIUS TKS IYKV DKVS MUDK PAYMENT-CASH ESA VKRK FKK ;K PSD LS ? MRRJ DBZ ERZCK DSK LS ISLK VKRK FKK DBZ CKJ PSD L S PAYMENT VKRK FKKA ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 27 IZU% 9 PSD O DSK DK FGLKC DGKA J[KK GQVK GS ? MRRJ ESSJS EQUHE JH TSU DS IKL LKJK FGLKC JGRK GSA MUDK IWJK UKE O IRK EQ>S ;KN UGHA GSA IZU%10 D``I;K CRK, FD TKS PSD FEYRS FKS MUGS DGKA TEK DJKRS FKS ? MRRJ ESA LKJS PSD VIUS ;WDKS CSAD OKYS [KKRS ESA GH TEK DJKRK FKKA IZU%11 VKIUS TEHU FDLLS [KJHNH FKH ? MRRJ ESUS TEHU JH UKJK;.K LS [KJHNH FKHA IZU%12 VKIUS TKS IYKV DKVS FKS FDL NJ LS DKVS D``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`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``I;K VIUK PAN CRK, ? MRRJ EQ>S UGH IRK ;S LHKH TSU LKGC DKS GH EKYWE GSA IZU%23 D;K VKIUS VKSJ HKH DKSBZ LDHE DKVH GS ? MRRJ UGH] ESUS DSOY ,D GH LDHE DKVH GSA BLDS IGYS ; K CKN ESA DKSBZ LDHE UGHA DKVH GSA IZU%24 BL LDHE LS VKIDKS FDRUH VK; GQBZ D``I;K CRK , ? MRRJ ESUS BDL DKBZ FGLKC FDRKC UGHA J[KK O EQ>S UG HA IRK FD BLLS ESJH FDRUH VK; GQBZA MDR C;KU ESU LKSP LE> DJ IW.KZ GKSKKS GOKL ESA FCU K FDLH NCKO DS LOLFKFPR LS O LGH FN;S GS O BUGS I<+DJ&LE>DJ GH GLRK{KJ FD;S GS A 16. THE AO HOWEVER DIDNT FIND THE ABOVE AFFIDAVIT AND STATEMENT OF SHRI SHRAWAN KUMAR CREDIBLE FOR REASONS AS STATED BELOW: A. HE WAS NOT HAVING ANY IDEA OF THE COLONY DEVELOP ED BY HIM. B. HE WAS NOT HAVING ANY IDEA ABOUT THE PLOTS WHICH WERE SOLD AND WHEN SOLD. C. HE WAS NOT HAVING ANY IDEA OF RATE AT WHICH THE PLOTS WERE SOLD. D. HE WAS NOT HAVING ANY IDEA OF LOCATION OF LAND O N WHICH THE COLONY WAS DEVELOPED. E. HE WAS NOT HAVING ANY IDEA THAT WHETHER THE SALE PROCEEDS WERE RECEIVED BY HIM BY CHEQUE OR BY CASH. F. HE WAS NOT HAVING ANY IDEA THAT WHETHER HE IS AN INCOME TAX ASSESSEE OR NOT. G. HE WAS NOT HAVING ANY IDEA OF WHETHER HE IS HAVI NG PAN OR NOT. H. HE WAS NOT HAVING ANY IDEA THAT WHETHER THE COLO NY/SCHEME WAS APPROVED BY THE GOVERNMENT OR NOT. I. HE WAS NOT HAVING ANY IDEA THAT WHAT IS THE NAME OF COLONY. ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 29 J. THE ONLY IDEA HE WAS HAVING WAS THAT HE HAD PURC HASED LAND FROM SHRI SHREE NARAYAN MEENA FOR RS.99,00,000/- AND THE AMOUNT WAS PAID BY HIM IN CASH. K. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT IF THE AMOUNT IS PAID B Y THE SHRI SHARWAN IN CASH THEN THESE PAYMENTS WILL HIT BY THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 40A(3) AND THE ENTIRE AMOUNT IS TO BE DISALLOWED. I. HE WAS BEARING CHECKER IN NATIONAL ENGINEERING I NDUSTRIES, JAIPUR, WHO RETIRED IN THE YEAR 1999. M. AFTER RETIREMENT HE PURCHASED ONE MINI BUS AND O NE TRUCK, BUT SOLD THESE VEHICLES AFTER HEAVY LOSSES AFTER THREE-FOUR YEARS. N. HE IS NOT AN INCOME-TAX ASSESSEE AND NOT HANING ANY PAN, IF HE HAD ANY PAN OR SHRI SHARWAN KUMAR. O. HE IS NOT HAVING ANY SOURCES TO BUY SUCH LARGE C HUNK OF LAND FOR SUCH HUGE AMOUNT. 17. ON PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE STATEMENT AND THE AFFI DAVIT OF SHRAWAN KUMAR, WE NOTE THAT SHRI SHRAWAN KUMAR HAS TRIED TO BROADL Y EXPLAIN THAT THE LAND PURCHASED BY HIM HAS SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN DIVIDED INTO VARIOUS PLOTS AND SOLD TO VARIOUS PERSONS AND THE CASH RECEIVED ON SUCH SA LE OF PLOTS HAS BEEN HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSEE FROM TIME TO TIME AND T HE CHEQUE HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN HIS UCO BANK. HOWEVER, TO VERIFY THE CREDENCE OF SUCH EXPLANATION SO OFFERED BY SHRAWAN KUMAR, THE AO HAS ASKED CERTAIN SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO HIM BUT HIS RESPONSES HAVE BEEN VERY S KETCHY THROUGHOUT AND THE ONUS HAS BEEN SHIFTED TOTALLY TO HIS ACCOUNTANT SHRI JAIN AND SURPRISINGLY HE IS NOT EVEN AWARE OF HIS ACCOUNTANTS WHEREABOUT S AND HIS FULL NAME AND ADDRESS. IF A PERSON IS DEALING IN SALE/PURCHASE O F LAND, HOWEVER, ILLITERATE HE MAY BE AND WHO DOESNT KNOW THE BASICS OF ACCOUNTIN G, ATLEAST HE WILL KNOW THE SPECIFICS OF THE LAND, ITS LOCATION, THE AREA, THE NUMBER OF PLOTS, RATE AT WHICH THE PLOTS HAVE BEEN SOLD TO VARIOUS BUYERS AN D THE SPECIFICS OF THE ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 30 AMOUNT PAID TO THE ASSESSEE FROM TIME TO TIME ESPEC IALLY GIVEN THE HUGE QUANTUM INVOLVED. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT SHRI SHRAWA N KUMAR HAS MISERABLY FAILED IN DISCLOSING THESE BASIC FACTS AND SHARING THE SAME WITH THE AO. FURTHER, THE DETAILS OF CASH PAID TO THE ASSESSEE H AS BEEN STATED BY HIM TO BE IN THOUSANDS, WHICH IS VAGUE WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE AMOUNT AND DATE OF PAYMENT AND ALSO INCONSISTENT WITH THE VERSION OF T HE ASSESSEE WHERE THE ASSESSEE SAYS THAT HE HAS RECEIVED CASH IN LACS FRO M SHRAWAN KUMAR AS WE HAVE NOTED ABOVE WHILE REVIEWING THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN IF WE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE THEORY OF FADING MEMORY WITH ADVANCEMENT OF AGE GIVEN THAT SHRI SHRAWAN KUMAR IS A RETIRED P ERSON HAVING RETIRED IN THE YEAR 1999 AND THE STATEMENT BEING RECORDED IN THE Y EAR 2011, ATLEAST HE SHOULD COME FOREWARD AND SHARE SOME CREDIBLE EVIDEN CE TO SUPPORT HIS ASSERTIONS AS STATED IN HIS STATEMENT AND THE AFFID AVIT, IN FORM OF SALE DEEDS WITH THE BUYERS TO WHOM THE PLOTS HAVE BEEN CLAIMED TO BE SOLD AND CONSIDERATION IN FORM OF CASH WHICH HAS BEEN RECEIV ED, COPIES OF HIS BANK STATEMENTS WHERE HE HAS DEPOSITED SUCH CASH AND GIV EN THE HUGE QUANTUM OF CASH INVOLVED GOING BY ASSESSEES OWN VERSION, THE AMOUNT AND DATE OF PAYMENT OF SUCH CASH CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID TO T HE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NOTHING WHICH HAS BEEN BROUGH T ON RECORD TO THIS EFFECT. IN ABSENCE OF THE SAME, IT DOESNT LEAD US TO ANYWH ERE BUT TO DISBELIEVE THE EXPLANATION SO OFFERED BY HIM. TO OUR MIND, THE AFF IDAVIT AND STATEMENT OF SHRI SHRAWAN KUMAR ARE SELF-SERVING DOCUMENT, ARE I NCONSISTENT WITH THE VERSION ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE, ARE THEREFORE NOT RELIABLE AND DOESNT INSPIRE ANY CONFIDENCE IN ACCEPTING THE SAME IN ABS ENCE OF ANY CREDIBLE VERIFIABLE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPORT THE SALE OF LAND BY WAY OF PLOTS BY HIM AND RECEIPT OF CONSIDERATION IN FORM O F CASH WHICH IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSEE FROM TIME TO TIME. 18. NOW COMING TO THE CONTENTION OF THE LD AR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE, IN CORRECT PERSPECTIVE, THE V ITAL EVIDENCES IN FORM OF ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 31 POWER OF ATTORNEY AND SALE DEEDS WHICH BEYOND DOUBT PROVE THAT SMT. GANGA DEVI, SHRI MOOLCHAND, SHRI RAMJI LAL AND SHRI RAMDH AN HAD SOLD THEIR RESPECTIVE PIECES OF LAND TO SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR AND THE APPELLANT ACTED AS A BROKER USING HIS BANK ACCOUNT FOR TRANSFERRING THE MONEY FROM SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR TO SELLERS. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH AND EXAMINED THESE DOCUMENTS IN FORM OF POWER OF ATTORNEYS AND THE SALE DEEDS IN DE TAIL. THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HAS BEEN EXECUTED BY THE LAND OWNERS IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN SEPTEMBER 2006 AND THE SALE DEEDS HAVE BEEN EXECUTE D BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ON BEHALF OF T HE LAND OWNERS AND SHRI SHRAWAN KUMAR IN OCTOBER 2006 AND JANUARY 2007. HO WEVER, WHAT IS CRITICAL TO NOTE THAT AS FAR AS DISCHARGE OF SALE CONSIDERAT ION FOR PURCHASE OF LAND UNDER THE SUBJECT SALE DEEDS ARE CONCERNED, THE CHE QUES AS MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEEDS HAVE BEEN ISSUED AND CLEARED FROM THE AS SESSEES BANK ACCOUNT. THE MONEY THEREFORE HAS TRAVELLED FROM ASSESSEES B ANK ACCOUNT TO THE SELLERS. IT IS ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT CASH WHI CH HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM SHRI SHRAWAN KUMAR HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK A CCOUNT AND THE CHEQUES ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE SELLERS HAVE BEEN CLEARED T HEREFROM. AS WE HAVE HELD ABOVE, THE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI SHRAWAN KUMAR IS NOT RELIABLE AND THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT CASH FOU ND DEPOSITED IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT BELONG TO SHRI SHRAWAN KUMA R. IN ABSENCE OF THE SAME, THESE SALE DEEDS ON A STANDALONE BASIS DONT SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. RATHER THE FACTUAL POSITION WHICH EMERGES FROM PERUSAL OF SUCH SALE DEEDS IS THAT GIVEN THE FACT THAT CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE LAND OWNERS THOUGH THE LAND STOOD TRANSFERRE D IN NAME OF SHRAWAN KUMAR, SHRI SHRAWAN KUMAR WAS A MERE NAME LENDER IN THESE SALE/PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS AND IT IS ASSESSEES UNDISCLOSED OWN M ONEY WHICH HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND SUBSEQUENTLY PAID TO THE LAND OWNERS. 19. FURTHER, WE ARE INTRIGUED BY THE FACT THAT THE RE IS HUGE TIME GAP BETWEEN THE EXECUTION OF THE SALE DEED AND REALISAT ION OF SALE CONSIDERATION ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 32 BY THE RESPECTIVE LAND OWNERS. FOR INSTANCE, IN CAS E OF GANGA DEVI, THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 11.01.2007 AND FIRST CHEQUE WA S CLEARED ON 03.07.2008 AND THE LAST CHEQUE ON 26.09.2011. SIMIL AR IS THE SITUATION IN CASE OF OTHER TWO TRANSACTIONS. WE FIND THAT THE WHOLE OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN CLAIMED TO BE DISCHARGED BY ISSUANCE OF PO ST DATED CHEQUES AND THE SAID CHEQUES HAVE BEEN CLEARED AFTER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME WHICH IS QUITE UNUSUAL IN DEALINGS IN LAND AND OTHER REAL ESTATE. WHY WOULD A LAND OWNER HAND OVER THE TITLE AND POSSESSION OF HIS LAND WITH OUT RECEIVING ANY CONSIDERATION OR EVEN A PART OF IT AND AGREE TO REC EIVE IT AT A LATER POINT IN TIME WHICH IS AGAIN UNCERTAIN AND WITHOUT ANY UNDER LYING SURETY OR GUARANTEE. IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED THAT THE LAND BELONGS TO SCHEDU LED CASTE AND THIS LAND COULD BE PURCHASED BY A PERSON BELONGING TO THE SAM E CASTE AND FURTHER LAND WAS LOCATED NEAR A NULLAH, HENCE, THEY WERE FINDING IT DIFFICULT TO FIND A SUITABLE BUYER. FINALLY, A BUYER OF THE LAND NAMEL Y SHRAWAN KUMAR WAS IDENTIFIED AND IT WAS AGREED THAT THEY WILL EXECUTE THE SALE DEEDS IN FAVOUR OF THE BUYER BUT WILL RECEIVE WHOLE OF THE SALE CONSID ERATION IN POST DATED CHEQUES WHICH WILL BE PRESENTED FOR CLEARING ON A L ATER DATE WITH THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF SHRAWAN KUMAR. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT SHRAVAN KUMAR DID NOT HAVE ANY BANK ACCOUNT AT THAT POINT OF TIME AND IGNORANT OF THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES AND DRIVEN BY HIS ZEAL TO COMPLETE THE DEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT ISSUED CHEQUES OF HIS OWN BANK ACCOUNT WI TH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT CASH WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE BY SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR W HICH WILL BE DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT AND THE CHEQUES WILL BE CLEA RED IN FAVOUR OF THE LAND OWNERS. IT WAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT IT WAS AGREED THAT SHRAVAN KUMAR WILL BE ALLOWED SOME TIME TO DEVELOP THE SAID LAND AND FIND PROSPECTIVE BUYERS FROM WHOM SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR COULD RECEIVE MONEY FOR PAY MENT TO THE LAND OWNERS. HOWEVER, WE DONOT FIND ANY IOTA OF EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SUPPORT THESE SO CALLED UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE LAND OWNE RS, SHRAWAN KUMAR AND THE ASSESSEE. LOOKING AT PURELY FROM A COMMERCIAL A NGLE, WHY WOULD ASSESSEE ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 33 IN HIS ZEAL ISSUE CHEQUES IN FAVOUR OF SMT GANGA DE VI WORTH RS 99 LACS, IN FAVOUR OF SHRI MOOL CHAND WORTH RS 33 LACS AND IN F AVOUR OF SHRI RAMDHAN AND SHRI RAMJILAL WORTH RS 14.88 LACS IN ABSENCE OF ANY SURETY OR GUARANTEE THAT SHRAWAN KUMAR IN WHOSE NAME THE LAND STOOD REG ISTERED WILL HONOUR HIS COMMITMENT. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN WHEN THE LAND OWNERS PRESENT THE CHEQUES ON DUE DATE AND BY THAT SHRAWAN KUMAR HAS NOT RETUR NED THE AMOUNT AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF DISHONOUR OF CHEQUES UNDER THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT. WHAT ARE THE TIMELINES FOR RECEIPT OF SUCH HUG E PAYMENTS FROM SHRAWAN KUMAR. THESE ARE SOME OF THE QUESTIONS WHICH COME TO OUR MIND AND WHICH REMAIN UNANSWERED. TO OUR MIND, THESE ARE MERELY CO NTENTIONS AND NOTHING MORE TO SUPPORT THE THEORY OF CASH DEPOSIT AS BELON GING TO SHRAWAN KUMAR WHICH COULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIATED BY ANY CREDIBLE PI ECE OF EVIDENCE. AS WE HAVE STATED ABOVE, ONLY CONCLUSION WHICH CAN BE DRA WN IS THAT SHRAWAN KUMAR WAS A NAME LENDER AND IT IS ASSESSEES OWN MO NEY WHICH HAS BEEN PAID TO THE LAND OWNERS AND EFFECTIVELY, THE BENEFI CIAL OWNERSHIP OVER THE LAND SO PURCHASED IS WITH THE ASSESSEE. 20. AS WE HAVE STATED ABOVE, WHERE ANY SUM IS FOUN D CREDITED IN THE BOOKS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE PRIMARY REQUIREMENT S, WHICH SHOULD BE SATISFIED CUMULATIVELY BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUCH CASE S IS IDENTIFICATION OF THE PERSON, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THAT PERSON AND THE GEN UINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WHICH HAS NOT BEEN SATISFIED IN THE INS TANT CASE. THE EXPLANATION OFFERED AND MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS EXPLANATION IS NOT WHOLESOME, CREDIBLE AND VERI FIABLE. THESE REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN EXAMINED IN THE INSTANT CASE HAVING REGAR D TO THE HUMAN PROBABILITIES AND NORMAL COURSE OF HUMAN CONDUCT AN D WE FIND THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THIS STAGE D OESNT PASSES THIS MUSTER AND THE INITIAL ONUS CAST ON THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT B EEN SATISFIED. IN THE ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 34 INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO CARRIE D OUT NECESSARY VERIFICATION AND HAS RIGHTLY BROUGHT TO TAX THE UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS FOUND DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BY THE LD AR AND WE FIND THAT THE SAME HAVE BEEN RE NDERED IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND ARE THUS DISTINGUISHABLE AND DOESNT SUPP ORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. AT THE SAME TIME, THE BROAD LEGAL PROPOS ITION EMERGING THEREFROM HAS BEEN DULY CONSIDERED. IN THE RESULT, GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. GROUND NO. 2 RELATING TO ADDITION OF RS. 16,10,491/ - 21. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE CHE QUES WORTH RS 16,10,491 DEPOSITED IN ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT HAS BEEN BROUG HT TO TAX BY THE AO. 21.1 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD AR SUBMIT TED THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL CHEQUES OF RS. 16,10,491/-, THREE CHEQUES OF RS. 10 ,073/-, RS. 418/- AND RS. 1,00,000/- RESPECTIVELY (AGGREGATING RS. 1,10,491) WERE DEPOSITED, BEING BROKERAGE INCOME OF ASSESSEE AND WERE PART OF THE T OTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,48,340/- DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT AT ALL CONSIDERED THIS EXPLANATION AND EVEN WIT HOUT DISCUSSING THIS ASPECT HAS CONFIRMED THIS ADDITION. 21.2 IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN RESPECT OF TH E TWO CHEQUES AMOUNTING TO RS. 8,00,000/- AND RS. 7,00,000/- RESPECTIVELY, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THESE CHEQUES WERE MADE AVAILABLE BY SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR FOR ONWARD TRANSFER OF MONEY (AGAINST THE ALREADY ISSUED CHEQUES) TO THE S ELLERS OF THE LAND. THE USE OF THIS RS. 15,00,000/- IN CLEARING THE CHEQUES OF RS. 7,44,000/- AND RS. 11,00,000/- RESPECTIVELY WAS EXPLAINED TO THE LD. C IT(A) AS APPEARING OF HIS ORDER. THIS EXPLANATION IS NOT AT ALL DISPUTED BY L D. CIT(A). HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) HAS DENIED THE RELIEF FOR THE REASON GIVEN BY HIM, THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR WAS OPENED ON 06/04/2 012 AND THEREFORE, THESE CHEQUES CLEARED ON 18/12/2008 AND 20/12/2008 CANNOT BE GIVEN BY ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 35 SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR. LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPREC IATE THAT THESE CHEQUES WERE MADE AVAILABLE AND NOT ISSUED BY SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR. SINCE SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR WAS ONWARD SELLING THE LAND TO OTHER PERSONS, HE OBTAINED TWO CHEQUES OF THE ABOVE SUMS FROM THOSE PARTIES DIRECT LY IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT, SO THAT HIS OBLIGATION OF GETTING THE CH EQUES CLEARED IN FAVOUR OF SELLERS OF LAND COULD BE FULFILLED. SHRI SHRAVAN KU MAR HAD NO BANK ACCOUNT WHICH IS THE REASON HE TOOK THE CHEQUES DIRECTLY IN THE NAME OF APPELLANT. 21.3 THE EXPLANATION HAS TO BE EVALUATED IN THE BAC KGROUND OF THE TOTAL FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE. EVALUATING THE TRANSACT ION IN ISOLATION IS NOT JUSTIFIED. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE BUYER SHRI SHRAV AN KUMAR HAS PAID THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION TO THE SELLERS THROUGH FOLLO WING THREE MODES: I. CASH DEPOSITED IN ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT. II. CHEQUES GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. III. DIRECT PAYMENT TO THE FARMERS. SINCE, THIS FACT IS ESTABLISHED THAT LAND HAS BEEN PURCHASED BY SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR AND SOLD BY SMT. GANGA DEVI, SHRI MOOLCHAND, SHRI RAMJI LAL AND SHRI RAMDHAN AND PURCHASE CONSIDERATION HAS FLOWED FROM SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR (BUYER) TO THE SELLERS THROUGH THE APPELLANT BROKER , THE EXPLANATION FOR THE CHEQUES DEPOSITED WOULD IN ITSELF BECOME FULLY JUST IFIED AND ACCEPTABLE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL MAY PLE ASE BE ALLOWED. 22. WE NOW REFER TO THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE LD . CIT(A) WHICH ARE UNDER CHALLENGE BEFORE US. THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED AS UN DER:- 4.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE; ASSES SMENT ORDER AND APPELLANTS WRITTEN SUBMISSION. ASSESSING OFFICER M ADE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF CHEQUES DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WH ICH WERE NOT EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT. APPELLANT SUBMITTED THA T THESE WERE THE CHEQUES RELATING TO LAND DEALS IN WHICH HE WAS ACTI NG AS BROKER. HOWEVER FROM THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT , THE NATURE AND ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 36 SOURCE OF SUCH CHEQUE DEPOSITS IS NOT CLEAR. APPELL ANT SUBMITTED THAT THE CHEQUES WERE GIVEN BY SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR BUT HI S BANK ACCOUNT ITSELF WAS OPENED ON 6.04.2012 AND THEREFORE HE COU LD NOT HAVE GIVEN CHEQUES TO THE APPELLANT IN 2008. AGAIN APPELLANT T RIED TO DIVERT THE ATTENTION BY FOCUSING ON THE PAYMENTS MADE TO SELLE RS OF THE LAND WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NATURE AND SOURCE OF C HEQUES DEPOSITED. FROM THE DISCUSSION MADE IN EARLIER GROUND, IT IS C LEAR THAT SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR DID NOT GIVE ANY CHEQUE TO THE APPELLANT THER EFORE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THESE CHEQUES REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. ANY M ONEY RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT IS EITHER ON REVENUE ACCOUNT OR CAPIT AL ACCOUNT. HOWEVER APPELLANT DID NOT EXPLAIN THESE CREDITS WHETHER THE SE ARE REVENUE OR ON CAPITAL ACCOUNT. SINCE SOURCE OF THESE DEPOSITS AND NATURE ARE NOT EXPLAINED PROPERLY, ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONFIRMED. 23. THE FACTS RELATING TO THIS GROUND ARE PARI-MATERIA TO GROUND NO. 1 EXCEPT THAT INSTEAD OF CASH, CHEQUE DEPOSIT WORTH R S 16,10,491 HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY THE AO TO DETERMINE THE NATURE AND SOUR CE THEREOF. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN A SIMILAR EXPLANATION THAT THE C HEQUE HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM SHRAWAN KUMAR AND DEPOSITED IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT TOWARDS PART CONSIDERATION FOR SALE OF LAND. THE LD CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT SHRAVAN KUMARS BANK ACCOUNT ITSELF WAS OPENED ON 6 .04.2012 AND THEREFORE HE COULD NOT HAVE GIVEN CHEQUES TO THE APPELLANT IN 2008. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THESE CHEQUES WERE MADE AVAILABLE AND NOT ISSUED BY SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR. IT WAS FURTHER CONTEN DED THAT SINCE SHRAVAN KUMAR WAS ONWARD SELLING THE LAND TO OTHER PERSONS, HE OBTAINED TWO CHEQUES OF THE ABOVE SUMS FROM THOSE PARTIES DIRECT LY IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT, SO THAT HIS OBLIGATION OF GETTING THE CH EQUES CLEARED IN FAVOUR OF SELLERS OF LAND COULD BE FULFILLED. IN OUR VIEW, TH ESE ARE MERELY CONTENTIONS AND NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT CHEQUES WERE ISSUED BY ULTIMATE BUYERS DIRECTLY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER , IN VIEW OF THE DETAILED REASONING GIVEN IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 1 ABOVE, W E AFFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) TO THE EXTENT OF RS 15 LACS. REGARDING RS . 1,10,491 WHICH IS CLAIMED ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 37 TO BE BROKERAGE INCOME AND ALREADY OFFERED IN THE R ETURN OF INCOME, THE MATTER IS SET-ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO EXAMIN E THE SAME AND WHERE IT IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT, ALLOW THE NECESSARY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AS AMOUNT ALREADY OFFERED CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX AGAIN. TH E GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY DISPOSED OFF GROUND NO. 3 RELATING TO ADDITION OF RS. 31,50,000 24. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING T HE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE SOLD PLOT NO. 143, SWAR OOP NAGAR, JAGATPURA, JAIPUR FOR RS. 31,50,000/- TO SMT. RICHA CHOUDHARY. THIS PLOT WAS IN THE NAME OF SMT. RUBY SHRIVASTAV AND THE ASSESSEE WAS T HE POWER OF ATTORNEY OF THE SAID LAND. AS PER AO, THERE WAS NO OCCASION TO EXECUTE POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVOR OF AN UNKNOWN PERSON AND IT IS A CASE WHER E THE ASSESSEE BOUGHT THE PLOT FROM SMT. RUBY SHRIVASTAV AND SOLD THE SAME DU RING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN ABSENCE OF COST OF PURCHASE AND T HE YEAR OF PURCHASE, THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS 31,50,000 WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WAS BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE AO. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) WHICH HAS CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. 25. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD AR SUBMITT ED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE FACT OF POWER OF ATTORNEY HELD B Y THE APPELLANT FOR THE SOLE REASON THAT SMT. RUBY SHRIVASTAV WAS NOT RELATED TO THE APPELLANT. LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN MISSING THE FACT THAT APPELLANT WAS A REAL ESTATE BROKER AND UNRELATED PERSONS DO EXECUTE POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVOUR OF K NOWN BROKERS IN ORDER TO FACILITATE SALE OF THEIR PROPERTY. 25.1 LD. CIT(A) ALSO OPINED THAT AS A BROKER APPELL ANT WAS NOT EXPECTED TO DEPOSIT THE MONEY IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. HERE AGAIN L D. CIT(A) COULD NOT APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, APPEL LANT WAS NOT ONLY ACTING AS A ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 38 BROKER BUT WAS ALSO ACTING AS A POWER OF ATTORNEY H OLDER. THE NORMAL PRACTICE IS THAT THE BUYER, TO SAFEGUARD HIS INTEREST, MAKES PAYMENT IN NAME OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER WHO IS EXECUTING THE SALE DEED. 25.2 LD. CIT(A) ALSO DID NOT ALLOW THE RELIEF FOR T HE REASON THAT THE HANDING OVER THE MONEY TO SMT. RUBY SHRIVASTAV WAS NOT EVID ENCED. THE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO SMT. RUBY SHRIVASTAV BY WITHDRAWING THE MONEY FROM HIS BANK AND THIS WAS EVIDENT FROM THE PASS BOOK. 25.3 LD. CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN LAW BY NOT APPRECIATI NG THE LEGAL POSITION THAT IF THE APPELLANT AS A POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER IS TRE ATED AS REAL OWNER THEN THE INVESTMENT COULD BE TAXED IN THE A.Y. 2008-09 (AS P OWER OF ATTORNEY WAS EXECUTED ON 19/05/2007) AND NOT IN A.Y. 2009-10. IN A.Y. 2009-10 ONLY SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF LAND COULD BE TAXED AN D NOT THE ENTIRE SALE PROCEEDS. LD. CIT(A) AND ALSO THE LD. A.O. WERE DUT Y BOUND TO ACCEPT THIS LEGAL PROPOSITION. BOTH, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT COUNTERED THIS LEGAL PROPOSITION, YET HAVE ERRED IN NOT TAXING THE CAPIT AL GAIN IN THE YEAR OF SALE OF PROPERTY. LD. A.O. IN HIS REMAND REPORT HAS MENTION ED THAT SINCE THE APPELLANT DID NOT DISCLOSE THE AMOUNT INVESTED AND SOURCE OF INVESTMENT, THERE WAS NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE BUT TO TAX THE ENTIR E CONSIDERATION IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS GROUND OF AP PEAL MAY PLEASE BE ALLOWED. 26. WE NOW REFER TO THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE L D. CIT(A) WHICH ARE UNDER CHALLENGE BEFORE US. THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED AS UN DER:- 5.5 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE; ASSES SMENT ORDER AND APPELLANTS WRITTEN SUBMISSION. APPELLANT RECEIVED MONEY IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT ON SALE OF PROPERTY STANDING IN THE NAME OF RUBY SHRIVASTAV. APPELLANT WAS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER IN RESPECT O F THIS LAND AND THEREFORE HE EXECUTED THE SALE DEED AND RECEIVED TH E MONEY WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THE LADY IN WHOSE NA ME THE PROPERTY STANDS IS NOT RELATED TO THE APPELLANT. WHEREABOUTS OF RUBY SHRIVASTAV IS NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT. HER ADDRESS IS ALSO NOT GIVEN. ALL THESE FACTS CLEARLY PROVE THAT APPELLANT WAS THE REAL OWN ER OF THE PROPERTY ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 39 AND ONLY NAME OF RUBY SHRIVASTAV WAS USED. NO ONE W ILL GIVE POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVOUR OF ANY STRANGER UNLESS THE PROPE RTY ITSELF IS SOLD TO SUCH PERSON. APPELLANT DID NOT SUBMIT THE IDENTITY AND DETAILS OF RUBY SHRIVASTAVS ADDRESS. SHE IS ALSO NOT PRODUCED FOR EXAMINATION BEFORE AO THEREFORE IT IS CLEAR THAT APPELLANT DID NOT DIS CHARGE HIS ONUS TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF DEPOSITS. AS A BRO KER, APPELLANT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO ACCEPT MONEY AND DEPOSIT IN HIS BANK AC COUNT UNLESS HES THE REAL OWNER AND THE PARTY TO THE TRANSACTION. EV EN IF APPELLANTS ARGUMENT IS ACCEPTED THEN WHERE HAS HE GIVEN MONEY BANK TO RUBY SHRIVASTAV. CLAIM OF GIVING PAYMENT BY CASH TO HER NOMINEE IS NOT EVIDENCED BY ANY DOCUMENT OR CONTEMPORARY MATERIAL. SINCE APPELLANT DID NOT DISCLOSE ANY INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY STA NDING IN THE NAME OF RUBY SHRIVASTAV, ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION IS TAXAB LE IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT DURING THE CURRENT YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, ADD ITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONFIRMED. 27. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTUAL MATRIX AND HE REBY CONFIRM THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT INSTEAD OF ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION, ONLY GAIN ON SALE OF LAND SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS PURCHASE THROUGH POWER OF ATTORN EY HAS BEEN CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN EXECUTED ON 19.05.2007 FALLING IN YEAR AY 2008-09. THE MATTER IS ACCORDINGLY SET-ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DET ERMINATION OF QUANTUM OF CAPITAL GAINS WHICH CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX AS PER LA W. THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISPOSED OFF ACCORDINGLY. GROUND NO. 4 RELATING TO ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,000 28. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE APPE LLANT RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 2,00,000/- WHICH IS CLAIMED TO BE RECEIVED AS GIFT FROM SHRI BABUL LAL MEENA, THE ELDER BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEES WIFE. COPY OF GIFT DEED HAS BEEN CLAIMED TO BE SUBMITTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS W HILE THE AO STATED THAT THE AFFIDAVIT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY SHRI BABUL LAL MEENA WHICH IS SIGNED MUCH LATER ON 7.12.2011 AND EVEN PAN DETAILS AND SOURCE OF INCOME HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED. HENCE, THE AO DIDNT ACCEPT THE EXPLANA TION OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 40 29. ON APPEAL, THE LD CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE AOS O RDER AND HIS RELEVANT FINDINGS WHICH ARE UNDER CHALLENGE BEFORE US ARE RE PRODUCED AS UNDER:- 6.5 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE; ASSES SMENT ORDER AND APPELLANTS WRITTEN SUBMISSION. APPELLANT CLAIMED R ECEIPT OF GIFT OF RS. 2 LACS FROM ONE SHRI BABULAL. WHEN ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED TO PRODUCE SHRI BABULAL, HE WAS NOT PRODUCED. ASSESSING OFFICE R DEPUTED INSPECTOR TO SERVE SUMMONS ON SHRI BABULAL AND APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO ASSIST IN LOCATING THE SAID PERSON. HOWEVER APPELLANT DID NOT GIVE ANY ASSISTANCE IN SERVICE AND SUMMONS COULD NOT BE SERVED ON SHRI BABULAL. THEREFORE IT IS CLEAR THAT APPELLANT DID NOT DISCHARGE HIS ON US BY EITHER PRODUCING THE DONOR OR ASSISTING THE DEPARTMENT IN EXAMINATIO N OF THE DONOR. THE SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS ARE NOT RELEVANT IF THE PER SON WHO EXECUTED THESE DOCUMENTS IS EITHER NOT TRACEABLE OR DO NOT A TTEND TO CONFIRM THE CONTENT OF SUCH DOCUMENTS. SINCE APPELLANT DID NOT EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF MONEY RECEIVED FROM SHRI BABULAL, ASS ESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED. ACCO RDINGLY ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONFIRMED. 30. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD AR SUBMITT ED THAT A CONFIRMATION HAS ALL THE LEGAL SANCTITY UNDER SECTION 56(VII)(A) , WHEN THE GIFT IS FROM A VERY CLOSE RELATIVE AND THE DONOR NOT BEING ABLE TO APPE AR DOES NOT LEAD TO ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE IN THIS REGARD. 31. AS PER SECTION 56(VII)(A), A GIFT OF MONEY WIT HOUT CONSIDERATION FROM WIFES BROTHER CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX AS INCOME I N THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND AN AFFIDAVIT IN THIS REGARD HAS BEEN F ILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, THE CONTENTS OF T HE CONFIRMATION/AFFIDAVIT ARE NOT ON RECORD WHICH CAN HELP DETERMINE THE CRED ITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION BY WAY OF GIFT AS CL AIMED. WE ACCORDINGLY CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). AT THE SAME TI ME, ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO SEPARATE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND THE AMOUNT OF RS 2 LACS IS PART OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS 63,38,820 WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN CONFIRMED AS DISCU SSED IN GROUND NO. 1 ITA NO. 139/JP/14 SHREE NARAYAN MEENA VS. ITO, JAIPUR 41 SUPRA. IN LIGHT OF THE SAME, THERE WOULD NOT BE AN Y SEPARATE ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT. THE GROUND IS DISPOSED OFF ACCORDINGLY. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISPOS ED OFF WITH ABOVE DIRECTIONS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06/09/2017. SD/- SD/- DQY HKKJR FOE FLAG ;KNO (KUL BHARAT) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 06/09/2017 *SANTOSH VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT - SHREE NARAYAN MEENA, A-163, ASHOK VIHAR, JAGATPURA, MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPU R. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ITO, WARD-6(1), 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, 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO.139/JP/2014) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR.