IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO.2677/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 MAAN SINGH, C/O VINOD KUMAR GOEL, 282, BOUNDARY ROAD, CIVIL LINES, MEERUT. PAN: GIFPS3643G VS. ITO, BARAUT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V.K. GOEL, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI T. VASANTHAN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 17.10.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.10.2017 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 16.10.2015 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST ADDITION OF RS .8,68,040/-. ITA NO.2677/DEL/2017 2 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SUM OF RS.12,50,000/- WAS DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS SAVING BANK AC COUNT JOINTLY MAINTAINED WITH HIS WIFE, SMT. SAVITRI DEVI. ON BE ING CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF SUCH CASH DEPOSIT, THE ASSESS EE STATED THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND ON 12.12.2007, WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNT. ON GOING THR OUGH THE SALE DEED, IT WAS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE LAND WAS SOLD ONLY FOR A SUM OF RS.3,81,964/-. EXCESS AMOUNT OF RS.8,68,036 /- (RS.12,50,000/- (-) RS.3,81,964/-) WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION FOR THIS AMOUNT, WHICH CAME TO BE ECH OED IN THE FIRST APPEAL. 4. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE RELE VANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR THAT 50% OF THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN HIS HANDS AND THE REMAINING 50% IN THE HANDS OF HIS WIFE. IT IS SO FOR THE REA SON THAT THE PROPERTY SOLD WAS IN THE EXCLUSIVE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS A DEPOSIT OF RS.12,50,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH COINCIDES WITH THE DATE OF SALE ITA NO.2677/DEL/2017 3 OF THE PROPERTY. AS SUCH, THE CONTENTION OF THE LD . AR FOR TREATING 50% OF THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK AS PERTAINING T O HIS WIFE, CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. 5. COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE SALE OF PROPERTY CLAIMED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE LD. AR ADMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS, IN FACT, SOLD FOR A SUM OF RS.12,50,000/- BUT THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ONLY FOR A SUM OF RS.3,81,96 4/-. A COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE 26 OF THE PAPER B OOK. IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THERE IS A SINGLE DEPOSIT OF RS.12,50,000/- ON 12.12.2007 AND THE DATE OF SALE DEED IS ALSO THE SAME I.E., 12.12.2007 . THIS PROVES THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT A SUM OF RS.12,50,000/- RECEIVED FROM THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCO UNT. 6. THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT THE LAND SOLD BY TH E ASSESSEE IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND AND NO CAPITAL GAIN IS CHARGEABLE ON ITS TRANSFER. SINCE THE NECESSARY FACTS IN THIS REGARD ARE NOT AVAILABL E ON RECORD, I CONSIDER IT EXPEDIENT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND RESTO RE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINING THE ASS ESSEES CONTENTION ITA NO.2677/DEL/2017 4 ABOUT THE SALE OF PROPERTY, BEING, AN AGRICULTURAL LAND AND NOT ATTRACTING ANY TAX UNDER THE HEAD `CAPITAL GAINS. IF THE ASS ESSEES CONTENTION ABOUT THE SALE OF PROPERTY, BEING, AN AGRICULTURAL LAND IS PROVED, THEN NO ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE. IN THE OTHERWISE SCENARIO, THE MATTER BE DECIDED AS PER LAW BY TREATING FULL VALUE OF CONSID ERATION AT RS.12.50 LAC. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ALLOWED A REA SONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18.10.201 7. SD/- [R.S. SYAL] VICE PRESIDENT DATED, 18 TH OCTOBER, 2017. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.