Smt. Aruna Chaudhary, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3439/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4192 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: APARNA KARAN
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Document seized; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Earning of tax free income; Additional evidence; Cost of acquisition; Reasonable cause; Difference of opinion; Assessment record; Onus to prove; Documents seized; Change of opinion
• Section: 153A; 139(5); 132; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.3438 TO 3443/DEL/2017 A.YS. : 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12 TO 2014-15 ARUNA CHAUDHARY, 39, GADAI PUR, MAHRAULI, NEW DELHI. VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI. PAN : AAEPC0681R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI AJAY WADHWA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SMT. APARNA KARAN, CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 30-11-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04-01-2018 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, AM : THE ABOVE BATCH OF APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AR E DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 31.03.2017 OF THE CIT(A)-31, NEW DELHI RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09, 2009-10 AND 2011-12 TO 20 14-15 RESPECTIVELY. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TO GETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. FIRST, WE TAKE UP ITA NO.3438/DEL/2017 FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2008-09 AS THE LEAD CASE. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 12.03.2010 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.92,23,790/-. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 WAS CARRIED OU T ON 11.09.2013 AND 2 ITA NOS.3438 TO 3443/DEL/2017 17.09.2013 IN THE CASE OF AKN GROUP OF CASES. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO COVERED IN THE SAID SEARCH. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, CERTAIN INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A, THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 31 .07.2014 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.92,23,790/- WHICH IS THE SAME INCOME AS DECLA RED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED U/S 139 OF THE I.T. ACT. FURTHER, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE REVISED HER COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND DECL ARED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,50,000/- AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS, OBSERVED THAT NO DOCUMENTS SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME WERE FILED. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DECLARED ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED U/S 139 OF THE I.T. ACT. HE, THEREFORE, HELD THAT DECLARATION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND CLAIM THE SAME AS EXEMPT IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT ONLY TO CONCEAL HER UNACCOUNTED INCOME AND THEREFORE, THE S AME CANNOT BE ACCEPTABLE AS THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153A IS BEING MADE IN THE INT EREST OF REVENUE AND NOT TO THE BENEFIT OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ACCORDINGLY TREATE D THE AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS.1,50,000/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME F ROM OTHER SOURCES. 5. FOLLOWING SIMILAR REASONING THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ALSO TREATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED IN THE OTHER YEARS AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER :- 2009-10 RS.1,75,000/- 3 ITA NOS.3438 TO 3443/DEL/2017 2011-12 RS.3,25,000/- 2012-13 RS.4,10,000/- 2013-14 RS.4,25,000/- 2014-15 RS.4,50,000/- 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION, CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISE I.E. 2/1, CHATTARPUR MOR E, NEW DELHI, PAGE NO.37 & 38 OF ANNEXURE A-8 WAS FOUND REGARDING THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN SINGAPORE AND COMMISSION WAS ALS O PAID WITH REGARD TO THIS TRANSACTION. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS AND WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN T HE SAME VIDE QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 09.03.2016. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME VIDE LETTER DATED 16.03.2016 DENIED TO HAVE MADE ANY INVESTMENT IN PR OPERTY AT SINGAPORE. THE RELEVANT PART OF HER SUBMISSION AS REPRODUCED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER READS AS UNDER :- THAT AS ALREADY EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ADIT DURING T HE APPRAISAL PROCEEDINGS, I HAVE NOT PURCHASED ANY PROPERTY AT SINGAPORE. ONE PROPO SAL CAME TO ME FOR ONE PROPERTY AT SINGAPORE WHICH WAS NEVER PURCHASED. CERTAIN OF FER DOCUMENTS WERE RECEIVED WHICH ARE NEITHER SEND BY ME NOR IN MY HANDWRITING. THE BROKER HAD SENT SOME WORKING TO ME. HOWEVER, NOTHING MATERIALIZED. 7. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT A REFERENCE WAS MADE TO FT&TR BY THE PR.CIT, (CENTRAL)-3, NEW DELHI ON 24.09.2015 TO REQUEST THE SINGAPORE LAND AUTHORITY FOR PROVIDING INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF T HE PROPERTY BEARING NO.383, 4 ITA NOS.3438 TO 3443/DEL/2017 TANGLING ROAD NO.06-06 TANGLING REGENCY, S(247966) WHICH IS MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS E NTERED INTO ANY TRANSACTION IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE PROPERTY IN THE CONCERNED F INANCIAL YEAR. SUBSEQUENTLY THE FT&TR VIDE HIS LETTER F.NO.504/513/2015-FT&TR-I V-659 DATED 29.02.2016 FORWARDED THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM SINGAPORE AUTHORITY ACCORDING TO WHICH THE PROPERTY MENTIONED IN THE AB OVE STATED ANNEXURE WAS HELD BY SH. NAINTARA BHATI FROM 28.12.2004 TO 16.04 .2006 AND SOLD THE SAME TO ARUNA GUJJAR AT A PRICE OF SINGAPORE DOLLAR (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED AS SGD) 5,00,000 AND HELD BY HER FROM 17.04.2006 TO 26.12.2 007. THE SAID PROPERTY WAS SOLD BY SMT. ARUNA GUJJAR AT A SALE CONSIDERATI ON OF SGD 7,80,000. FURTHER AS PER INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE SINGAPOR E AUTHORITY THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PAID PROPERTY TAX OF SGD 440 FOR THE PERIOD JA NUARY 2006 TO APRIL 2006, SGD 1320 FOR THE PERIOD 01.01.2007 TO 31.12.2007 AN D SGD 1620 FOR THE PERIOD 01.01.2008 TO 31.12.2008. FURTHER, ON PERUS AL OF THE PAGE NO.38 OF ANNEXURE A-8 OF PARTY TO-2, HE NOTED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS PAID A COMMISSION OF SGD 8346 TO ERA REALTY NETWORK PTE. LTD. FOR ARR ANGING THE BUYER FOR SALE OF PROPERTY BEARING NO.383, TANGLING ROAD # 06-06 TANG LING REGENCY, S(2477966) ON WHICH SIGNATURE OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL SO APPEARING. 8. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE WI TH THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM FT&TR VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 1 6.03.2016. THE COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM SINGAPORE AUTHORITY WAS A LSO PROVIDED TO THE 5 ITA NOS.3438 TO 3443/DEL/2017 ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 16.03.201 6 WAS SHOW CAUSED AS TO WHY THE CAPITAL GAIN RECEIVED ON THIS PROPERTY AND THE PAYMENT WITH REGARD TO THE PROPERTY TAX AND COMMISSION SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASS ESSEE WAS ALSO AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO FILE ANY SUBMISSION/OBJECTION IN THI S REGARD BY DATE 22.03.2016. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY SUBMISSION/O BJECTION IN THIS REGARD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE MADE ADDITION OF THE CA PITAL GAINS EARNED ON THIS PROPERTY AND UNACCOUNTED PAYMENTS MADE BY ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO PROPERTY TAX AND COMMISSION TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE, THE DETAILS OF WHICH IS AS UNDER :- S. NO. DATE OF TRANSACTION AMOUNT IN SINGAPORE DOLLAR EXCHANGE RATE OF SINGAPORE DOLLAR VIS A VIS INR AS ON THAT DATE TOTAL AMOUNT IN INR 1 SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF PROPERTY SITUATED IN SINGAPORE 26.12.2007 7,80,000 27.2253 2,12,35,734 LESS COST OF PURCHASE 17.04.2006 5,00,000 27.9595 1,39,79,750 CAPITAL GAINS 2,80,000 72,55,984 2 COMMISSION EXPENSES 26.12.2007 8,346 27.2253 2,27,222 3 PROPERTY TAX 31.03.2008 1,476 26.309 41,784 75,24,990 9. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT DURI NG THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE SOLD AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN VILLAGE GHITORNI AND DERA LAND AND EARNED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON IT. ON P ERUSAL OF THE COMPUTATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, HE NOTED THAT WITH REGARD TO AGRICULTURAL LAND IN DERA LAND, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED AN AMOUNT OF RS.31,84,299/ - AS COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND ITS INDEXATION ON THIS LAND. HOWEVER, NO SUPPOR TING DOCUMENTS WERE 6 ITA NOS.3438 TO 3443/DEL/2017 SUBMITTED IN THIS REGARD. HENCE VIDE THIS OFFICE LE TTER DATED 18.03.2016, HE ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE TO ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WH Y THE AMOUNT CLAIMED AS COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND ITS INDEXATION SHOULD NOT BE DI SALLOWED. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 25.03.2016 HAS SIMPLY SU BMITTED THAT THE SAID CONSTRUCTION WAS MADE WITH REGARD TO BOUNDARY WALLS CONSTRUCTION ON THIS LAND. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A SIMPLE CONFIRMATION ON PLA IN PIECE OF PAPER FROM SH. SANJAY SHARMA, PROP. I & U INTERNATIONAL THAT HE HA S RECEIVED RS. 65 LAKHS AS COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF DERA LAND. 9.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT OUT OF TOTAL A MOUNT, AN AMOUNT OF RS.25 LAKH WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO SH. SANJAY SHARMA IN CASH. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO GIVE ANY SUBSTANTIATING DOCUMENTS, I.E. ANY AGRE EMENT/MOU WITH REGARD TO GENUINENESS OF HER CLAIM. JUST FILING A CONFIRMATI ON ON PLAIN PAPER FROM A PERSON ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT A SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF HER CLAIM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TH EREFORE REJECTED THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE COST OF CON STRUCTION AND ITS INDEXATION, I.E. RS.31,84,299/- AND ADDED BACK THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY DETERMINED THE TO TAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.2,00,83,079/-. 10. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SO FAR AS TREATMENT OF A GRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME OF OTHER SOURCES IS CONCERNED, IT WAS SUBMITTED TH AT ASSESSMENT U/S 153A CAN 7 ITA NOS.3438 TO 3443/DEL/2017 ONLY BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING SEARCH. FOR THE ABOVE PROPOSITION, THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA REPORTED IN 61 TAXMANN.COM 412 WAS RELIED UPON. SO FAR AS OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT TH E CLAIM OF DECLARING SUCH AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND THE ASSE SSEE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN HAS NOT DECLARED THE SAME AND THAT THE ASSESSMENT U/S 1 53A IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF REVENUE AND NOT FOR THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, IT W AS SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS DUE TO OMISSION OR OVER-SIGHT THAT THIS AGRICULTURAL IN COME GOT EXCLUDED BOTH U/S 139(1) AS WELL AS U/S 153A FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 -09 TO 2010-11. THE MOMENT THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW THE MISTAKE, IT WA S DECLARED SUO-MOTU BY WAY OF REVISED COMPUTATION AND NO CREDIT HAS BEEN T AKEN OF THE SAID INCOME TO EXPLAIN ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME. IT WAS ARGUED THAT SINCE NO EVIDENCE WAS UNEARTHED DURING THE SEARCH, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT CORRECT WHEN HE CALLS THE SAME TO BE AN AFTERTHOUGHT. VARIOUS DECISIONS WERE ALSO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LD. CIT(A). SO FAR AS OTHER YEARS AR E CONCERNED, IT WAS ARGUED THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 TO 2013-14 IT HAS BEEN D ECLARED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED U/S 139(1) AS WELL AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A. CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WERE ALSO FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A), WHO FORWARDED THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALONG WITH ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BEFORE HIM FOR HIS COMMENTS. AFTER CONSIDER ING THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE REJOIND ER OF THE ASSESSEE TO SUCH 8 ITA NOS.3438 TO 3443/DEL/2017 REMAND REPORT, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OT HER SOURCES. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT(A) FROM PARA 4.1 ONWARDS READ AS UNDER :- 4.8 ON THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION OF AGRICULTURE I NCOME TREATING IT AS THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, THE SIX APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERA TION CAN BE DIVIDED INTO TWO CATEGORIES- ONE, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 A ND 2009-10 WHERE THE SAME WAS NEITHER SHOWN IN THE RETURNS FILED U/S 139(1) NOR I N THE SAME FILED U/S 153A AND FOR WHICH THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF GIRDAW ARI OF LAND AT PUNJAB KHOR HAS BEEN FILED; AND TWO, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011- 12 TO 2013-14 WHERE THE SAME WAS SHOWN IN BOTH THE RETURNS U/S 139(1) AND 153A, BUT ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE RETURNS U/S 139(1) WERE FILED AFTER THE DATE OF SEA RCH. THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 IS DEALT WITH IN THE SECOND CATEGORY. ON THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION OF AGRICULTURE INCOME, THE AFORESAID TWO CATEGORIES OF THE APPEALS ARE DEALT WITH SEPARATELY HEREUNDER. 4.8.1 COMING TO THE FIRST CATEGORY OF APPEALS, UNDI SPUTEDLY THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS NOT SHOWN IN THE ORIGINAL RETURNS FILED U/S 139 (1) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008- 09 AND 2009-10, WHERE OTHERWISE THE APPELLANT IN TH E ITR FORMS HAD DONE VERIFICATION THAT WHATEVER WAS STATED THEREIN WAS CORRECT. THOUG H, THE APPELLANT HAD SUFFICIENT TIME TO REVISE THE RETURNS, NO REVISION WAS DONE U/ S 139(5). EVEN WHEN THE APPELLANT WAS CANED UPON TO FILE RETURN U/S 153A, THIS AGRICU LTURAL INCOME WAS NOT INCLUDED FOR THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT YEARS IN THE RETURNS FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE. CONSTANT NON-DISCLOSURE OF THIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS INDICATIVE OF THE FACT THAT DEFINITELY THE APPELLANT DID NOT HAVE ANY AGRICULTU RAL INCOME AND HAD IT BEEN THERE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DEFINITELY INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURNS FILED OR AT LEAST IN THE RETURNS FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 153A IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD AS TO WHAT PREVENTED THE APPELLANT TO DISCLOSE AGRICULTURAL IN COME IN THE RETURNS U/S 153A FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 TO 2010-11, WHEN THE SAME WAS SHOWN IN SUCH RETURNS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 TO 2014-15, ALL OF WHI CH WERE FILED SIMULTANEOUSLY ON THE SAME DATE I.E. 31.07.2014. AS PER THE LAW, THE REVISION OF RETURN CAN TAKE PLACE WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED U/S 139(5) AND ANY ATTEM PT TO CHANGE THE DISCLOSURES MADE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME IS OTHERWISE NOT A LLOWED. WHAT CANNOT BE DONE DIRECTLY U/S 139(5) CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO BE DONE IN DIRECTLY IN THE GARB OF REVISING THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME (WHICH WAS DONE FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEARS 2008-09 TO 2010-11, WHERE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS SHOWN BY FILING A REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME), BECAUSE BY DOING SO WHAT EFFECTIVELY IS DO NE IS TO CHANGE/MODIFY THE DISCLOSURES ALREADY MADE. IN THIS CONTEXT, USEFUL R EFERENCE CAN BE MADE TO HON'BLE SUPREME COURT'S JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF GOETZ (INDI A) LTD. (284 ITR 323)(SC), WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT A RETURN OF INCOME CANNOT BE REVIS ED BY WAY OF FILING A LETTER. IT HAS ALSO BEEN HELD BY HON'BLE APEX COURT THAT THE REVIS ION OF RETURN IS NOT VALID IF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO ESTABLISH INADVERTENT MISTA KE OR OMISSION IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED (G.C. AGARWAL 186 ITR 571 SC). RELYING UPON T HIS DECISION, HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PREMPAL GANDHI (3 35 ITR 23) HELD THAT ARE VISION OF INCOME, WHICH WAS NOT PATENT OMISSION OR MISTAKE , WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE. AS A MATTER OF FACT THE FILING OF LETTER OFFERING AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS NOTHING BUT THE CHANGE OF OPINION ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO MAKE GOOD O F THE DELIBERATE SUPPRESSION OF THE MATERIAL FACTS NOT SHOWN EARLIER AND HENCE IT IS CL EAR THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO 9 ITA NOS.3438 TO 3443/DEL/2017 ESTABLISH INADVERTENT MISTAKE OR OMISSION IN ORIGIN AL RETURN. AS HAS BEEN HELD IN THE CASE OF G.C. AGARWAL, 186 ITR 571 SC, IT IS AN ESSE NTIAL REQUIREMENT TO BE SATISFIED BEFORE REVISING THE RETURN OR COMPUTATION. 4.8.2 IN SUPPORT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 TO 2010-11, A GIRDAWARI OF LAND AT PUNJAB KHOR WAS FIL ED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. HOWEVER, SOME DISCREPANCIES ARE NOTICED THEREIN. IN THE SAID GIRDAWARI, THE LAND IS RECORDED AS SELF CULTIVATED BY THE PATWARI WHO PREP ARED THE SAME, WHEREAS, THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED IT TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN FOR CUL TIVATION ON 'BATAI' TO ONE SH. RAKESH KUMAR, WHOSE CONFIRMATIONS/CERTIFICATES WERE ALSO FILED BEFORE THE AO. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATES, FOLLOWING DISCREPANCIES HAVE BEEN NOTICED: (I) EVERY YEAR THE PAYMENT OF THE MONEY FOR THE LAN D WAS MADE IN ADVANCE, I.E. FOR THE YEAR 2007-08, IT WAS PAID ON 20.05.2007 AND FOR THE YEAR 2008-09, IT WAS PAID ON 15.05.2008 AND SO ON. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT THE F ARMER WOULD PAY THE MONEY IN ADVANCE I.E. IN THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR BEFORE HE HAD SOWN/HARVESTED THE CROPS. (II) ALL THE CERTIFICATES, THOUGH PREPARED WITH A G AP OF ONE YEAR APPROX, ARE WRITTEN IN IDENTICAL LANGUAGE. (III) ON PERUSAL OF THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATES IT WA S SEEN THAT THE FLOW OF THE HANDWRITING, INK AND THE PAPER OF ALL THE CERTIFICA TES ARE IDENTICAL. (IV) THERE IS NO LEASE AGREEMENT FOR GIVING THE AGR ICULTURAL LAND. (V) THERE NO MENTION OF DATE OF TAKING THE LAND ON LEASE OR FOR THAT MATTER THE DATE OF HANDING OVER THE MONEY IN ANY OF THE CERTIFICATE S, (VI) NO DETAILS OF THE CROP ARE MENTIONED IN THE CE RTIFICATES, (VII) COMPLETE NAME/ADDRESS OF THE CULTIVATOR IS N OT MENTIONED. (VIII) IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD AS TO WHY A FANNER FRO M A FAR OFF PLACE LIKE RAEBARELIE WOULD COME TO TAKE A LAND ON LEASE. (IX) THE SAID LAND AT PUNJAB KHOR WAS SOLD BY THE APPELLANT IN THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2009, YET AN AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS.2,00,000/- HAS BEEN SHOWN FOR EIGHT MONTHS WHICH IS MORE THAN WHAT WAS SHOWN IN THE EAR LIER YEARS COMPRISING OF FULL 12 MONTHS. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCREPANCIES, WHEN TESTED ON THE ANVIL OF HON'BLE APEX COURT'S DECISION IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL (214 I TR 801), THIS EVIDENCE IS NOT FOUND CREDIBLE. 4.8.3 AS REGARDS THE ENTRY IN THE COLUMN IN RESPECT OF THE NAME OF THE CULTIVATOR BEING 'SELF CULTIVATED', THE ID. AR IN THE REJOINDE R SUBMITTED THAT 'THE PATWARI ONLY SEES AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION WHETHER LAND IS CULTIVATE D OR NOT AND HE DOES NOT CHECK THE FACT THAT THE LAND IS CULTIVATED BY SOME OTHER PERS ON OR THE OWNER,' THIS CONTENTION WHICH DOUBTED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE LAND RECORDS A ND THE PERFORMANCE OF THE OFFICIAL DUTIES BY THE PATWARI, A PUBLIC AUTHORITY, IS NOT A CCEPTABLE AS IT IS A WELL KNOW FACT THAT ALL THE ENTRIES IN THE LAND RECORDS ARE MADE A FTER DUE VERIFICATION BY THE LAND REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 4.8.4 NOT ONLY THIS, THERE ARE CONTRADICTIONS IN TH E SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AS FAR AS THE FACTS OF RETURNING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME I S CONCERNED. AS PER CHART ATTACHED WITH THE SUBMISSION DATED 07.12.2016, IT WAS MENTIO NED THAT AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS SHOWN IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEARS 2008-09 TO 2010-11 WHEREAS, AS PER THE CHART ATTACHED WITH THE SUBMISS ION DATED 14.12.2016, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE SAME WAS NOT SHOWN FOR THE SAID YEARS IN BOTH THE RETURNS FILED I.E. U/S 139(1) AND U/S 153A. 4.8.5 IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCREPANCIES, THE G IRDAWARI FILED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS NOT TAKEN ON RECORD AND THE CONFIRMATIO NS/CERTIFICATES FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN SUPPORT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME ARE NOT FOUND CREDIBLE EVIDENCES. 10 ITA NOS.3438 TO 3443/DEL/2017 4.8.6 THE FAILURE OF THE APPELLANT TO NOT TO SHOW A GRICULTURAL INCOME AT THE TIME OF FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139 FOR THREE AS SESSMENT YEARS I.E. 2008-09 TO 2010-11 GOES TO SHOW THAT SHE CLEARLY DID NOT HAVE ANY GENUINE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE INFERENCE THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT HAVE ANY A GRICULTURAL INCOME GETS SUPPORTED AGAIN BY THE APPELLANT'S FAILURE TO SHOW IT IN THE RETURNS FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153A OF THE ACT, AS IT IS IMPROBABLE THA T A GENUINE INCOME WHICH OTHERWISE ALSO WAS EXEMPT WOULD NOT BE OFFERED IN THE RETURN, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE SAME WAS SHOWN IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS FOR WHICH RETURNS U/S 153A WERE SIMULTANEOUSLY FILED. 4.8.7 THE ACT OF THE APPELLANT OF HAVING FAILED TO REFLECT AGRICULTURAL INCOME ON TWO EARLIER OCCASIONS I.E. IN THE RETURNS FILED U/S 139 (1) AND THEN U/S 153A AND STILL MAKING AN ATTEMPT TO OFFER IT BY WAY OF LETTER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IS NOTHING BUT AN AFTERTHOUGHT. DESPERATE ATTEMPT OF T HE APPELLANT TO OFFER OTHERWISE TAX EXEMPT AGRICULTURAL INCOME PARTICULARLY WHEN, AS CO NTENDED, THE SAME WAS NOT USED TO EXPLAIN AN UNACCOUNTED ASSET, MAKES ONE EASILY I NFER THAT SUCH ATTEMPT OF THE APPELLANT IS PROBABLY AIMED AT CLAIMING AT A LATER STAGE AN EXEMPTION/DEDUCTION U/S 548 WHICH WAS CLAIMED ON SALE OF LAND AT PUNJAB KHOR IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, WHERE AN INDISPENSABLE REQUIREMENT UNDER T HE LAW IS ACTUAL USER OF THE LAND FOR AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS/PURPOSES. 4.8.8 THE CHAIN OF EVENTS NOTICED I.E. NON-RETURNIN G OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED; NON-DISCLOSURE OF AGRICULTUR AL INCOME EVEN IN THE RETURN FILED U/S 153A; FAILURE OF THE APPELLANT TO RAISE THE APPROPR IATE GROUND AT THE TIME OF FILING OF THE APPEAL, APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS IN THE CONTE NTION OF THE APPELLANT VIS-A-VIS THE REVENUE RECORDS (SHOWING THE LAND TO BE SELF-CULTIV ATED), CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN THE APPELLANT'S OWN SUBMISSION (I.E. AS PER LETTER DATE D 07.12.2016 IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS SHOWN IN THE RETURNS WHEREA S AS PER LETTER DATED 14.12.2016 IT WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN NOT SHOWN IN RETURNS U/S 139(1) AND 153A), ABSENCE ON RECORD OF ANY LEASE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE A PPELLANT WITH THE FARMER, AND A PRESUMPTION OF PUBLIC RECORDS BEING CORRECT, TRUE A ND CONCLUSIVE GETS ATTRACTED. ALL THE ABOVE CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE PRAYER OF THE APPEL LANT LACKS BONAFIDE AND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT APPROACHED THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS WITH CLEAN HANDS. IN VIEW OF THIS THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN TREATING THE AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS UPHELD AND THE GROUND NOS. 2 OF THE APPE ALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10 ARE REJECTED. 4.9 NOW COMING THE GROUND IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 TO 2013-14, IT IS SEEN THA T FOR THESE YEARS, THOUGH THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS SHOWN IN BOTH THE RETURNS I .E. U/S 139(1) AND U/S 153(A), BUT THE RETURNS U/S 139( 1) WERE FILED AFTER THE DATE OF THE SEARCH. TH US, I FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE ID. AO THAT THIS WAS AN AFTERTHOUGH T. 4.9.1 FOR CHALLENGING THE ADDITION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 TO 2014-15, THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED UPON CONFIRMATIONS/CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY ONE SH. PRAVIN. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID CE RTIFICATES IN ORIGINAL, ALL THE DISCREPANCIES AS WERE FOUND IN RESPECT OF THE CERTI FICATES ISSUED BY SH. RAKESH KUMAR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 TO 2010-11, WERE N OTICED. ALL SUCH DISCREPANCIES HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED IN PARA 4.8.2 SUPRA AND ARE, TH EREFORE, NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. IN VIEW OF SUCH DISCREPANCIES, THE SAID CERTIFICATES ARE NOT FOUND TO BE CREDIBLE EVIDENCES, WHEN TESTED ON THE ANVIL OF THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL (214 ITR 801). 4.9.2 OTHER THAN THE AFORESAID CERTIFICATES, WHICH CARRY NUMBER OF DISCREPANCIES, NO OTHER EVIDENCE LIKE A COPY OF LEASE AGREEMENT FOR L EASING THE LAND, A COPY OF GIRDAWARI OR KHASRA KHATUNI, WERE PRODUCED BY THE A PPELLANT THE FACT THAT THE 11 ITA NOS.3438 TO 3443/DEL/2017 RETURNS U/S 139(1) WHERE THE ALLEGED AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS SH OWN WERE FILED AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH ALSO RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME, UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I DO NOT FIND AN Y REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO, WHOSE ACTION IS CONFIRMED. ACC ORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS NOS. 2 AND 3 OF THE APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 TO 2014-15 ARE DISMISSED. 11. SO FAR AS CAPITAL GAIN ON SINGAPORE PROPERTY IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE FILED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AS WELL AS CERTAIN ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCES. THE LD. CIT(A) FORWARDED THOSE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AS WELL AS ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCES TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS COMMENTS. AFTER CONSIDER ING THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE ADDITION AL EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE HIM AND UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN M AKING THE ADDITION OF RS.75,24,990/- BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 5.7 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE SUBM ISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT, THE REMAND REPORTS FURNISHED BY THE LD. AO AND THE REJO INDER THERETO, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON RECORD AND THE POSITION OF THE LAW. THE APPELLAN T VIDE HER LETTER DATED 29.09.2016 RAISED THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS: '(A) THE ID. AO HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN AD DING A SUM OF RS. 75,24,990/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED CAPITAL GAINS EAR NED ON PURPORTED SALE OF PROPERTY BEARING NO.383 TANGLING ROAD, 06-06 TANGLING REGENCY, SINGAPORE 247966. (B) THAT THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN MAKING THE AFORESA ID ADDITION WITHOUT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT AND MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY BEF ORE MAKING THIS ADDITION. 5.8 THE FACTS IN SHORT RELEVANT TO THE AFORESAID AD DITIONAL GROUNDS ARE THAT IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION TOO K PLACE WHEREIN DOCUMENTS INDICATING EXISTENCE OF ONE (IMPUGNED ABOVE) PROPER TY AT SINGAPORE CONNECTED WITH THE APPELLANT WERE RECOVERED. THE INVESTIGATING OFF ICER DURING THE SEARCH SPECIFICALLY QUESTIONED THE APPELLANT ABOUT THIS PROPERTY BUT SH E CATEGORICALLY DENIED HER RELATIONSHIP/OWNERSHIP WITH/OF THE SAID PROPERTY. A GAIN DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO VIDE HIS LETTER DATE D 16.03.2016 SPECIFICALLY QUESTIONED THE APPELLANT ON THIS ISSUE, BUT SHE AGA IN DENIED HAVING EVER PURCHASED THE SAID PROPERTY. THE ONLY REPLY FILED WAS THAT ON E PROPOSAL DID COME TO HER BUT IT DID NOT MATERIALISE. THE ID. AO TOOK UP THE MATTER WITH THE SINGAPORE AUTHORITIES (THROUGH FT & TR UNIT OF CBDT) AND IN REPLY, THE SI NGAPORE AUTHORITIES INFORMED THAT THE ABOVE REFERRED TO PROPERTY WAS SOLD BY SMT . NAINTARA BHATI TO SMT. ARUNA GURJAR FOR 5 LAC SGD. THE SAID PROPERTY WAS IN TURN SOLD BY HER (THE APPELLANT) AT RS.7,80,OOO/- SGD. DESPITE HAVING BEEN AFFORDED TWO OPPORTUNITIES (I.E. ON 16.03.2016 AND AGAIN ON 22.03.2016), THE APPELLANT CHOSE NOT TO FILE ANY REPLY BEFORE THE ID. AO. TAKING NOTE OF THE FAILURE OF THE APPEL LANT TO AVAIL THE OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN 12 ITA NOS.3438 TO 3443/DEL/2017 BY HIM, THE LD. AO BROUGHT THE CAPITAL GAINS TO TAX AS ARISING OUT OF THE SALE OF THE ABOVE PROPERTY FOR RS.7,80,000/- SGD, WHICH HE WORK ED OUT AT RS.75,24,990/-. 5.9 IN SUPPORT OF HER CLAIM FOR ADMISSION OF THE AD DITIONAL GROUNDS THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER: (I) DUE TO PERSONAL AND FINANCIAL PROBLEMS, SHE WAS UNABLE TO CONCENTRATE ON THE TAX PROCEEDINGS WHICH WERE GOING ON BEFORE THE AO; (II) THE AO DID NOT AFFORD MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY T O HER, (III) ASR. TAX COUNSEL ADVISED THAT PROPERTY DOES N OT BELONG TO HER AND THEREFORE, NOT TAXABLE AND HENCE THE GROUND MANIFESTING FROM T HE RECORDS CAN BE TAKEN. (IV) THE OMISSION TO TAKE THE GROUND IS NEITHER WIL FUL NOR UNREASONABLE. FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE PROPERTY W AS KEPT IN TRUST FOR HER SISTER DUE TO MARITAL DISCORD IN HER FAMILY. 5.10 BEFORE ADVERTING TO THE ADJUDICATION, IT IS RE LEVANT TO MENTION HERE THAT FOR ALLOWING ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND U/S 250(5), THE CIT(A) IS DUTY BOUND TO RECORD A SATISFACTION THAT THE OMISSION OF THE GROU ND FROM THE FORM OF APPEAL WAS NOT WILFUL OR UNREASONABLE. THUS, THE ISSUE OF ADDITION AL GROUND HAS TO BE TESTED ON THE ANVIL OF SECTION 250(5) IN THE SENSE THAT, ONLY WHE N THE OMISSION WAS NOT WILFUL OR UNREASONABLE, IT CAN BE ENTERTAINED, OTHERWISE NOT. ALL ALONG (DURING THE SEARCH AS WELL AS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS), THERE W ERE DENIALS BY THE APPELLANT QUA THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SINGAPORE PROPERTY. THE F AILURE OF THE APPELLANT TO FILE A REPLY TO THE AO'S SPECIFIC QUERIES ON THE REPORT RE CEIVED FROM SINGAPORE AUTHORITIES, WHEREIN THEY HAD CONFIRMED OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERT Y BY THE APPELLANT, GOES TO SHOW THAT THE OMISSION ON THE APPELLANT'S PART IN NOT RA ISING THIS GROUND ORIGINALLY IN THE APPEAL FORM N0.35 WAS WILFUL. AS ALREADY INDICATED, DESPITE HAVING BE EN ASSOCIATED WITH THE AFORESAID SINGAPORE PROPERTY, CONSTANT DEN IAL OR FAILURE TO FILE REPLY TO THE ID. AO'S SPECIFIC QUERY ALSO SHOWS THAT OMISSION TO TAKE GROUND TO THIS EFFECT IN APPEAL FORM WAS NOT ONLY WILFUL BUT UNREASONABLE ALSO. FOR FAILURE OF THE APPELLANT TO SATISFY THE TEST PRESCRIBED U/S 250(5), THE ADDITIONAL GROU NDS RAISED MUCH AFTER HAVING FILED THE APPEAL CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO BE ENTERTAINED. THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO RAKE UP THE STALE ISSUE OF SINGAPORE PROPERTY WHICH GOT SETTLED BY EFFLUX OF TIME. 5.11 IT IS ALSO NOT UNDERSTOOD AS TO WHY THE APPELL ANT DID NOT MAKE ANY MENTION IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS THAT THE SINGAPORE PROPERTY WAS IN FACT OWNED BY SMT. NAINTARA BHATI AND NOT BY HER. THIS FAILURE ALSO SH OWS THAT DEFINITELY THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. AO DULY SUPPORTED BY THE SINGAP ORE AUTHORITIES' REPORT WERE CORRECT IF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ARE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL (SUPRA), IT WILL BECOME VERY OBVIOUS THAT SUBSEQUENT RAKING UP OF THIS ISSUE IS NOTHING BUT AN AFTER THOUGHT, CHANGE OF OPINION AND FAR FROM BEING TRUE. HAD THE APPELLANT NOT BEEN THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY OR HAD THE PROPERTY BEEN OWNED BY SMT. NAINTARA BHATI, THE APPELLANT SHOULD HAVE DISCLOSED THESE MATERIAL FACTS BEFORE T HE AO OR THE INVESTIGATION WING AT THE VERY FIRST INSTANCE. THE EVIDENCES GATHERED DUR ING THE SEARCH INDICATED OTHERWISE AND THAT IS WHY THE APPELLANT TOOK HER CHANCE TO MA INTAIN SILENCE PROBABLY THINKING THAT THE REVENUE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO GATHER CLINCH ING EVIDENCES TO THIS EFFECT BECAUSE THE PROPERTY WAS LOCATED IN A FOREIGN TERRI TORY OVER WHICH THE AO HAD NO JURISDICTION TO MAKE INQUIRIES ETC. SUBSEQUENT FACT S/EVIDENCES GATHERED REVEALED THAT THE APPELLANT IN FACT OWNED THE PROPERTY. THE INFOR MATION PROVIDED BY THE SINGAPORE AUTHORITIES HAS TO BE GIVEN PRECEDENCE OVER THE SUB SEQUENT EVIDENCES (SWORN AFFIDAVIT ETC. OF SMT. NAINTARA BHATI, ADVOCATE ETC.) PRODUCE D BY THE APPELLANT. THE SAID EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT ARE NOTHING BUT A DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO BELIE THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY. ALL THE SE EVIDENCES PRODUCED NOW WHEN 13 ITA NOS.3438 TO 3443/DEL/2017 TESTED ON THE ANVIL OF THE SUPREME COURT'S JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL (SUPRA), FAIL TO ENTHUSE CONFIDENCE IN SO FAR AS TH EIR GENUINENESS AND RELIABILITY IS CONCERNED. EXPLANATION NOW FILED THAT BECAUSE OF V ERY PERSONAL AND FINANCIAL REASONS THESE WERE NOT PRODUCED EARLIER, IN MY VIEW , ARE TOO VAGUE TO ACCEPT. NOT ONLY THAT NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE ALLEGED PER SONAL AND FINANCIAL REASONS HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD, BUT ALSO NO EVIDENCE IN SUP PORT OF THE ALLEGED MARITAL DISCORD IN THE FAMILY OF SMT. NAYANTARA BHATI HAS B EEN FURNISHED. ADMITTEDLY NO OTHER PROPERTY EXCEPT THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY WAS ALLENIETE D DUE TO THE SO CALLED MARITAL DISPUTE, 5.12 THIS APART, IT IS CONSIDERED RELEVANT TO DEAL WITH THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT BY VIRTUE OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUP REME COURT IN NTPC LTD. (SUPRA), THE ADDITIONAL GROUND NEEDS TO BE ENTERTAINED. WHIL E PLACING RELIANCE ON THIS JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT, THE APPELLANT HAS FA ILED TO REALIZE THAT THIS WAS THE JUDGMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF RAKING UP OF THE ADDITIO NAL GROUND BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND NOT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHOSE POWER T O ENTER INTO THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IS VERY LIMITED IN THE SENSE THAT, ONLY ON SATISFAC TION OF TWO CONDITIONS AS MENTIONED U/S 250(5), IT CAN BE ENTERTAINED AND OTHERWISE NOT . THIS APART, THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE QUESTION WHETHER THE APPELLANT WAS CONNECTED WITH THE SINGAPORE PROPERTY OR NOT OR WHETHER SHE WAS OWNING THE PROPERTY OR NOT ARE PURE QUESTIONS OF FACT ESPECIALLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE UN IMPEACHED REPORT OF THE SINGAPORE AUTHORITIES WHERE THEY HAVE CLEARLY CERTIFIED THE A PPELLANT TO HAVE OWNED THE ABOVE PROPERTY. SINCE, THE ISSUE IS PURELY OF FACTS, EVEN WITH THE AID OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF NTPC LTD. IT CANNOT BE ALLO WED TO BE RAKED UP PRECISELY BECAUSE THE SAID JUDGMENT CAN BE PRESSED INTO SERVI CE ONLY WHEN THE QUESTION IS FOUND TO BE PURELY OF LAW, 5.13 THE SOLITARY REASON GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS PRAYER FOR ADMISSION OF THE ADDITION GROUNDS IS THAT 'THAT THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN MAKING THE AFORESAID ADDITION WITHOUT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT AND MEANINGFUL OPPORTU NITY BEFORE MAKING THIS ADDITION.' AS AGAINST THIS AS DEMONSTRATED ABOVE, T HE AO HAD GIVEN MULTIPLE OPPORTUNITIES TO THE APPELLANT BUT ALL THESE OPPORT UNITIES WERE CONSCIOUSLY NOT AVAILED OF. THE ATTEMPT OF THE APPELLANT TO AVER T HAT WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION, THE AO HAD NOT PROVIDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES, IS NO THING SHORT OF JUST PUTTING BLINKERS ON THE EYES, AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE ARGU MENT OF THE APPELLANT GETS BELIED ON THE VERY FACE OF IT AND HENCE FOR THIS REASON AL SO THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IS REQUIRED TO BE DISMISSED AND IT IS ACCORDINGLY REJE CTED AS 'NOT ADMITTED'. 5.14 SINCE THE VERY ADDITIONAL GROUND IS DISMISSED AS 'NOT ADMITTED', THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES INTRODUCED U/R 46A HOVERING AR OUND THE SINGAPORE PROPERTY BECOME MEANINGLESS OR INCONSEQUENTIAL AND HENCE THE Y ARE NOT TAKEN ON RECORDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRESENT ADJUDICATION. 5.15 ABOVE APART, IF THE APPELLANT'S VIEW FOR ARGUM ENT'S SAKE IS CONSIDERED IT WILL BECOME APPARENT THAT BY ADDUCING EVIDENCES FOR THE FIRST TIME (BEING DECLARATION BY SMT. NAINTARA BHATI, DISSOLUTION OF TRUST DEED, TRU ST DEED ETC.) NOW IN APPEAL, IT WILL TANTAMOUNT TO MAKING OUT A NEW CASE AS AGAINST THE CASE WHICH WAS THERE BEFORE THE AO. HAVING FAILED TO ADDUCED EVIDENCES BEFORE THE L D. AO THAT TOO WHEN SUFFICIENT TIME AND OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN, IN MY VIEW, THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO MAKE OUT A NEW CASE IN APPEAL ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FR OM WHAT WAS MADE OUT BEFORE THE AO BECAUSE INHERENTLY IN APPEAL IT IS THE FINDING O F THE AO WHICH NEEDS TO BE SHOWN AS NOT BEING CORRECT IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE LEGAL POSITION AS BROUGHT BEFORE HIM (THE AO). AS HELD BY PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PUNJAB FEED MILLS (228 ITR 386, 94 TAXMAN 405), GRIEVANCE CAN BE RAISED AGAINST 14 ITA NOS.3438 TO 3443/DEL/2017 THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND IF MATTER WAS NEVER CONTESTED ON A PARTICULAR ISSUE BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITY, NO GROUNDS CAN LEGITI MATELY BE RAISED BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. FURTHER REFERENCE CAN BE MADE TO HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT'S JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF C.K. GOPINATH VS CIT (260 I TR 213), WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT ALTERNATIVE PLEA (LIKE THAT THE PROPERTY WAS HELD B Y HER IN TRUST ETC.) NOT RAISED BEFORE AO CANNOT BE CONSIDERED IN APPEAL. LAW IS WELL SETT LED AS HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT IN CHEVALIER I IYYAPPAN V. DHARMODAHYAM CO. {AIR 1966 SC 1017}, THAT A PARTY CANNOT CHANGE ITS STAND AND MAKE A NEW CASE AT APPE LLATE STAGE WHICH WAS NEVER RAISED EARLIER. FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE ADDITION AL GROUNDS AS WELL AS THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEING INTRODUCED IN APPEAL ARE HEREBY REJ ECTED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.75,24,990/- IS NOT TINKERED WITH. 12. SO FAR AS UNEXPLAINED COST OF CONSTRUCTION IS C ONCERNED, LD. CIT(A) ALSO UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSER VING AS UNDER :- 6.4 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE SUBM ISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON RECORD AND THE POSITION OF THE LAW. THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN CAPITAL GAINS IN RESPECT OF A LAND AT DERA. WHILE C OMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS, THE APPELLANT CLAIMED DEDUCTION TOWARDS COST OF ACQUISI TION AS WELL AS TOWARDS THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT BEING INDEXED COST OF CONSTRUCTION CARR IED OUT. THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION UNDER TAKEN IS SHOWN TO BE IN FOUR ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. FROM AY 2006-07 TO AY 2009-10. AS SUBMITTED, THIS COST OF CONSTRUCTION IS TOWARDS THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BOUNDARY WALL AROUND THE LAND AND IS SAID TO BE COV ERED UNDER SECTION 48 R.W. CLAUSE 2(II) OF SECTION 55 OF THE ACT. 6.5 SINCE IT IS THE APPELLANT WHO IS CLAIMING THE D EDUCTION OF THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT, THEREFORE, UNDER THE LAW, IT IS HER EX CLUSIVE BURDEN TO PROVE IT BY ADDUCING NECESSARY EVIDENCES TO THIS EFFECT THAT SH E DID INCUR THIS COST ON THE SAID IMPROVEMENT. IT IS SEEN THAT DESPITE THERE BEING CL EAR BURDEN ON HER TO PROVE HER CASE WITH REQUISITE EVIDENCES, THE APPELLANT HAS ONLY GI VEN THE DETAILS/CONFIRMATION OF THE PERSON WHO IS SAID TO HAVE UNDER TAKEN THIS CONSTRU CTION. IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS CONSTRUCTION, THE PAYMENTS (AND PROBABLY THE CONSTR UCTION ALSO) STRANGELY, ARE FOUND TO HAVE CONTINUED FOR MORE THAN FOUR LONG YEARS THA T TOO THE PAYMENTS BEING MOSTLY IN CASH. IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD AS TO WHY THE CONSTRUCTI ON OF MERELY A BOUNDARY WALL TOOK SUCH A LONG PERIOD. IT IS INCOMPREHENSIBLE AS TO WH Y, TO ATTACH CREDIBILITY TO HER CLAIM, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR HER TO MAKE PAYMENTS BY CHE QUE. THIS APART, IT IS SEEN THAT EVEN THE MEASUREMENT DETAILS OF THE BOUNDARY WALL S O CONSTRUCTED LIKE THE WIDTH, HEIGHT, LENGTH ETC. HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN. EVEN OTHER RELEVANT DETAILS LIKE; WHETHER IT WAS REQUIRED TO PLASTERED OR WHETHER IT WAS REQUIRE D TO BE BARBED ETC. ARE NOT GIVEN. IT IS IN THE COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT FOR A CONSTRUCTI ON OF THIS MAGNITUDE WHICH LASTED FOR MORE THAN FOUR YEARS AND ON WHICH ALLEGEDLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.54 LAKHS (APPROX.) WAS INCURRED, A WRITTEN AGREEMENT WHICH SPELLS OUT ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS LIKE THE RATE, THE PERIOD TO BE TAKEN FOR CONSTRUCTION ETC W AS NOT REQUIRED. IT IS SURPRISING THAT A COPY OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO WITH THE C ONTRACTOR HAS NOT BEEN MADE AVAILABLE. THE COPIES OF THE RUNNING BILL AS FILED BY THE CONTRACTOR, WHICH WOULD HAVE GIVEN DATE-WISE AND QUALITY WISE CONSTRUCTION, HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN FILED. 6.6 IN THE ABSENCE OF ALL THESE DETAILS, WHICH WERE VERY GERMANE TO THE ISSUE, THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT/ CONSTRUCTION IS FOUND TO BE BALD. AS 15 ITA NOS.3438 TO 3443/DEL/2017 A MATTER OF FACT, THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT WHEN T ESTED ON THE ANVIL OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL (214 IT R 801) FAILS TO QUALIFY AS A GENUINE AND ALLOWABLE CLAIM U/S 55(2)(II) R.W.S. 48 OF THE ACT, BECAUSE IT IS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE THAT; (I) THE APPELLANT WOULD UNDERTAKE CONSTRUCTION WITH OUT ENTERING INTO ANY CONTRACT; (II) THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SIMPLE BOUNDARY WALL WO ULD TAKE A LONG PERIOD OF MORE THAN FOUR YEARS. (III) THE APPELLANT WOULD NOT BE IN A POSITION TO M AKE PAYMENTS BY CHEQUE; (IV) THE CONTRACTOR WOULD CLAIM PAYMENTS WITHOUT DR AWING RUNNING QUANTITY BILLS ETC; (V) THE APPELLANT WOULD AWARD CONTRACT WITHOUT SPEC IFYING THE TYPE OF THE BOUNDARY WALL (WHETHER BARBED OR OTHERWISE ETC.) TO BE CONSTRUCTED. 6.7 FURTHER, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A, VIDE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 18.03.2016, THE ID. AO CONFRONTED THE ASSESSE E AS REGARDS THE EXISTENCE OF THE BOUNDARY STATING THAT 'IN THE SALE DEED THERE IS NO MENTION OF ANY STRUCTURE SITUATED ON THE SAID LAND'. THIS FINDING OF THE LD. AO REMAINED UNREBUTTED. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS, WHERE A COPY OF THE SALE DE ED EXECUTED ON 30.09.2008 IN RESPECT OF DERA LAND BY THE APPELLANT IS KEPT AND F IND THAT NO WHERE THE EXISTENCE OF THE BOUNDARY WALL ON THE SAID LAND HAS BEEN MENTION ED, NOT ONLY THIS, IN THE 'FORM-A' WHICH IS A PART OF THE SALE DEED, THE YEAR OF CONST RUCTION AND THE NATURE OF CONSTRUCTION IS MENTIONED AS 'NIL', IN THE RESPECTI VE COLUMNS. THIS ALSO PROVES THAT NO BOUNDARY WALL EXISTED ON THE SAID LAND AT DERA. 6.8 THUS, ON BEING TESTED ON THE ANVIL OF THE SUPRE ME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL(SUPRA), THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT FAILS TO QUALIFY AS PROVED AND HENCE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DENYING THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT IS UPHELD. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NOS. 3 OF THE APPEALS FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ARE DISMISSED. RESULTANTLY, THE GROUND NOS. 4 OF THE AFORESAID TWO APPEALS ALSO STAND REJECTED. 13. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), TH E ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUND S :- 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) PASSED U/S 25 0 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 75,24,990/- MADE BY THE LD. AO ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED CAPITAL GA IN ON SALE OF SINGAPORE PROPERTY PARTICULARLY WHEN IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHING THE FACT THAT THE SAID PROPERTY DID NOT BELONG TO HER, NOR WAS PAID FOR BY HER WAS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ADMITTING T HE ADDITIONAL GROUND TAKEN U/S 250 (5) OF THE I. T ACT AND ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FI LED UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF CAPITAL GAIN ON SINGAPORE PROPERTY DESPITE THE FOLLOWING; A. THE APPELLANT WAS ABLE TO SATISFY THE CRITERIA O F REASONABLE CAUSE AND NO WILLFUL INTENTION IN RESPECT OF OMISSION OF ADDI TIONAL GROUNDS AND FAILURE TO FILE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. 16 ITA NOS.3438 TO 3443/DEL/2017 B. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE JUDG EMENT IN THE CASE OF SHAHRUKH KHAN VS. DCIT [2007] 13 SOT 61 (MUMBAI) WH EREBY IT WAS HELD THAT 'AFTER CALLING OF REMAND REPORT ON MERIT AS CO NTEMPLATED IN SUB-RULE (3) OF RULE 46A, COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) WAS PRECLUDED W ITH HIS DISCRETION FOR REFUSING TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE' C. THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AND ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AFTER HAVING DISCUSSED THE IMP UGNED ISSUE IN MORE THAN TEN HEARINGS AND HAVING ACCEPTED AND DISCUSSED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE AND REMAND REPORTS BY THE LD. AO. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT DECIDING TH E ISSUE PARTICULARLY WHEN ALL THE EVIDENCES, FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS RELATING TO TH E ADDITION OF RS.75,24,990/- WERE BEFORE HIM AND THIS ACT TANTAMOUNT ABDICATION OF HI S ROLE OF A QUASI JUDICIAL APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH IS OTHERWISE T REATED AS EXEMPT INCOME UNDER INCOME TAX ACT. 5.1 THAT THE ADDITION WAS SUSTAINED DESPITE THE FAC T THAT NUMEROUS SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED AND SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES IN FORM OF CERT IFIED KHASRA GIRDAWARI AND CERTIFICATE OF FARMER WERE PROVIDED TO ESTABLISH TH AT THE IMPUGNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS EARNED. 5.2 THAT THE LD. AO AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A) OVERLOOKE D THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT WAS DISCLOSING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN HER RETUR NS FROM PAST YEARS. 6. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.31,84,299/- BEING THE INDEXED COST OF CONSTRUCTION CLAIMED ON S ALE OF DERA LAND. 6.1 THAT THE ADDITION WAS SUSTAINED DESPITE THE FAC T THAT AMOUNT WAS DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT AND NECESSAR Y EVIDENCES AND SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED. 7. THAT THE LD. AO AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A), IN RESPEC T OF ADDITION IN PARA 5 AND 6 (SUPRA), IGNORED THE JUDGEMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL HO NBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V KABUL CHAWLA [2016] 380 ITR 573 (DELHI) WH EREBY IT HAS HELD THAT COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS CAN BE INTERFERED WITH BY THE LD. AO WHILE MAKING ADDITION U/S 153A ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SOME INCRIMINATING MA TERIAL FOUND DURING SEARCH. 8. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS AGAIN ST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 9. THAT THE APPELLANT PRAYS THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL TO AWARD SUITABLE COST OF APPEAL UNDER SUB-SECTION 2B OF SECTION 254 OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 10. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, SUBSTITUTE, DELETE AND MODIFY ANY OR ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WHICH ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER, BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 14. GROUNDS NO.1, 8, 9 AND 10 BEING GENERAL IN NATU RE ARE DISMISSED. 15. GROUND NO.2 TO 4 BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.75,24,990/- MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF SINGAPORE PROPER TY. 17 ITA NOS.3438 TO 3443/DEL/2017 16. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO THE F AMILY CHART AT PAGE 60 OF THE PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED THAT THE SMT. ARUNA CHAUDHARY AND SMT. BHATI NAINTARA ARE RELATIVES. REFERRING TO PAGE 57-58 OF THE PAPE R BOOK, HE SUBMITTED THAT SMT. BHATI NAINTARA IS A PERMANENT RESIDENT OF SINGAPORE SINCE 2001. REFERRING TO MORTGAGE DOCUMENTS AT PAGE 200 TO 207 AND FT&TR REP ORT AT PAGE 221, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SINGAPORE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY SMT. BHATI NAINTARA ON 04 TH JANUARY, 2005 AT SINGAPORE DOLLAR 5,05,000/- BY RA ISING LOAN FROM OCBC BANK, SINGAPORE. HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE SMT. BHAT I NAINTARA WAS HAVING MATRIMONIAL DISPUTE WITH HER HUSBAND IN LATE 2005 A ND EARLY 2006 DURING PREGNANCY OF HER THIRD CHILD, SHE ON ADVICE OF HER LAWYER, MR. S. RASANATHAN, A TRUST WAS CREATED ON 17 TH JANUARY, 2006. REFERRING TO NOTARISED TRUST DEED AT PAGE 190-195 AND CONFIRMATION OF LAWYER AT PAGE NO. 196, HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE TRUST DEED AND SUBMITTED THAT U NDER SINGAPORE TRUST LAW, PRIVATE TRUSTS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE REGISTERED. HE SUBMITTED THAT SINGAPORE PROPERTY WAS REGISTERED ON 17 TH APRIL, 2006. REFERRING TO PAGE 223 TO 230 OF THE PAPER BOOK, HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO T HE PROPERTY REGISTRATION DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE SINGAPORE AUTHORITIES. REFE RRING TO PAGE 221 OF THE PAPER BOOK, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS PURC HASED BY SMT. BHATI NAINTARA FOR SINGAPORE DOLLAR 5,05,000/- AND SHOWN TO BE TRANSFERRED TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER TRUST FOR SINGAPORE DOLLAR 5,00,000/ -. HE SUBMITTED THAT NO MODE OF CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN PROPERT Y REGISTRATION DOCUMENTS 18 ITA NOS.3438 TO 3443/DEL/2017 BECAUSE NO MONEY WAS GIVEN AND AMOUNT OF SINGAPORE DOLLAR 5,00,000/- WAS ONLY MENTIONED TO ENABLE EFFECTIVE TRANSFER. THERE FORE, THE QUESTION OF BANK STATEMENT OF SMT. BHATI NAINTARA DOES NOT ARISE. R EFERRING TO STATUTORY DECLARATION AND AFFIDAVIT OF ASSESSEE AT PAGE 186-1 88 AND 208-211, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY TAXES WERE BORNE BY SMT. BHATI NA INTARA AND POSSESSION WAS REMAINED WITH HER AT ALL TIMES. HE SUBMITTED THAT ON 26 TH DECEMBER, 2007, SINGAPORE PROPERTY SOLD TO THIRD PARTY FOR SINGAPOR E DOLLAR 7,80,000/- ON INSTRUCTIONS OF SMT. BHATI NAINTARA AND THE CONSIDE RATION WAS RECEIVED BY HER IN HER BANK ACCOUNT. FOR THE ABOVE PROPOSITION, HE RE FERRED TO THE CONFIRMATION SENT BY SMT. BHATI NAINTARA THROUGH EMAIL DATED 18. 11.2016 PLACED AT PAGE 120 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS WAS DONE TO SAVE STAMP DUTY. OTHERWISE, THE PROPERTY WOULD HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO SMT. BHATI NAINTARA FIRST AND THEN SOLD TO THE BUYER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE BANK STATEMENT OF SMT. BHATI NAINTARA COULD NOT BE FURNISHED AS BANKS IN SINGAPO RE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO KEEP THE RECORD OF BANKING DATA BEYOND 5 YEARS. HE SUBM ITTED THAT THE TRUST WAS DISSOLVED ON 03 RD JANUARY, 2008. 17. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO PAGE 37 AND 38 OF ANNEXURE 37 SUBMITTED THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WERE CONFRONTED ON 09.03.2016 AND THESE DOCUMENTS WERE UNSIGNED AND CONTRADICTORY AS AT PAG E 37, THE PROPERTY IS MENTIONED AS 303 WHEREAS AT PAGE NO.38, THE PROPERT Y IS MENTIONED AS 383. REFERRING TO PARA 4 AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER AND REPLY DATED 16.03.2016 19 ITA NOS.3438 TO 3443/DEL/2017 AT PAGE NO.218-219, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE AT EVERY STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS WAS DENYING TO OWN THE PROPERTY IN SINGAPORE SINCE THE SAME WAS HELD IN TRUST. REFERRING TO PAGE 220 OF THE PAPER BOOK, HE SUBMITT ED THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 16.03.2016 WAS GROSSLY INCORRECT STATI NG WRONG FACT THAT SALE TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 AND NOT IN 2007-08. FURTHER, SUFFICIENT AND MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT GIVEN WHILE PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 30.03.2016. HE SUBMITTED THAT ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AND ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES RE LATING TO SINGAPORE PROPERTY WERE TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE LETTER D ATED 29.09.2016 WHICH IS AVAILABLE AS PER PAGE 212-216 AND 179-211 OF THE PA PER BOOK. REFERRING TO PAGE 173-178 OF THE PAPER BOOK, HE DREW THE ATTENTI ON OF THE BENCH TO INTERIM REMAND REPORT DATED 19.10.2016 ON ADDITIONAL GROUND S AND ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED. HE SUBMITTED THAT DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS , THE ASSESSING OFFICER VERIFIED EACH AND EVERY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND EXA MINED PASSPORT COPIES OF ASSESSEE TO CONFIRM THE DATE OF VISITS TO SINGAPORE . REFERRING TO PAGE 112-114 OF THE PAPER BOOK, HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BEN CH TO THE FINAL REMAND REPORT DATED 16.11.2016 WHICH WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 23.11.2016. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO VERIFIED AND EXA MINED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND RAISED VARIOUS QUERIES. HOWEVER, FIL ING VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS AND ATTENDING NUMEROUS HEARINGS, LD. CIT(A) REJECTED TH E ADDITIONAL GROUND AS WELL AS THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ON BASELESS AND VAGUE R EASONS AND SUSTAINED THE 20 ITA NOS.3438 TO 3443/DEL/2017 ADDITION OF ALLEGED CAPITAL GAIN. HE SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED ALL FACTS RELATING TO DOCUMENTS AND ASSESS EE HAS FILED ALL PLAUSIBLE EVIDENCE AND SINCE THE AFFIDAVIT AND STATUTORY DECL ARATIONS ARE NOT CONTROVERTED, THEREFORE, NO USEFUL PURPOSE WILL BE SERVED IN SETT ING ASIDE THE MATTER AS NO MORE EVIDENCE IS LIKELY TO BE PRODUCED FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN SECOND INNINGS TO IMPROVE ITS CASE BY SETTING ASIDE. FURTHER, THE REVENUE IS NOT ABLE TO SHOW THAT ANY MONEY HAS CHANGED HANDS OR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ANY BANK ACC OUNT IN SINGAPORE OR THE MODE OF TRANSFER OF MONEY, IF ANY. FURTHER, THE SE IZED DOCUMENTS ARE UNSIGNED AND LOOK LIKE ROUGH DRAFT AND PHOTO COPIES. HE ACC ORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAIN ED BY THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE DELETED. 18. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROVED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS HELD BY SMT. BHATI NAINTARA FROM 28.12.2004 TO 16.04.2006 A ND WAS SOLD TO THE ASSESSEE AT A PRICE OF SINGAPORE DOLLAR 5,00,000/- WHO HELD THE PROPERTY FROM 17.04.2006 TO 26.12.2007 AND FURTHER SOLD THE SAME FOR THE CON SIDERATION OF SINGAPORE DOLLAR 7,80,000/-. FURTHER, THE PROPERTY TAXES AMO UNTING TO SINGAPORE DOLLAR 3380 WERE ALSO PAID. THE ASSESSEE, AS PER ANNEXURE , A-8, HAS ALSO PAID COMMISSION OF SINGAPORE DOLLAR 8346 TO ERA REALITIE S NETWORK PTE. LTD. FOR ARRANGING THE BUYER FOR SELLING THE PROPERTY. HE S UBMITTED THAT THE VARIOUS 21 ITA NOS.3438 TO 3443/DEL/2017 SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALL AFTERTHOUG HT. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCES WHICH WERE EXAMINED BY THE LD . CIT(A) BEFORE UPHOLDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SINC E THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY OTHER EVIDENCE TO NEGATE THE FINDINGS G IVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE UPHELD AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE DISMIS SED. 19. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE PAPER B OOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPER ATION AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 11.09.2013 AND 17.09.2013 SEIZED DOCUME NTS BEING PAGE 37-38, ANNEXURE A-8 WAS FOUND WHICH ACCORDING TO THE REVEN UE SHOWS THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN SINGAP ORE FOR WHICH COMMISSION WAS ALSO PAID WITH REGARD TO THE TRANSACTIONS. DUR ING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ON BEING CONFRONTED WITH THE ABOVE DOC UMENTS, THE ASSESSEE DENIED TO HAVE MADE ANY SUCH INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY AT SINGAPORE. AS PER THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM FT&TR, THE PROPERTY MENTI ONED IN THE SAID SEIZED PAPERS WAS HELD BY SMT. BHATI NAINTARA FROM 28.12.2 004 TO 16.12.2006 AND SOLD THE SAME TO ARUNA GUJJAR AT A PRICE OF SINGAPORE DO LLAR 5,00,000/- AND WAS HELD BY HER FROM 17.04.2008 TO 26.12.2007. AS PER THE S AID REPORT, THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD BY ARUNA GUJJAR AT SALE CONSIDERATION OF SINGA PORE DOLLAR 7,80,000/-. AS PER THE SAID INFORMATION, PROPERTY TAXES FOR THE SA ID WAS ALSO PAID BY THE 22 ITA NOS.3438 TO 3443/DEL/2017 ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PAID A COMMISSION OF RS.8346 SINGAPORE DOLLAR TO ERA REALTY NETWORK PTE. LTD. FOR ARRANGING THE B UYER FOR SALE OF PROPERTY BEARING NO.383, TANGLING ROAD # 06-06 TANGLING REGE NCY, SINGAPORE. WE FIND SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE WITH EVID ENCE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE PROPERTY DOES NOT BELONG TO HER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER BROUGHT TO TAX AN AMOUNT OF RS.75,24,990/- BEING TH E CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF SINGAPORE PROPERTY, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE ALREAD Y GIVEN EARLIER. WE FIND THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER, THE REASONS FOR WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT SUFFICIENT AND MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT PROVIDED BY PASSING THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER ON 30.03.2016. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAD HELD THE PROPERTY AS A TR USTEE AND WAS NEVER THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. IT IS ALSO HIS SUBMISSION THAT NO MODE OF CONSIDERATION WAS MENTIONED IN THE PROPERTY REGISTRATION DOCUMENTS BE CAUSE NO MONEY WAS GIVEN AND AMOUNT OF SINGAPORE DOLLAR 5,00,000/- WAS ONLY MENTIONED TO ENABLE EFFECTIVE TRANSFER. IT IS ALSO HIS SUBMISSION THAT PROPERTY TAXES WAS BORNE BY SMT. BHATI NAINTARA AND THE POSSESSION REMAINED WIT H HER AT ALL TIMES. FURTHER, ACCORDING TO HIM, AT EVERY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS , THE ASSESSEE DENIED TO HAVE HELD THE PROPERTY. WE FIND THE ASSESSEE FILED CERT AIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE CIT(A) WHICH WERE FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOR HIS COMMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED THOSE EVIDENCES IN THE R EMAND PROCEEDINGS AND 23 ITA NOS.3438 TO 3443/DEL/2017 GAVE A REPORT. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) DID NOT ADMIT T HE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE HIM. IN OUR OPINI ON, THE MATTER REQUIRES A RE- VISIT TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO GRANT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE WITH EV IDENCE TO HIS SATISFACTION THAT THE PROPERTY BEARING NO.383, TANGLING ROAD # 06-06 TANGLING REGENCY, SINGAPORE DOES NOT BELONG TO HER. THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PROVE THAT SHE WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE SAID PROPERTY. SHE HAS TO PROVE T HAT THE CONSIDERATION WAS NEITHER PAID BY HER FOR ACQUIRING THE PROPERTY NOR RECEIVED BY HER ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL DECI DE THE ISSUE AFRESH AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUNDS NO.2 T O 4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 20. GROUNDS NO.5 TO 5.2 RELATE TO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,50,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TREATING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 21. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE DO NOT FIND AN Y INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINING THE ADDITION. ADMITTEDLY , THE ASSESSEE NEITHER IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN NOR IN THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A HAD DECLARED SUCH AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE CO ULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THE EARNING OF SUCH HUGE AGRICU LTURAL INCOME. SINCE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS A REASONED ONE AND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE 24 ITA NOS.3438 TO 3443/DEL/2017 ASSESSEE COULD NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL SO AS TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW THAN THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN HIS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS UPHELD AND TH E GROUNDS NO.5 TO 5.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 22. GROUNDS NO.6 TO 7 RELATE TO THE ORDER OF THE LD . CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT O F INDEXED COST OF CONSTRUCTION. 23. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE DO NOT FIND AN Y INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION TOWARDS COST OF ACQUISITION AS WE LL AS TOWARDS THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT BEING INDEXED COST OF CONSTRUCTION CARR IED OUT. THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE BOUNDARY WALL COULD NOT BE CORR OBORATED WITH EVIDENCE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. LD. CIT (A) IN THE INSTANT CASE, IN OUR OPINION, HAS GIVEN JUSTIFIABLE REASONS AS TO WHY TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED. NOTHING MORE WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NO TICE ON THIS ISSUE, DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. THEREFORE, THE GROUNDS RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO.3439/DEL/2017 (A.Y. 2009-10) 24. GROUNDS NO.1, 6, 7 AND 8 BEING GENERAL IN NATUR E ARE DISMISSED. 25 ITA NOS.3438 TO 3443/DEL/2017 25. GROUNDS NO.2 TO 3.2 RELATE TO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATING THE AGRICULTURE INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 26. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THE GROUN DS ARE IDENTICAL TO GROUND OF APPEAL NO.5 TO 5.2 IN ITA NO.3438/DEL/2017. WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUE AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE B EEN DISMISSED. FOLLOWING SAME REASONING, THESE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E ARE DISMISSED. 27. GROUNDS NO.4 AND 5 RELATE TO THE ORDER OF THE L D. CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.22,98,299/- BEING THE INDEXED COST O F CONSTRUCTION ON SALE OF DERA LAND. 28. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THE GROUN DS ARE IDENTICAL TO GROUND OF APPEAL NO.6 AND 7 IN ITA NO.3438/DEL/2017. WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUE AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE B EEN DISMISSED. FOLLOWING SIMILAR REASONING, THESE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE ARE DISMISSED. ITA NOS.3440 TO 3443/DEL/2017 (A.YS. 2011-12 TO 201 4-15 ) 29. IN ALL THE APPEALS, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESS EE IS REGARDING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE S. 30. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THE AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TREATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER A S INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTI ATE WITH EVIDENCE REGARDING 26 ITA NOS.3438 TO 3443/DEL/2017 THE EARNING OF SUCH AGRICULTURAL INCOME. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME BEFORE THE DUE DATE DECLA RING SUCH AGRICULTURAL INCOME. WE FIND THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE HAS GIVEN JUSTIFIABLE REASONS FOR NOT ACCEPTING SUCH AGRICULTURAL INCOME. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL TO OUR NOTICE SO AS TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW THAN THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. WE, TH EREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) TREATING S UCH AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CI T(A) IS, THEREFORE, UPHELD AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. 31. IN THE RESULT, ITA NO.3438/DEL/2017 FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE REMAINING APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 04 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018. SD/- SD/- (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 04-01-2018. SUJEET COPY OF ORDER TO: - 1) THE APPELLANT 2) THE RESPONDENT 3) THE CIT 4) THE CIT(A) 5) THE DR, I.T.A.T., NEW DELHI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI