SHRI GHASI RAM, KOTKASIM V. ITO, WARD-1(5), ALWAR

ITA 3/JPR/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3218 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-11-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 02-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANCHAL MEENA CIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: O P BATHEJA ITP
• Keywords: Capital asset; Additional evidence; Non passing of speaking order
• Section: 142(1); 234B; 13; 148; 144

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES B, JAIPUR JH LANHI XLKA] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 03/JP/2020 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 GHASI RAM KOTKASIM, C/O- O.P. BATHEJA, D-18, ANAND VIHAR, RAILWAY COLONY, JAGATPURA, JAIPUR-302017. C UKE VS. ITO, WARD-1(5), ALWAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: BNUPR 2296 D VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI O.P. BATHEJA (ITP) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : MS. CHANCHAL MEENA (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 19/10/2020 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03/11/2020 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), ALWAR DATED 31/10/2019 FOR THE A.Y. 2011-12, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 13,79,400/- THROUGH A NON SPEAKING ORDER, IGNORING THE SUBMISSIONS AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEA L OF THE APPELLANT ON CHARGEABILITY OF INTEREST U/S 234A AND 234B OF THE ACT. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR WITH DRAW ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. ITA 03/JP/2020_ GHASI RAM KOTKASIM VS ITO 2 2. THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL WAS CONCLUDED THROUGH V IDEO CONFERENCE IN VIEW OF THE PREVAILING SITUATION OF COVID-19 PAND EMIC. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION, THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED RS. 19.50 LACS IN HIS BANK ACCOU NT NO. 77430100026369 ON 06/05/2010 MAINTAINED WITH RAJASTH AN REGIONAL GRAMIN BANK, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH, THE A.O. ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT, THE ACT) ON 06/12/2 013. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED COPY OF SALE DEED BEFORE THE A.O. SHOWING SALE OF 2 BHIGHA 7 BISWA AGRICULTURAL LAND TO SHRI PRITHIVI SINGH AT RS . 6,95,000/-. AFTER MAKING DETAILED ENQUIRY, THE A.O. PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER ASSESSING TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE AT RS. 13,79,400/- AFTER A LLOWING CREDIT OF RS. 6,95,600/-. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O ., THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDER ING THE SUBMISSIONS AND MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE A.O. AGAINST WHICH, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 4. GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E RELATES TO CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 13,79,400/- MADE BY THE A.O. THE LD AR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE SAME ARGUMENTS AS WERE RAISED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD AR HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE ITA 03/JP/2020_ GHASI RAM KOTKASIM VS ITO 3 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND TH E CONTENTS OF HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION READS AS UNDER: THE APPELLANT IS AN ILLITERATE FARMER RESIDING IN V ILLAGE DINGALI, P.O.-KOTKASIM, TEH.-TIJARA, DISTT.-ALWAR. HE HAS NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME EXCEPT AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THEREFORE, HE DID NOT OBTAIN PAN AND ALSO DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN OF INCO ME. DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE A.Y.2011-X:2 CASH OF RS.19,50,000/- WAS DEPOSITED ON 06.05.2010 IN S.B.A /C NO. 77430100026369 OF THE APPELLANT IN RAJASTHAN GRAMIN BANK, BIBIRANI. AFTER MAKING SEVERAL CASH WITHDRAWALS ON DIFFERENT DATES, FURTHER CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.35,000/-, RS.45, 000/-, RS.45,000/- WERE MADE IN THE SAID ACCOUNT ON 12.10. 2020, 15.11.2010 AND 11.12.2010 RESPECTIVELY. THUS, THERE WERE AGGREGATE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.20,75,000/- IN THIS A CCOUNT DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION RELATING TO THE AFO RESAID CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.19,50,000/- ON 06.05.2010, THE LD. AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 TO THE APPELLANT ON 06.12.2013. THE APPELLANT BEING AN ILLITERATE AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING IN A RE MOTE VILLAGE AND NOT CONVERSANT WITH INCOME-TAX DID NOT MAKE ANY COM PLIANCE OF THE SAID NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148. THE LD. AO ISSUE D NOTICE U/S 142(1) TO THE APPELLANT ON 06.02.2015 FIXING THE CA SE FOR HEARING ON 12.02.2015. IN COMPLIANCE, SH. MOHAN SHA RMA AND K.L.GUPTA ARS APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. AO ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE FROM TIME TO TIME. THE APPELLANT FILED COP Y OF THE SALE-DEED DATED 05.05.2010 SHOWING SALE OF 2 BIGHA 7 BISWA AGRICULTURAL LAND IN VILL. DINGALI BY SH. GHISA RAM SON OF THE ASSESSEE, FOR RS.6,95,600/- TO SH. PRITHVI SINGH S/ O SH. JAIPAL SINGH, ULLAHWAS, TEH.-SOHNA, DISTT.-GURGAON. SH. K. L.GUPTA, ITA 03/JP/2020_ GHASI RAM KOTKASIM VS ITO 4 A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE STATED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE SAID LAND WAS ACTUALLY SOLD FOR RS.25,36,500/-@ 9,90,000/- PE R BIGHA BUT ON THE INSISTENCE OF THE PURCHASER THE SALE-DEED WA S EXECUTED AT RS.6,95,600/-, BEING THE DLC RATE. SHRI GUPTA AL SO INFORMED THE LD. AO THAT AN AGREEMENT WAS ALSO MADE TO THE A BOVE EFFECT BEFORE EXECUTING THE SALE-DEED, DATED 05.05. 2010, WHICH IS PRESENTLY NOT TRACEABLE AND WILL BE PRODUCED AS AND WHEN THE SAME IS FOUND. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT OUT OF THE T OTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.23,26,500/-, RS.2,50,000/- WERE RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF AGREEMENT AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.20,76,500/- WAS RECEIVED ON 05.05.2010 AT THE TI ME OF EXECUTING THE SALE-DEED, OUT OF WHICH RS.19,50,000/ - WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT ON T HE VERY NEXT DAY I.E. 06.05.2010. ALSO, THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASS ESSEE WAS RURAL AGRICULTURAL LAND BEING USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES SINCE BEGINNING AND NOT LIABLE TO ANY CAPITAL GAIN TAX. THE TEHSILDAR, KOTKASIM THROUGH HIS LETTER DATED 27.04. 2015 CONFIRMED TO THE LD. AO THAT THE IMPUGNED LAND IS R URAL AGRICULTURAL LAND BEING USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPO SES. REGARDING THE FURTHER CASH DEPOSITS OF RS,.1,25,000 /-IT WAS STATED THAT THESE DEPOSITS WERE MADE OUT OF THE WIT HDRAWALS MADE FROM THE SAME ACCOUNT ON VARIOUS DATES AND AGR ICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE LD. AO WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE REPL Y OF THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER ALLOWING CREDIT FOR SALE-DEED CO NSIDERATION OF RS.6,95,600/- TREATED THE REMAINING DEPOSITS OF RS. 13,79,400 (20,75,000 - 6,95,600) AS UNEXPLAINED. THE LD. CIT( A) HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT PROPE RLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE ADDITION AL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE APPELLANT, IN A CASUAL AND SUMMARY MAN NER. ITA 03/JP/2020_ GHASI RAM KOTKASIM VS ITO 5 HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT IS PURE LY A FARMER RESIDING IN A REMOTE VILLAGE, HAVING NO OTHER SOURC E OF INCOME EXCEPT AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE LD. AO HAS ALSO NOT MADE ANY OTHER ADDITION EXCEPT ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BANK D EPOSITS. FOR THE PRECEDING OR SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS NO NOT ICE U/S 142(1) OR 148 WAS EVER ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT. TH E LAND SOLD IN THE NAME OF HIS SON IS RURAL AGRICULTURAL L AND BEING USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE TEHSILDAR, KOTKSIFN (P.B.PAGE-21) AND IS NOT A CAPITAL ASSET U /S 2(14)(III) OF THE ACT. THE WITNESSES TO THE AGREEMENT DATED 04.03 .2010 (P.B.PAGE-12-13) HAVE ALSO CONFIRMED THAT THE IMPUG NED AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS SOLD @ RS.9,90,000/- PER BIGH A. (P.B.PAGE- 15-16) AND THE LD.AO HAS NOT EVEN EXAMINED THEM DUR ING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE APPELLANT IS A PERSON OF VE RY LOW MEANS AND HAS NO SUCH SOURCE OF INCOME FROM WHICH UNEXPLAINED CASH OF RS. 19,50,000/- COULD BE GENERA TED. IT IS ALSO WORTH MENTIONING THAT THE SALE-DEED WAS REGIST ERED ON 05.5.2010 (P.B.PAGE-3 TO 6) AND THE BANK DEPOSIT OF RS.19,50,000/- THROUGH A SINGLE ENTRY IN THE BANK A CCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT WAS MADE ON 06.5.2010 (P.B.PAGE-2). T HE ASSESSEE CANNOT EARN UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 19,5 0,000/- WITHIN 35 DAYS OF BEGINNING OF THE NEW FINANCIAL YE AR BY ANY MEANS AND DEPOSIT THE SAME IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT IN T HE GARB OF SALE PROCEEDS OF THE SAID LAND. ON PERUSAL OF THE B ANK ACCOUNT IT CAN ALSO BE SEEN THAT BEFORE AND AFTER THIS DEPO SIT THERE ARE NO MAJOR DEPOSITS IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE SOURCE OF BANK DEPOSIT OF RS.19,50,000/- ON 06.05.2010 MAY ALSO KINDLY BE ACCEPTED AS OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRIC ULTURAL LAND, FOR THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. HE HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T V. ITA 03/JP/2020_ GHASI RAM KOTKASIM VS ITO 6 P.K.NOORJAHAN, REPORTED IN (1999) 237 ITR 570(S.C.) . THE LD AR HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF PAPPU RAM SARAN V. ITO IN ITA NO. 1303/JP/2 018 ORDER DATED 03/09/2020. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD DR HAS RELIED ON THE O RDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. COUNSELS OF BOTH THE PARTI ES AND HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO DELIBERATED UPON THE DECISIONS CITED IN THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUT HORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS CITED BEFORE US AND WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. AS PER THE FACTS OF THE PR ESENT CASE, WE NOTICED THAT DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2011-12, CASH OF RS. 19.50 LACS WERE DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 06/05/2020 IN S.B. ACCOUNT NO. 77430100026369 IN RAJASTHAN GRAMIN BANK . APART FROM THIS, FURTHER CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. RS.35,000/-, RS.45,000 /-, RS.45,000/- WERE ALSO MADE IN THE SAID ACCOUNT ON 12.10.2010, 1 5.11.2010 AND 11.12.2010 RESPECTIVELY. IN THIS WAY, AN AGGREG ATE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 20.75 LACS WERE DEPOSITED BY THE ASS ESSEE. ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION RELATING TO THE AFORES AID CASH DEPOSITS, THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT T O THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY CO MPLIANCE OF THE SAID NOTICE, THEREAFTER NOTICE U/S 142(1) O F THE ACT WAS ITA 03/JP/2020_ GHASI RAM KOTKASIM VS ITO 7 ALSO ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 06/02/2015 AND IN CO NSEQUENCE THEREOF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS IN THE SHAPE OF SALE DEED DATED 05.05.2010 THEREBY SHOWING SALE OF 2 BIGHA 7 BISWA AGRICULTURAL LAND IN VILLAGE- DINGALI BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RS.6,9 5,600/- TO ONE SH. PRITHVI SINGH S/O SH. JAIPAL SINGH, ULLAHWAS, T EH.-SOHNA, DISTT.-GURGAON WAS FILED. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE L D AR THAT SINCE THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS WERE ASKED FROM THE ASS ESSEE, THEREFORE, IN COMPLIANCE THEREOF, THE ASSESSEE HAD PLACED ON RECORD COPY OF SALE DEED DATED 05/05/2010 THEREBY S HOWING SALE OF 2 BIGHA 7 BISWA AGRICULTURAL LAND BY THE ASSESSE E TO SH. PRITHVI SINGH S/O SH. JAIPAL SINGH. COPY OF WHICH I S AT PAGE NO. 3 TO 6 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR THAT IN FACT THE SAID LAND WAS SOLD FOR RS.25,36,500/- @ RS. 9,9 0,000/- PER BIGHA BUT ON THE INSISTENCE OF THE PURCHASER THE SA LE-DEED WAS EXECUTED AT RS.6,95,600/-, BEING THE DLC RATE. IT W AS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT PRIOR TO EXECUTION OF SALE DEED, AN AGREEMENT WAS ALSO MADE TO THE ABOVE FACT, WHICH WAS INITIALLY NO T TRACEABLE BEFORE THE A.O.. HOWEVER, THE SAID AGREEMENT WAS PL ACED ON RECORD BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND AS PER THE SAID AGREEMENT, A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF LAND IN QUESTIO N WAS FIXED AT ITA 03/JP/2020_ GHASI RAM KOTKASIM VS ITO 8 RS. 23,26,500/- OUT OF WHICH RS. 2.50 LACS WERE REC EIVED AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT AND THE REMAINING AM OUNT OF RS. 20,76,500/- WAS RECEIVED ON 05/05/2010 AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE SALE DEED AND OUT OF WHICH RS. 19.50 LACS WERE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE VERY NEXT D AY I.E. 06/05/2010. AS FAR AS THE OTHER CASH DEPOSITS AMOUN T TO RS.1.25 LACS ARE CONCERNED, IN THIS RESPECT, IT WAS SUBMITT ED BY THE LD AR THAT THESE DEPOSITS WERE MADE OUT OF WITHDRAWALS MA DE FROM THE SAME ACCOUNT ON VARIOUS DATES AND AGRICULTURAL INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. FROM THE RECORD, WE NOTICED THAT THE A.O. COMPLE TED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT ON 17/03/2015 AT AN I NCOME OF RS. 13,79,400/- AFTER ALLOWING CREDIT OF RS. 6,95,600/- BEING SALE CONSIDERATION OF SAID LAND AS PER THE SALE DEED OUT OF TOTAL BANK DEPOSITS OF RS. 20.75 LACS. THE LD CIT(A) DURING TH E APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS HAD ADMITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A OF T HE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 AND BY VIRTUE OF THAT APPLICATION, THE EVIDENCES IN THE SHAPE OF AGREEMENT DATED 04/03/2010 EXECUTED BY ASSESSEE IN FAVOUR OF JAIPAL FOR THE SALE OF THE SA ID LAND I.E. 2 BIGHA AND 7 BISWA @ 9.90 LACS PER BIGHA WAS ALSO AD MITTED TO BE ITA 03/JP/2020_ GHASI RAM KOTKASIM VS ITO 9 PLACED ON RECORD. APART FROM THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE AFFIDAVITS OF THE WITNESSES I. E. VIRENDRA YADAV S/O- SHRI KALURAM AND JAGRAM S/O LATE SADHURAM GURJ AR WHO WERE PRESENT AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT DATED 04/03/2010. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR THAT SINC E THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS SOLD @ 9.90 LACS PER BIGHA AS PER AGRE EMENT DATED 04/03/2010 BUT ON THE INSTANCE OF PURCHASER, THE SA LE DEED WAS EXECUTED AT RS. 6,95,600/- ONLY BEING THE DLC RATE, THEREFORE, IT IS PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED ENTIRE AMO UNT OF RS. 23,26,500/- FROM THE SALE OF LAND IN QUESTION AND T HEREFORE, OUT OF THIS AMOUNT, RS. 19.50 LACS WERE DEPOSITED IN TH E BANK ACCOUNT ON THE VERY NEXT DAY I.E. 06/05/2010. IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION MADE UNDER THE SIMILAR FACTS, THE ASSESS EE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS I TAT IN THE CASE OF SHRI PAPPU RAM SARAN VS ITO IN ITA NO. 1303 ORDER DATED 03/09/2020. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD DR WHILE RELYING UPON THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, HAD S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO PROVE THE SOUR CE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK AS ACCORDING TO THE REGISTERED SALE DEED, THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS SOLD AT RS. 6,95,600/- VIDE SA LE DEED DATED 05/05/2010. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT NO RELIANCE CAN BE PLACED ITA 03/JP/2020_ GHASI RAM KOTKASIM VS ITO 10 OF AGREEMENT DATED 04/03/2010 AS THE SAME IS NOT AN AUTHENTIC DOCUMENT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID AG REEMENT IS NOT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI PRITHIVI SINGH, H OWEVER, THE SAID AGREEMENT HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE EXECUTED BETWEE N THE ASSESSEE AND ONE JAIPAL WHO IS FATHER OF PURCHASER SHRI PRITHIVI SINGH. EVEN OTHERWISE THAT AGREEMENT DO NOT CONTAIN THE SIGNATURES OF THE SELLER I.E. SHRI JAIPAL, THEREFOR E, THE SAME CANNOT BE RELIED UPON. 8. AFTER HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AT LENGTH, W E FOUND THAT DURING THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE REMAND REPORT WAS SOUGHT BY THE LD. CIT(A) FROM THE A.O. CONCERNED AN D IN THE SAID REPORT, THE A.O. HAD CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THAT N ECESSARY SUMMONS U/S 131(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED UPON THE SAID JAIPAL ON 13/04/2018, 15/01/2019 AND 06/02/2019 FOR CARRYI NG OUT NECESSARY VERIFICATIONS IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE VERA CITY AND GENUINENESS OF THE SAID AGREEMENT DATED 04/03/2010 BUT THE SAID JAIPAL, THE ALLEGED PURCHASER OF THE AGRICULTURAL L AND HAD NOT MADE ANY COMPLIANCE AND EVEN DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE A.O. APART FROM THIS, THE A.O. HAD ALSO ASKED THE ASSESS EE TO PRODUCE THE SAID JAIPUR FOR EXAMINATION BUT THE ASSESSEE AL SO COULD NOT PRODUCE THE SAID JAIPAR AS THE ASSESSEE REMAINED NO N- ITA 03/JP/2020_ GHASI RAM KOTKASIM VS ITO 11 COOPERATIVE. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH ALL THE DOCU MENTS PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS PAPER BOOK WHICH A RE PAGE NO. 1 TO 21. FROM THE COPY OF SALE DEED EXECUTED ON 05/05 /2010 WHICH IS AT PAGE NO. 3 TO 6 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WE NOTICED THAT THIS REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 05/05/2010 WAS EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FAVOUR OF ONE PRITHIVI SINGH S/O JAIPAL FOR THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 6,95,000/- AND THIS SALE DEED DO NOT CONTAIN THE DETAILS OF EXECUTION OF ALLEGED AGREEMENT TO SE LL DATED 04/03/2010. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE COPY OF A GREEMENT DATED 04/03/2010 WHICH WAS EXECUTED BETWEEN THE ASS ESSEE AND ONE JAIPAL. ON CAREFUL ANALYZING THE SAID AGREEMENT DATED 04/03/2010, WE NOTICED THAT THIS AGREEMENT WAS NOT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAID PURCHASER OF LAND I.E. PRITHIVI SINGH RATHER THE SAID AGREEMENT HAS BEEN EXECUTED B ETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ONE JAIPAL S/O- SHRI BANSHI RAM WHO AC CORDING TO ASSESSEE, FATHER OF THE PURCHASER SHRI PRITHIVI SIN GH. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE SAID AGREEMENT DATED 04/03/2010 DO N OT CONTAIN SIGNATURE OF JAIPAL ON THE SAID AGREEMENT WHICH GOE S TO PROVE THAT JAIPAL WAS NEVER SIGNATORY OR PARTY TO THE SAI D AGREEMENT. THEREFORE, THIS DOCUMENT DATED 04/03/2010 CARRIES N O EVIDENTIARY VALUE. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE REGISTERED SALE DEED DAT ED 05/05/2010 ITA 03/JP/2020_ GHASI RAM KOTKASIM VS ITO 12 IS BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT PARTIES I.E. THE ASSESSEE AND ONE SHRI PRITHIVI SINGH AND IS A REGISTERED DOCUMENT, THEREF ORE, THE PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS IS ATTACHED WITH THE SAI D REGISTERED SALE DEED. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE SAID AGREEMENT DA TED 04/03/2010 IS AN UNREGISTERED DOCUMENT WHICH IS NOT FIND MENTIONED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 05/05/2 010 AND HAS ALSO BEEN EXECUTED BETWEEN DIFFERENT PARTIES I.E. T HE ASSESSEE AND ONE JAIPAL AND EVEN THE SAID JAIPAL HAS NOT FOU ND TO BE SIGNATORY TO THE SAID AGREEMENT DATED 04/03/2010 WH ICH AMPLY PROVES THAT THIS DOCUMENT DATED 04/03/2010 CARRIES NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE, THEREFORE, NO BENEFIT CAN BE DER IVED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF SAID AGREEMENT TO SELL . IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT WHEN A REGISTERED DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD, THEREFORE, THE PRESUMPTION IS TO BE DRAWN THAT REGI STERED DOCUMENT IN THE SHAPE OF REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 05/05/2010 CARRIED EVIDENTIARY VALUE WHICH SHOWS THAT THE CONS IDERATION PAID TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SALE OF THE LAND IN QUESTIO N WAS ONLY AT RS. 6,95,600/- AND THE A.O. HAD RIGHTLY COMPLETED T HE ASSESSMENT AT RS. 13,79,400/- AFTER ALLOWING CREDIT OF RS. 6,9 5,600/- BEING SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE SAID LAND AS PER SALE DEE D OUT OF THE TOTAL BANK DEPOSITS OF RS. 20.75 LACS. THE DECISION OF THE ITA 03/JP/2020_ GHASI RAM KOTKASIM VS ITO 13 COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SH RI PAPPU RAM SARAN VS ITO (SUPRA) IS OF NO HELP TO THE ASSESSEE AS THE FACTS CONTAINED IN THAT CASE IS ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE SAID AGREEMENT ON THE BASIS OF WH ICH THE ASSESSEE IS RAISING HIS CLAIM OF HAVING RECEIVED RS . 23,26,500/- IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AS THE SAID AGREEMENT DID NOT FIND MENTION IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 05/05/2010 AND THE SAID AGREEMENT IS ALSO EXECUTED BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT PARTIES AND DO NOT CONTAIN THE SIGNATURE OF SAID PURCHASER I.E. JAIPAL, THEREF ORE, THE PARI MATERIA CONTAINED IN THE JUDGMENT CITED BY THE ASSE SSEE I.E. SHRI PAPPU RAM SARAN VS ITO (SUPRA) IS DIFFERENT FROM TH E FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THEREFORE, THAT DECISION IS DISTIN GUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS AND THEREFORE, NOT APPLICABLE IN THE FACT S OF THE PRESENT CASE. NO NEW FACTS OR CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE BEEN BROUG HT BEFORE US IN ORDER TO CONTROVERT OR REBUT THE FINDINGS SO REC ORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE I NTO OR DEVIATE FROM THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A), TH EREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) QUA THIS ISSUE. 9. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E IS WITH REGARD TO CHARGEABILITY OF INTEREST U/S 234A AND 23 4B OF THE ACT. ITA 03/JP/2020_ GHASI RAM KOTKASIM VS ITO 14 SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY DISMISSED THE MAIN GROUND RAI SED BY THE ASSESSEE, HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALSO DISM ISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09 TH NOVEMBER, 2020. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO LANHI XLKA (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 09/11/2020 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI GHASI RAM KOTKASIM, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD-1(5), ALWAR. 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, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 03/JP/2020) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR