Income Tax Officer, Panchkula V. Sh Gurbhag Singh S/o, Pinjore

ITA 4/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9189 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 09-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 01-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MAHARISHTI PRASHAT KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 4/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 THE ITO, WARD-1, VS. SH. GURBHAG SINGH PANCHKULA S/O SH. JOGINDER SINGH, PINJORE-134109 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SH. M.R. SHARMA DATE OF HEARING : 02.08.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.08.2016 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVENU E AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) (HEREINAFT ER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A) PANCHKULA DATED 30.10.2015. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN TREATING THE CASH D EPOSITS OF RS. 75,00,000/- TO BE EXPLAINED. 2. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BE SE T-ASIDE AND THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 2 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT AS PER AIR / CIB INFOR MATION, THERE WERE CASH DEPOSITS ON VARIOUS DATES IN THE ASSESSEES BANK AC COUNT WITH AXIS BANK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR EXPLANATION IN THIS RE SPECT. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE REQUIRED DETAILS AND SUBMITTED THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND TO DIFFERENT PARTIES. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, ASKED FOR FURTHER DETAILS WHICH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CO MPLY FURNISH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,55,4 0,000/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TREATING THE SAME AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLO SED SOURCES AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 4. OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 1,55,40,000/-, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THERE WAS NO CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 79,40,000/- IN BANK ACCOUNT ON 31.03.2011 AND THAT THE AIR INFORMATION IN THIS RESPECT WAS WRONG. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE EXPLANAT ION NOTED THAT ENTRY OF RS. 79,40,000/- STATED TO BE DEPOSITED ON 31.3.2011 WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT WITH AXIS BANK. THE LD. CIT (A) ALSO NOTED THAT FROM THE INDIVIDUAL TRANSACTION STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSE E AVAILABLE ON THE SYSTEM, THE INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM TWO SOURCES AND THAT THERE WAS LIKELIHOOD THAT ONE SOURCE HAD SUPPLIED INFORMATION REGARDING THE T OTAL DEPOSITS AND TRANSACTIONS AND THE OTHER SOURCE MIGHT HAVE PROVID ED INFORMATION OF THE DATE- WISE TRANSACTIONS. HE, THEREFORE, HELD THAT PERHAP S THE SAME TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN REPORTED TWICE. HE AFTER VERIFYING THE ACCOUNT S OF THE ASSESSEE, HELD THAT THERE WAS NO TRANSACTION RELATING TO THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 79,40,000/- IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, HE DELETED THE ADDI TION ON THIS ACCOUNT. SO FAR AS THE ADDITION OF THE REMAINING AMOUNT WAS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT 3 THE AGRICULTURAL LAND IN QUESTION WAS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS FATHER SHRI JOGINDER SINGH AND BROTHER SHRI GURIDNER SINGH . THE SAID LAND WAS SOLD FOR A SUM OF RS. 3,06,00,000/- ON 21.2.2011 FOR WHICH A N AMOUNT OF RS. 45,00,000/- WAS RECEIVED AS EARNEST MONEY. OUT OF THE SAID AMOU NT OF RS. 45 LAKHS, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 44 LAKHS WAS DEPOSITED INTO AXIS BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ON 21.2.2011 IN TWO INSTALLMENTS I.E RS. 20 LAKHS AND RS. 24 LAKHS RESPECTIVELY ON THE SAID DATE I.E. 21.2.2011. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINE D THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED IN CASH AND THAT THOUGH THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE OUT OF THE SAID AMOUNT WAS RS. 15 LAKHS BUT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS D EPOSITED IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER EXPLAINED REGAR DING VARIOUS TRANSACTIONS THROUGH WHICH THE OTHER PARTS OF THE LAND WERE SOLD TO DIFFERENT PARTIES AND THE EARNEST MONEY / SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED AND IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE DEPOSITS WERE OUT OF THOSE RECEIPTS RECEIVED ON ACC OUNT OF SALE OF LAND. THE LD. CIT(A) EXAMINED THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESS EE AND THE CORRESPONDING AGREEMENTS AND SALE DEEDS ETC. AND HELD THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK AC COUNT. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) , THE REVENUE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE REVENUE HAS NOT AGITA TED THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 79,40,000/- IN RESP ECT OF WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT NO SUCH DEPOSIT / TRANSACTION WAS FOUND IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE REVENUE, HOWEVER, HAS AGITATED THE ACTION OF T HE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 75 LAKHS OUT OF THE SAID TOTAL ADDI TION OF RS. 1,55,40,000/.- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. THE LD. DE PARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE WAS FAIR ENOUGH TO ADMIT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SATI SFACTORILY EXPLAINED THE 4 DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT FROM THE EARNEST MONEY RECEIVED AS CONSIDERATION FOR THE SALE OF HIS AGRICULTURAL LAND EXCEPT THE AM OUNT OF RS. 45 LAKHS. HE IN THIS RESPECT HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE AGRE EMENT OF SALE DATED 21.1.2011 VIDE WHICH THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS FATHER AND B ROTHER HAD AGREED TO SALE HIS LAND AT A RATE OF RS. 96 LAKHS PER ACRE AND IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THEREIN THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 45 LAKHS RECEIVED AS EARNEST MONEY HA S BEEN PAID BY THE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS BY THREE CHEQUES OF RS. 15 LAKHS EACH IN THE INDIVIDUAL NAME OF THE EACH OF THE CO-OWNER I.E. RS. 15 LAKHS IN TH E NAME OF SHRI JOGINDER SINGH VIDE CHEQUE NO. 020619 DATED 30.1.2011 AND ANOTHER CHEQUE OF RS. 15 LAKHS BEARING NO. 020620 DATED 30.1.2011 IN THE NAME OF T HE ASSESSEE AND ANOTHER CHEQUE BEARING NO. 020629 IN THE NAME OF THE BROTHE R OF THE ASSESSEE. HE IN THIS RESPECT HAS STATED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HA S RELIED UPON ANOTHER AGREEMENT DATED 21.2.2011 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN STATE D THAT RS. 45 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED IN CASH AS EARNEST MONEY ON ACCOUNT OF THE SALE OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND, WHEREAS, IN THE OTHER AGREEMENT DATED 21.01.2 011, THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN STATED TO BE RECEIVED BY EACH OF THE CO-OWNER BY WA Y OF CHEQUE. HE HAS FURTHER INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT EVEN THE KHA SRA NUMBERS MENTIONED IN BOTH THE AGREEMENTS ARE THE SAME. HE, THEREFORE, HAS REQ UESTED THAT THE MATTER IS REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED AFRESH AS TO THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT OF RS. 45 LAKHS IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ON 21.2.2011. THE LD. AR HA S ALSO FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT AT THIS STAGE HE WAS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THE CONSIDER ATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE SAID AGREEMENT AND AS TO WHETHER BOTH THE AGREEMENTS RELATE TO THE SAME TRANSACTION OR TO SOME DIFFERENT TRANSACTI ONS. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR LIMITED PURPOSE TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE O F DEPOSIT OF RS. 45 LAKHS IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ON 21.2.2011. SO FAR AS THE REST OF THE ADDITIONS ARE CONCERNED, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DE LETING THOSE ADDITIONS 5 SUBJECT TO OUR OBSERVATIONS MADE HERE-IN-ABOVE. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS TREATED PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PART LY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12.08.2016. SD/- SD/- (MAHARISHI PRASHANT KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 12 TH AUGUST, 2016 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR