Gurdarshan Singh, Mohali V. Income Tac Officer, Mohali

ITA 276/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8269 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 18-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Additional evidence
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACOCUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 276/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 SH. GURDARSHAN SINGH, VS. THE ITO, WARD 6(1), MOHALI MOHALI PAN NO. AIXPG8326L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. VINEET AGGARWAL RESPONDENT BY : SH. S.K. MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 07.12.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.03.2017 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-2, CHANDIGARH DATED 14.1.2016. 2. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT TO BANK ACCOUNT, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND LAW. ADDITION IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 26,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF 2 UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND LAW. ADDITION IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 3. GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PRES SED BEFORE US AND THE SAME IS TREATED AS DISMISSED. 4. GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST T HE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 26 LACS MAD E ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT U/S 68 OF THE INCOME-T AX ACT, 1961. 5. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT D URING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO FOUND THAT THERE WERE CASH DEPO SIT OF RS. 42,05,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ON VARIOUS DATES. ON Q UERY RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THIS CASH, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT PART AMOUNT WAS OUT OF WITHDRAWALS / SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODU CE AND THE BALANCE OF RS. 26 LACS WERE OUT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM OF SALE O F AGRICULTURAL LAND. HE FOUND THAT THE AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS ON STAMP PAPER WHICH WAS NOT IN THE NAME OF SELLER OR PURCHASER. HE THEREFORE HELD THAT THE DO CUMENT WAS FORGED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE A ND THE PURCHASER COULD NOT PRODUCE THE PERSONS IN WHOSE NAME THE STAMP PAPER W AS PURCHASED. IT WAS ALSO FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE PURCHASER H AD FAILED TO PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT TO SELL AND ALSO COULD NOT INTIM ATE THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT TO THE SELLER. NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL RECEI PT OF THE SAID AMOUNT WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ALSO NOR THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE MEANS OF THE PURCHASE TO MAKE THE PAYMENT. FURTHER, THE A SSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THERE WERE NO RECEIPTS FOR RECEIVING THE BIANA RE CEIVED BY THE SELLER AND ALSO THAT DESPITE THE FACT THAT FULL AND FINAL PAYMENT HAD BEEN RECEIVED, NO SALE DEED HAD BEEN EXECUTED EVEN AFTER ALMOST 3 YEARS OF RECE IVING THE FULL AND FINAL 3 PAYMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, HELD THA T ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE TRANSAC TIONS OF CASH DEPOSIT AND THUS TREATED THE DEPOSITS OF RS. 26 LACS AS ASSESSE ES UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHERE T HE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT THE SAID TRANSACTION WAS GENUINE AND DULY SUPPORTED BY THE AGREEMENT TO SELL. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISS IONS HELD THAT IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS PROVED THAT TRANSACTION WAS NOT GENUINE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCHARGED HIS ON US TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION S. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AT PAR 7.2 AND 7.3 A OF THE ORDER AS FOLLOWS:- 7.3 THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN CONS IDERED. THE OBSERVATION OF ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE STAMP PAPERS FOR AGREEMENT TO SELL ARE IN THE NAME OF THIRD PERSON N OT IN THE NAME OF THE BUYER AND SELLER CAST A SERIOUS DO UBT ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THE APPELLANT COUL DN'T FURNISH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO FROM SH. SATNAM SINGH, THE ALLEGED PURCHASER OF THE LAND WITH REGAR D TO THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT BY HIM. THE PURCHASER FURTHER ADM ITTED THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION HAS NOT YET BEEN TRANSFER RED IN HIS NAME AS NO SALE DEED HAS BEEN EXECUTED. THE PURCHAS ER COULDN'T EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE PAYMENT OF RS. 2 6,00,000/- MADE TO THE SELLER AND BEFORE THE AO HE STATED TH AT HE DOESN'T HAVE THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT TO SELL. THEREF ORE AO HAS RIGHTLY REACHED TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THIS BEING A NON- GENUINE TRANSACTION AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED ITS ONUS OF PROVING THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. HON'BLE SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. P. MOHANAKAL A 291 ITR 278 HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 'A BARE READING OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, SUGGESTS THAT (I) THERE HAS TO BE CREDIT 4 OF AMOUNTS IN THE BOOKS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE;(II) SUCH CREDIT HAS TO BE A SUM OF MONEY DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR; AND (III) EITHER (A) THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF SUCH CREDITS FOUND IN THE BOOKS OR (B) THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN THE OPINION OF THE AO, IS NOT SATISFACTORY. IT IS ONLY THEN THAT THE SUM SO CREDITED MAY BE CHARGED TO INCOME-TAX AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSES OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR, THE EXPRESSION 'THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION' MEANS THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO PROPER, REASONABLE AND ACCEPTABLE EXPLANATION AS REGARDS THE SUMS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE OPINION OF THE AO FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS NOT SATISFACTORY IS REQUIRED TO BE BASE D ON PROPER APPRECIATION OF MATERIAL AND OTHER ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCES AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. THE OPINION OF THE AO IS REQUIRED TO BE FORMED OBJECTIVELY WITH REFERENCE TO THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. APPLICATION OF MID IS THE SINE QUA NON FOR FORMING THE OPINION. IN CASES WHERE THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE SUMS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS IS NOT SATISFACTORY THERE IS, PRIMA FACIE, EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, VIZ. THE RECEIPT OF MONEY. THE BURDEN IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO REBUT THE SAME, AND, IF HE FAILS TO REBUT IT, IT CAN BE HELD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE TH AT IT WAS A RECEIPT OF AN INCOME NATURE. THE BURDEN IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO TAKE THE PLEA THAT , EVEN IF THE EXPLANATION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE, THE MATERIAL AND ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCES AVAILABLE ON RECORD DO NOT JUSTIFY THE SUM FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS BEING TREATED AS A RECEIPT OF INCOME NATURE.' 5 7.3 (A) IN VIEW OF THE ABOUT DISCUSSION, THE ADDITI ONS MADE BY THE AO IS UPHELD. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 IS DISMISSE D. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE ASSE SSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND S TATED THAT THE CASH DEPOSIT ARE SOURCED FROM THE CASH RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BY SALE OF HIS AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH IS DULY EVIDENCED BY THE AGREEMENT TO SE LL ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE BUYER OF THE PROPERTY. 8. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDERS O F THE CIT(A) AND ASSESSING OFFICER. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED THE ISSUE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE MORE SPECIFICALLY, TH E AMOUNT OF RS. 26 LACS WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED WAS SOURCED FROM THE SALE O F HIS AGRICULTURAL LAND. ON CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDI NG THE RECEIPT OF RS. 26 LACS AMOUNT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD ATTRIBUTED RS. 4 LAC DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OUT OF THE SAME TO THE BIANA RECEIVED FOR SALE OF THE SAID LAND. HE, THEREAFTER, ASKED THE ASSESSEE T O FURNISH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF THE SAME. NO SUCH INFORMATION OR DOCUME NT HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN. T HEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL WHIC H STATED THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT RS. 26 LACS TO BE SETTLED AS FOLLOWS:- RS. 4 LACS ON 2.11.2010 RS. 2 LACS ON 13.11.2010 RS. 6 LACS ON 25.11.2010 6 RS. 3 LCS ON 6.12.2010 RS. 3 LACS ON 31.12.2010 AND RS. 8 LACS ON 26.03.2011 THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFTER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH EVIDENCE FROM THE PURCHASER OF THE LAND SHRI SATNAM SINGH HAVING THE MEANS OF PAYMENT AND ALSO AS TO WHY THE STAMP PAPERS ON WHICH THE AGREEMENT T O SELL WAS EXECUTED WAS NEITHER IN THE NAME OF PURCHASER NOR THE SELLER BUT IN THE NAME OF THE THIRD PARTY SHRI LAKHBIR SINGH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO FOUN D THAT THE DATE FOR TRANSFER OF THE LAND WAS FIXED IN THE SAID AGREEMENT AS 26.3 .2011 AND ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH A COPY OF THE SAME. IN RESPONSE TO THE S AME, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD THROUGH A PROPERTY DEALE R THROUGH SHRI LAKHBIR SINGH AND BOTH THE BUYERS AND SELLERS DID NOT KNOW IN WHO SE NAME THE STAMP PAPERS HAD BEEN PURCHASED. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED TH AT THEY WERE READY TO PRODUCE THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY / AGRICULTURAL LAND SH. SATNAM SINGH AND ALSO THE PROPERTY DEALER MR. LAKHBIR SINGH. NEITHER THE MEAN S OF PAYMENT MADE BY THE PURCHASER WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE NOR THE COP Y OF THE SALE DEED AS ASKED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREAFTER ONLY THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY SHRI SATNAM SINGH COULD BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE THE PROPERTY DEALER SHRI LAKHBIR SINGH WAS NOT BE PRODUCED. SH. SATNAM SINGH ADMITTED TO HAVE SIGNED THE DOCUMENT, BUT HE COULD NOT INTIMATE THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT MADE TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO COULD NOT PRODUCE THE ORIG INAL AGREEMENT TO SELL WHICH HE STATED THAT HE DID NOT HAVE. HE ALSO ADMITTED TH AT THE LAND HAD NOT YET BEEN TRANSFERRED TO HIS NAME SINCE NO SALE DEED HAD BEEN EXECUTED. THEREAFTER NO OTHER DOCUMENTS OR INFORMATION WERE FURNISHED BY TH E ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE CONCLUDED AS FOLL OWS:- 6. FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE FOLLOWING EMERGES: I) THE AGREEMENT TO SELL IS A FABRICATED DOCUMENT, AS THE STAMP PAPERS ARE NOT IN THE NAME OF PARTIES (IT IS ISSUED IN THE 7 NAME OF SH. LAKHBLR SINGH S/O SH HAKARN SINGH, VILLAGE SEONKH, TEHSIL KHARAR, DISTT. MOHALI VIDE NO. 182 DATED 15.10.2010 BY SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, STAMP VENDER, TCHSIL COMPLEX, RUPNAGARJ. II] THE ASSCSSEE AND PURCHASER FAILED TO PRODUCE THE PERSON SH. LAKHBIR SINGH, IN WHOSE NAME THE STAMP PAPER WAS PURCHASED; III) THE PURCHASER HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT TO SELL (BECAUSE LEGALLY HE SHOULD BE POSSESSING THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT); IV) THE PURCHASER COULD NOT INTIMATE THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT TO THE SELLER/ASSESSEE; V) THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT HE HAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED THE ABOVE PAYMENT; VI) THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE MEANS OF THE PURCHASER TO MAKE THE PAYMENT TO THE ASSESSEE; VII) THE AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS ENTERED INTO ON 02.11.2010 AND FULL PAYMENT IN INSTALLMENTS HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE SELLER/ASSESSEE AND ALLEGEDLY PAID BY THE PURCHASER (I.E. 4.00 LACS ON 02.11-2010; 2.00 LACS ON 13.11.2010; 6.00 LACS ON 25.11.2010; 3.00 LACS ON 06.12.2010; 3.00 LACS ON 31.12.2010 AND 8.00 LACS ON 26.03.2011); VIII) THERE ARE NO SIGNATURES OF THE SELLER I.E. THE ASSESSEE ON THE RECEIPT FOR RECEIVING RS. 4.00 LACS ON 02.11.2010 AT THE TIME OF AGREEMENT TO SELL; IX) THE FULL AND FINAL PAYMENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED TILL 26.03.2011, BUT THE 8 SALE DEED HAS NOT BEEN EXECUTED TILL DATE (I.E. EVEN ALMOST NEAR TO COMPLETION OF THREE YEARS OF ALLEGEDLY RECEIVING FULL & FINAL PAYMENT); X) THE ACT OF NOT GETTING REGISTERED THE LAND BY THE PURCHASER PROVES THAT HE HAS FAITH IN THE SELLER I.E. ASSESSEE. AND IF IT IS SO, WHY THE PAYMENTS WERE NOT MADE BY CHEQUE. 7. ALL THE ABOVE EMERGED FACTS PROVE THAT GENUINELY THERE WAS NO TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE ALLEGED PURCHASER OF THE LAND AND THE ASSESSEE. THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE HANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WERE F ROM HIS OWN MONEY FROM THE UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND THE ASSC SSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME WITH DIE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 26.00 LACS IS HELD AS ASSESSEES UNEXPLAINED CASH D EPOSIT AND ADDED TO THE TAXABLE INCOME. 10. THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE FINDING OF TH E FACT WHICH EMERGE FROM THE DISCUSSION WHICH TOOK PLACE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. UNDENIABLY, THE AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS ON THE STAMP PAPER WHICH WAS NEITHER IN THE NAME OF THE BUYER NOR THE SELLER. THE EXPLANATI ON OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS IN THE NAME OF THE PROPERTY DEALER, COULD NOT BE SU BSTANTIATED BY THE ASSESSEE SINCE HE FAILED TO PRODUCED HIM BEFORE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WHICH HE PROMISED TO DO TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CONTENTION. FURTHER, DE SPITE SPECIFIC REQUEST MADE TO THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY TO PRODUCE THE ORIGIN AL AGREEMENT TO SELL THE SAME WAS NOT PRODUCED. EVEN THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF THE SAID RS. 26 LACS IN CASH, WAS NOT EXPLAINED BY THE PURCHASER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN A SPECIFIC QUERY IN THIS REGARD WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO HIM. FURTHER, DESPITE THE FACT THAT A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS HAD ELAPSED S INCE THE AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS ENTERED INTO, NO SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PARTIES. 9 11. THE ONLY CONCLUSION WHICH CAN BE ARRIVED AT IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, IS UNDOUBTEDLY THAT ARRIVED AT BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER AND AFFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) THAT SUCH TRANSACTIONS WAS NOT GENUINE. EVEN BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO CONTROVERT THE ABOVE FAC TS AS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHER, ON A SPECIFIC QUERY RA ISED AT THE BAR WHETHER THE SAME AGREEMENT HAD BEEN EXECUTED TILL DATE, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT NO SUCH AGREEMENT HAD BEEN ENTERED INTO TILL DATE. CLEARLY THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED MISERABLY TO SUBSTA NTIATE ITS CLAIM OF RELATING THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK TO THE EXTENT OF RS.26 L ACS TO BE ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNT RECEIVED ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. 12. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE UNHESITANTINGLY HOLD THAT ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS FAILED TO PROVE AND DISCHARGE HIS ONUS THAT THE CASH TO THE TUNE OF RS. 26 LAC DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK WAS RECEIVED F ROM THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE ASSESSEE, WE HOLD HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAID TRANSACTION AND THE ADDITION, THEREFORE, MADE U/S 68 HAS BEEN RIGHTLY UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A). 13. WE MAY ADD THAT THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 29 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ) RULES,1963 SEEKING TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, BEING AFFIDAVIT OF THE P URCHASER OF THE LAND TO THE EFFECT THAT HE HAD MADE PAYMENT OF RS. 26 LACS TO T HE ASSESSEE IN LIEU OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL ENTERED INTO BY HIM WITH THE ASSE SSEE. SINCE NEITHER THE SALE DEED ,NOR THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT TO SELL HAS BEEN F ILED AND WE HAVE HELD THE SAID TRANSACTION TO BE INGENUINE ,AS ABOVE, WE SEE NO REASON TO ADMIT THE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THEREFORE EJECTED. 14. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, GROUND OF APPEAL NO..2 RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 10 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 06.03.2017 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR