Shri Kuldip Singh, Mohali V. ITO, W-6(4), Mohali

ITA 1442/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7444 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 08-11-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

, ,A, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1442/CHD/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SHRI KULDEEP SINGH VILL. GHARUAN, TEHSIL KHARAR, DISTT. MOHALI INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(4), MOHALI ./PAN NO : DQEPS 7365R /APPELLANT /RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY : NONE ! / REVENUE BY : SMT. MEENAKSHI VOHRA, ADDL. CIT ' #$ /DATE OF HEARING : 03.08.2021 %&'($ /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.08.2021 (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) /ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M. : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS)-2, CHANDIGARH [IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)] DATED 30-08-2019 U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,196 (HEREINAFTER REFER RED TO AS ACT). ITA NO. 1442/CHD/2019 KULDEEP SINGH V. ITO, MOHALI 2 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS NO TED THAT ON ALL OCCASIONS THAT THE APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING I N THE PAST THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED THROUGHOUT. ON THE LAST OCCASION, I.E., 18.05.2021, THE BENCH DIRECTED THE NOTICE TO BE ISSUED THROUGH DR. THE LD. DR STATED BEFORE US THAT THE NOTICE REM AINED UNSERVED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REFUSED TO TAKE THE NOTICE. CONS IDERING THE CONSISTENT NON-REPRESENTATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT TOO IN AN APPEAL FILED BY IT, IT WAS CONSIDERED FIT TO PROCEED WITH THE DISPOSAL OF THE SAME EX-PARTE, NOTING THAT SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES HA D ALREADY BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAST WHICH FOR NO AP PARENT REASON THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO AVAIL. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEA L WAS PROCEEDED TO BE DECIDE EX-PARTE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAI LABLE ON RECORD. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 91,29,248/-. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS IGNORED THE CUMULATIVE C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHICH PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED RS . 1,26,99,248/- IN CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AFTER REC EIVING THIS AMOUNT FROM M/S CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL TRUST ON ACC OUNT OF SALE OF HIS AGRI. LAND TO THEM FOR A TOTAL CONSIDER ATION OF RS. 1,32,00,000/-. 3. THAT THE ASSESSEE STATED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THAT HE IS DOING AGRICULTURE FARMING AND ITA NO. 1442/CHD/2019 KULDEEP SINGH V. ITO, MOHALI 3 HAVE NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME. IT WAS FURTHER STAT ED THAT THE CASH TOTALING RS. 1,26,99,248/- IN THE BANK WAS DEP OSITED OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF HIS AGRI. LAND RECEIVED FROM THE P URCHASER. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN IGNORING THE CORROBORATING EVIDENCE FILED I.E. AFFI DAVITS OF S/SH. INDERJIT, NAMBARDAR OF THE VILLAGE, PARVINDER SINGH , ONE OF THE WITNESSES AND JAGJIT SINGH WHO HAVE CONFIRMED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED RS.1,28,500/- ON THE DATE OF REGISTRY FROM THE PURCHASER. 5. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY EXPLAINED THE SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK, NOW IT IS FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED THIS HUGE AMOUNT IN THE YEAR AS SESSMENT IN A DAY (OVERNIGHT) AND THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE P ROVES THAT THE DEPOSIT WAS MADE OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF HIS AGRI. LAND. 6. THAT THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS INTEZAR ALI IN ITA NO. 162(2013) DISMISSED THE A PPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT BY ACCEPTING SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN THE BA NK WAS SALE CONSIDERATION OF AGRICULTURE LAND. THE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ARE THE SAME AS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE E. 7. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A) AS WELL AS LD. A.O. DID NOT CROSS EXAMINE THE ASSESSEE AND S/SH. INDERJIT PARVI NDER SINGH AND SH. JAGJIT ON THE POINT OF AFFIDAVIT FILED BY T HEM NOR REBUTTED THE CONTENT OF THE AFFIDAVIT WHICH REMAIN UNCONTROV ERTED, MUST INVERBALKLY BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE AND RELIABLE AS HEL D IN CASE OF MEHTA PARIKH & CO. VS. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 186, 187 ( S.C. AND KANSHNA VS. CIT(ALL) 142 ITR 618. ITA NO. 1442/CHD/2019 KULDEEP SINGH V. ITO, MOHALI 4 8. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR DELETE ANY G ROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE SOLITARY ISSUE, AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE GROUNDS REPRODUCED ABOVE, RELATES TO ADDITIONS MADE AMOUNTING TO RS. 9 1,29,248/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK REMAINING UNEXPLAI NED. THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS RS. 1,26,99,248/- ,WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO BE ON ACCOUNT OF THE ACTUAL SALE CONSID ERATION OF LAND SOLD TO ONE M/S CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MOHALI. BUT THE A O NOTED THAT THE SALE DEED MENTIONED THE CONSIDERATION TO BE RS.35,70,000/-. HE THEREFORE REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE RELATING TO THE AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT IN EXCESS OF THE CONSIDERATION MENTIONED IN THE SAL E DEED AMOUNTING TO RS. 91,29,248/- AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF THE SAME REMAINING UNEXPLAINED. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT( A) WHERE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BY WAY OF AFFIDAVITS OF CERTAIN PERSONS C ONFIRMING ASSESSEES VERSION OF THE TRANSACTION WERE FILED, WHICH WERE DULY SENT TO THE AO FOR HIS COMMENTS ,AFTER CONSIDERING WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF MOHINDER SINGH IN THE GROUP OF CASE IN ITA NOS. 665 TO 666/ CHD/2011 AND IN ITA NO.474/CHD/2017 DATED 28.01.2018,NOTING THE FAC TS AND ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE TO BE IDENTICAL TO THAT CASE. ITA NO. 1442/CHD/2019 KULDEEP SINGH V. ITO, MOHALI 5 WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). THE LD.CIT(A),WE FIND, FOUND THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT APPEAL TO BE IDENTICAL WITH THAT DECIDED BY THE ITAT AND FURTH ER NOTED THAT THE ITAT IN THE SAID CASE HAD HELD THAT ONCE THE PARTIE S TO THE TRANSACTIONS, I.E., SELLER AND THE PURCHASER, HAD M ADE TO BELIEVE NOT ONLY TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY BUT TO THE PUBLIC AT L ARGE THAT THE TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO PURCHASE/SALE OF LAND BETW EEN THEM WAS SETTLED AT A PARTICULAR CONSIDERATION, SUBSEQUENTLY THEY WERE ESTOPPED FROM THEIR ACT AND CONDUCT TO PLEAD THAT T HE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION WAS AT VARIANCE OF THE EARLIER REPRES ENTATION. THAT THE EXTRA AMOUNT RECEIVED CONSTITUTED EXTRA MONEY PAID AS CONSIDERATION FOR THE EXECUTION OF THE SALE DEED OF LAND AND NOT FOR THE SALE OF LAND ITSELF AND THE SAME WAS THEREFORE TO BE TAXED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO NOTE D THAT THE ITAT IN THE SAID DECISION CONSIDERED A SIMILAR REFE RENCE TO THE CASE OF INTEZAR ALI DECIDED BY THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT AND HAD DISTINGUISHED THE SAME AS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE FA CTS OF THE CASE BEFORE IT. THE CIT(A) FURTHER WENT ON TO STATE THA T THE SAID DISTINCTION WAS RELEVANT TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESEN T CASE AS WELL , AS THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE MAKING EFFORT S TO GET THE REGISTRATION DONE ON THE ACTUAL VALUE OF CONSIDERAT ION. THUS FINDING ITA NO. 1442/CHD/2019 KULDEEP SINGH V. ITO, MOHALI 6 THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL TO BE IDENTICAL TO THAT IN THE CASE OF MOHINDER SINGH (SUPRA), THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED. THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE NO DOUBT, WE FIND, AR E IDENTICAL TO THAT IN THE CASE OF MOHINDER SINGH (SUPRA) WITH THE ASSESSEE ATTRIBUTING THE CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK TO THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FROM SALE OF LAND, BUT THE REGISTERED SALE DEED RECORDING A MUCH LOWER VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION . WE SEE NO R EASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) WHO HAS RI GHTLY ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE APPLYING THE DECISION LAID DOWN BY THE IT AT IN MOHINDER SINGH(SUPRA).THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), UPHOLDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE REMAINING UNEXPLAINED ,AMO UNTING TO RS. 91,29,248/-, IS THEREFORE UPHELD. ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSE D. 4. IN EFFECT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON .08.2021. SD/- SD/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (ANNAPURN A GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 25.08.2021 GP/SR.PS &) *+,+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ITA NO. 1442/CHD/2019 KULDEEP SINGH V. ITO, MOHALI 7 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ' - / CIT 4. ' - ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. +./ 0 , $0 , 123/4 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. /35# / GUARD FILE ' / BY ORDER, / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR