Sant Dass Talwar, Pehowa V. ITO, W-1, Kurukshetra

ITA 424/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4544 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-05-2019
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Business income; Additional evidence; Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH B , CHANDIGARH , !' # $ % &' , BEFORE: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.424/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SANT DASS TALWAR, H.NO.407, WARD NO.13, PEHOWA, DISTT. KURUKSHETRA THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KURUKSHETRA. ./ PAN NO.AFFPD6981B / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL, ADV. ! / REVENUE BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, CIT.DR ' # $ /DATE OF HEARING : 07.05.2019 %&'( $ /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.05.2019 /ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KARNAL [(IN SHORT CIT(A)] DATED 1.1.20 18 PASSED U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT). ITA NO.424/CHD/2018 A.Y.2011-12 2 2. THE APPEAL WAS DELAYED BY ONE DAY. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS APPLICATION REQUESTING CONDONATION OF DELAY HAS STA TED THAT THE APPEAL HAD BEEN SENT BY POST ONE DAY PRIOR TO T HE LAST DATE OF FILING BUT DUE THE DELAY ON THE PART OF THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES, IT WAS RECEIVED LATE BY THE REGISTRY. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SHORTNESS OF THE DELAY, THE SAME WAS CONDONED IN OPEN COURT AND THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL WAS PROCEEDED W ITH. AT THE OUTSET ITSELF, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL RELATED TO THE UNEXPLA INED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AMOUNT ING TO RS.1,65,21,000/-. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSMENT O RDER PASSED IN THE IMPUGNED CASE POINTING OUT THEREFROM THAT THE A.O. NOTED FROM THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASS ESSEE IN HDFC AND UNION BANK, PEHOWA, THAT THERE WAS CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.1,65,21,000/-. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR A SSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS REMAINE D UNATTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH THE A.O. COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT AND TRE ATED ITA NO.424/CHD/2018 A.Y.2011-12 3 THE CASH DEPOSITS AS UNEXPLAINED, ADDING THE SAME T O THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSE E THEREAFTER TOOK US THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT( A) POINTING OUT THEREFROM THAT BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A),TH E ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THE CIRCUMSTANCES BECAUSE OF WHICH HE WAS UNABLE TO ATTEND THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS BEING THE FACT THAT HE WAS SUFFERING FROM CIRRHOSIS OF LIVER WHICH REQUIRED HIM TO FREQUENTLY SEEK MEDICAL TREAT MENT DURING THIS PERIOD. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE TH EREAFTER POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE FURTHER EXPLAINED THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS BY STATING THAT HE WAS CARRYIN G ON THE BUSINESS OF PROPERTY, DERIVING INCOME FROM COMMISS ION ON SALE OF PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENTS AND HE ALSO DERIV ED AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM CULTIVATION OF LAND OWNED BY HIM. THAT HE WAS MANAGING THE FINANCIAL AFFAIRS OF THE F AMILY OF ONE OF HIS FRIENDS SHRI JAI PARKASH, WHO HAD EXPIRE D WAY BACK IN 1992.THAT THE BANK DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACC OUNT WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ADVANCES RECEIVED IN THE CO URSE OF HIS BUSINESS, THE SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL PRO DUCE, THE LEASE MONEY OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OF THE WIDOW OF HI S FRIEND SMT.RAJ BALA AND AMOUNT RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNED BY SMT.RAJ BALA. THAT EVIDE NCES IN ITA NO.424/CHD/2018 A.Y.2011-12 4 THE FORM OF BANK STATEMENTS, EVIDENCE OF SALE OF AG RICULTURAL LAND AND EVIDENCES OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE IN THE NAME OF FAMILY MEMBERS OF SMT.RAJ BALA WERE ALSO FI LED. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE ENTIRE MONEY RECEIVED ON B EHALF OF SMT.RAJ BALA WAS RETURNED BACK FOR PURCHASE OF AGRI CULTURAL LAND BY THE FAMILY MEMBERS AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO PO INTED OUT THAT NO INVESTMENT FROM THESE BANK ACCOUNTS WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER IN HIS OWN NAME OR IN THE NA ME OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE LETT ER FILED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AND REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER AS UNDER: SIR, MOST RESPECTFULLY ON THE ABOVE SUBJECT IT IS SUBMIT TED THAT THIS IS AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY SH R S MALIK, ITO-WARD-1, KURUKSHETRA WHEREIN THE ASSESSMENT OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX AC T,1961 AT THE INCOME OF RS.1,66,79,640/- AGAINST THE RETURNED INC OME OF RS.1,58,640/-. THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS O F AIR INFORMATION WHEREIN IT WAS MENTIONED THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE DEPOSIT OF RS.1,65,21,000/- IN HIS HDFC BANK AND UN ION BANK OF INDIA, PEHOWA ACCOUNT DURING THE F.Y 2010-11. THE O RDER PASSED BY LND. ITO IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND BAD IN LAW KEEPI NG IN VIEW THE FOLLOWING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:- APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A(1) FOR PRODUCTION OF ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE I T ACT WHEREIN LND A O HAS MADE ADDITION OF TOTAL SUM OF MONEY DEP OSITED IN HDFC BANK AND UNION BANK OF INDIA WITHOUT ALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF AMOUNT WITHDRAWN FROM THE SAME BANK. ACCORDINGLY TH E ASSESSEE FILED APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A(1) FOR THE PRODUCT ION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND :- ITA NO.424/CHD/2018 A.Y.2011-12 5 'THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SUFFERING FROM CIRRHOSIS OF LIVER IN WHICH THE LIVER DOESN'T FUNCTION PROPERTY DUE TO LONG TER M DAMAGE. DUE TO DISEASE THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SWELLING IN LOWER L EGS, FLUID BUILD UP IN ABDOMEN. FOR THIS DISEASE THE ASSESSEE HAVE T O OFTEN VISIT DMC, LUDHIANA FOR TAKING TREATMENT. THE ASSESSEE RE QUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. THE CASE WAS ADJOU RNED FOR 13.03.2014 WHEN ASSESSEE SENT A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR FURTHER ADJOURNMENT OF CASE FOR 20.03.2014. BUT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER INSTEAD OF GRANTING ADJOURNMENT TO 20.03.2014 PREFE RRED TO COMPLETE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE I.T ACT ON DATED' 19.03.2 014. THIS SHOWS THE ADAMANT APPROACH OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR COMPL ETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE I.T ACT AND IN THIS WAY A SSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE EV IDENCE WHICH IS CALLED UPON TO BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . NO SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT TO ADDUCE THE EVIDENCE/RELEVANT TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL' THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF PR OPERTY DEALER DERIVING INCOME FROM COMMISSION ON .SATE OF PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENTS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DERIVES AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM CULTIVATION OF 13 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. BESID E THE ASSESSEE WAS MANAGING THE FAMILY, PROPERTIES AND AGRICULTURA L LAND OF HIS FRIEND SH. JAI PARKASH WHO HAS EXPIRED IN 1992. DUR ING THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE NAME OF SMT. RAJ BALA WIDOW OF SH. JAI PARKASH WAS SOLD AS SHE WANT TO PURCHASE SOME OTHER AGRICULTURAL LAND AT PEHOWA. ALL PURCHAS E AND SALE TRANSACTION WERE ROUTED THROUGH THE -ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS AUTHORISED TO SELL AND PURCHASE LAND IN THE NAME OF FAMILY MEMBER OF SMT. RAJ BALA. BESIDE THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO MANA GING ABOUT 75 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OF SMT. RAJ BALA AND COL LECTING PAYMENTS FROM COMMISSION AGENT AND OTHERS TO WHOM LAND WAS G IVEN ON LEASE. THE MONEY SO COLLECTED WAS DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS. BANK ACCOUNT WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY PAID TO THE SEL LER OF LAND FROM WHOM AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS PURCHASED ON BEHALF OF S MT. RAJ BAIA. SMT. RAJ BALA WAS NOT HAVING BANK ACCOUNT AT THAT T IME. EVEN IN OTHER CASES IT IS A NORMAL TRADE PRACTICE THAT THE PEOPLE GAVE ADVANCE MONEY TO THE PROPERTY DEALER IN ORDER TO HA VE BETTER BARGAINING FOR ENTERING INTO AGREEMENT TO SELL WITH THE SELLERS. SOMETIMES THE SALE CONSIDERATIONS IN FULL OR PART A RE KEPT WITH THE PROPERTY DEALER TO MAKE PAYMENTS TO THE SELLERS AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED. SOMETIMES PAYMENTS ARE A SSEMBLED WITH THE PROPERTY DEALER FOR MAKING FINAL PAYMENT TO THE SELLERS. IT IS IN LIEU OF THESE SERVICES THE PROPERTY DEALER IS PAID COMMISSION. IT IS IN COURSE OF THESE BUSINESS RECEIPTS THE ADVANCE MONEY SO RECEIVED WERE KEPT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE LATER ON WITHDRAWN AND PAID TO THE SELLERS. ITA NO.424/CHD/2018 A.Y.2011-12 6 THAT IT IS IN THIS BACKGROUND THE ASSESSEE WANT TO PRODUCE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/EVIDENCES IN CONNECT ION WITH DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL: A) THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED THE COPY OF BANK STATE MENTS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-2011. THE SAME MAY BE CONSIDERED FOR EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF DEPOSIT AND REDEPOSIT. B) EVIDENCE REGARDING THE RECEIPT OF MONEY ON BEHALF OF HIS CLIENTS REGARDING PURCHASE/SALE OF THEIR LAND AND THE ASSESSEE WANT TO PRODUCE THESE DOCUMENTS AS AN EVID ENCE SHOWING THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN BANK AND THE AMOUN T WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE BANK IN ORDER TO CONTEST THE ADDITION AND EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF AMOU NT DEPOSITED IN BANK DURING THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT. C) AFFIDAVITS FROM SMT. RAJ BALA, WD/O SH.JAI PRAKA SH CONFIRMING THE PAYMENTS KEPT AS TRUST MONEY ON HER BEHALF ARE BEING PRODUCED AS EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE IS REA DY TO PRODUCE HER AS WITNESS FOR EXAMINATION. D) DATE WISE CASH POSITION EXPLAINING THE SOURCE O F RECEIPTS, DEPOSIT IN BANKS AND OTHER PAYMENTS. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A LONGWITH HIS SUBMISSION MADE AS ABOVE WERE FORWARDED TO THE A.O., WHO DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS HAD CALLED SMT.RAJ BA LA, WIDOW OF THE ASSESSEES FRIEND FOR EXAMINATION, WHO HAD CONFIRMED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LOOKING AF TER HER FAMILYS FINANCIAL AFFAIRS AND HAD DURING THE IMPUG NED YEAR SOLD LAND ON HER BEHALF AND ALSO PURCHASED ANOTHER LAND FOR HER. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT EVEN THE A.O. HAD ACKNOWLEDGED THIS FACT IN HIS REPORT DATED 22.9.2017, SUBMITTED TO THE LD.CIT(A) AS UNDER: ITA NO.424/CHD/2018 A.Y.2011-12 7 SUB:- REPOST IN THE CASE OF SH.SANT DASS TALWAR, # 407, WARD NO.13, PEHOWA, DISTT. KURUKSHETRA ASTT. YEAR 2011-12: REGARDING: KINDLY REFER TO YOUR OFFICE LETTER NO. CIT(A)/KNL/17-18/583 DATED 1.8.2017 ON THE SUBJECT CITED ABOVE. AS DESIRED, AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT BEFORE YOURS HONOUR GOODSELF, THE REQUISITE REPORT IN THE GIVEN CASE IS SUBMITTED AS UNDER: AS PER THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN THE CAPTIONED LETTER, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE SMT. RAJ BALA W/O SH.JAI PARKASH ON OR BEFORE 23.8.2017 ALONGWITH THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: I) COPY OF BANK STATEMENT FOR THE AY 2010- 11 II) COPY OF SALE DEEDS IN RESPECT OF LAND SOLD DURING THE YEAR. II) COPY OF ID PROOF AND EVIDENCE OF SALE OF AGRL PRODUCE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED SMT.RAJBALA ON 8.9.2017 WHEN HER STATEMENT WAS RECORDED TO VERIFY THE FACTS AS PLEADED BY THE AR BEFORE YOURS GOODSELF. ACCORDINGLY IN THE STATEMENT SMT.RAJBALA HAS STATED THAT SHE AND HER FAMILY OWNED APPROX 83 ACRES OF AGRL LAND WHICH WAS PARTLY SELF CULTIVATED AND PARTLY GIVEN ON LEASE AND AS SUCH SHE EARNED AGRL INCOME AROUND RS.35 TO 40 LACS. SHE FURTHER STATED IN THE STATEMENT THAT DURING FY 2009-10 SHE SOLD HER AGRL LAND MEASURING AROUND 15 KANALS AT RS.63 LACS (APROX) AND IN SUPPORT OF HER CONTENTION PRODUCED THE COPIES OF SALE DEEDS AMOUNTING TO RS.61 LACS (APPROX) AND THE SAME ARE PLACED ON FILED. IN THE STATEMENT SHE FURTHER STATED THAT HER HUSBAND SH.JAI PARKASH EXPIRED ON 31.10.1992 AND SINCE THEN SH.SANT DASS TALWAR------MANAGE THE AFFAIRS OF HER FAMILY AND PROPERTIES BEING A FAMILY ITA NO.424/CHD/2018 A.Y.2011-12 8 FRIEND. SHE STATED THAT SH.SANT DASS TALWAR WAS AUTHORIZED TO PURCHASE AND SALE THE AGRL LAND ON HE R BEHALF AND SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.63 LACS (APPROX ) WERE KEPT WITH HIM WHICH WERE SUBSEQUENTLY TRANSFERRED TO HER BANK ACCOUNT WHEN LAND WAS PURCHASED BY HER. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT EV EN THE BIFURCATION OF THE MONEY RECEIVED ON BEHALF OF SMT. RAJ BALA AMOUNTING TO RS.1.01 CRORES WAS SUBMITTED TO THE A. O. AND IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT HAD BEEN RETURNED TO SMT.RAJ BALA BY CHEQUE OR TO THE PERSON FROM WHOM THE LAND WAS PURCHASED ON BEHALF OF SMT.RAJ BA LA. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE A BOVE SUBMISSIONS WERE SUBSTANTIATED WITH EVIDENCE BOTH O F THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE ON BEHALF OF SMT.RAJ BALA AND ALSO BY FILING COPY OF B ANK STATEMENT BOTH OF THE ASSESSEE AND SMT.RAJ BALA SHO WING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO HER ACCOUNT FOR PURCHASE O F LAND. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE EVIDENCE OF PURCHASE OF LAND ON BEHALF OF SMT.RAJ BALA AND HER FAMILY MEMBERS WA S ALSO FILED TO THE A.O. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE CONT ENDED THAT CLEARLY THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT, SUBSTANTIATED THE SA ME ALSO AND WHICH WAS ALSO CORROBORATED BY THE STATEMENT O F SMT.RAJ BALA AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE SAME, THERE WA S NO ITA NO.424/CHD/2018 A.Y.2011-12 9 REASON TO TREAT THE CASH DEPOSITS AS UNEXPLAINED. T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAD REJECTED THE EXPLANATION MERELY BY STATING THAT IT DEFIED HUMAN PROBABILITY THAT A PERSON THAT TOO NOT CLOSEL Y RELATED WOULD DEPOSIT SUCH HUGE AMOUNT IN ANOTHER PERSONS BANK ACCOUNT AND FURTHER THAT SINCE SMT.RAJ BALA HAD ALR EADY OPENED A BANK ACCOUNT PRIOR TO THE SALE OF LAND BY HER, THERE WAS NO LOGIC IN HER DEPOSITING THE AMOUNT IN THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE CO NTENDED THAT IN VIEW OF THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESS EE AND EVIDENCES FILED BY HIM THE LD.CIT(A) COULD NOT HAVE REJECTED THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION ON SUCH FLIMSY REASONING . 6. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HEAVILY RELIED UP ON THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AS UNDER: A PERUSAL OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE DOCUMENTS ON RECORD, THE REMAND REPORTS OF THE AO AND THE COUNTE R COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE (BOTH REPORTS HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED IN PREPAGES) REVEAL THE FACT THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONTROVERT THE AO'S FINDING THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS IN HDFC BANK AND UBI IN THE APPELLANT'S NA ME COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF LAND BY A FAMIL Y FRIEND, SMT.RAJ BALA OR ALSO INCLUDED HER AGRICULTURAL INCO ME ALONGWITH THE ASSESSEE'S OWN INCOME FROM AGRICULTUR E AND COMMISSIONS. MOREOVER, SMT. RAJ BA/A OPENED A BOOK S OF ACCOUNT WITH UBI, PEHOWA ON 06.09.2010 AND IT IS ST ATED THAT APART FROM ONE SALE DEED DATED 10.05.2010 FOR RS. 5,85,000/- ALL OTHER SALE DEEDS WERE EXECUTED AFTER HER BANK ACCOUNT WAS OPENED. IN ANY CASE, THERE IS NOTHING T O PROVE THAT DEPOSITS PERTAIN TO HER. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ITA NO.424/CHD/2018 A.Y.2011-12 10 ADDITION HAS BEEN RIGHTLY MADE AND I SUSTAIN THE SA ME. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 7. FURTHER DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO THE STATEMENT RECORDED OF SMT.RAJ BALA, LD.DR POINTED OUT THEREFR OM THAT SHE HAD CHILDREN AGED 35 YEARS AND WAS CAPABLE OF MANAGING HER OWN AFFAIRS WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF HER FAMILY MEMBERS AND, THEREFORE, IT DEFIED ALL LOGIC AND HUM AN PROBABILITY AS TO WHY SUCH HUGE AMOUNT WOULD BE DEP OSITED BY HER IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO WAS NOT EVEN CLOSELY RELATED TO HER BUT WAS MERELY HER HUSB ANDS FRIEND. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD GIVEN NO EXPLANATION OF ANY SUCH TRANSACTION HAPPENING IN THE YEARS SINCE THE ASSESSEES FRIEND HAD EXPIRED AND, THEREFORE, ALSO IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THE ASSESSEES EXPL ANATION. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL VS. CIT, 214 ITR 801 FO R THE PROPOSITION THAT WHERE THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSES SEE DEFIES HUMAN PROBABILITY, THE ADDITION IS LIABLE TO BE SUSTAINED. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO UPHOLD THE ADDITION OF CASH DEPOSITS OF ITA NO.424/CHD/2018 A.Y.2011-12 11 RS.1,65,21,000/-. THE REVENUE, WE FIND, HAS NOT PO INTED ANY INFIRMITY IN THE DULY SUBSTANTIATED EXPLANATI ON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE OF THE CASH DEPOSIT. THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS B ANK ACCOUNT AMOUNTING TO RS.1,65,21,000/-, AS BEING ADV ANCE MONEY OF SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE, OUT OF LEASE MONE Y OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OF SMT.RAJ BALA AND OUT OF SALE OF LAND BELONGING TO SMT.RAJ BALA, WHO WAS THE WIDOW OF HIS FRIEND SHRI JAI PARKASH, WHOSE FAMILY AFFAIRS THE ASSESSEE WAS LOOKING AFTER. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO SUBSTANTIATED HIS EXPLANATION BY FILING COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF THE IMPUGNED YEAR, EVIDENCES OF RECEIPT OF MONEY ON BEH ALF OF HIS CLIENTS FOR PURCHASE/SALE OF THEIR LAND IN THE FORM OF SALE DEEDS OF LAND SOLD DURING THE YEAR, EVIDENCE OF SAL E OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE, COPY OF JAMABANDHI, GIRDAWRI REGARDING OWNERSHIP OF LAND AND ALSO THE AFFIDAVIT OF SMT.RAJ BALA CONFIRMING ON OATH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD LAND ON HER BEHALF. FURTHER WE FIND THAT SMT.RAJ BALA HAD CORROBORATED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN S HE CONFIRMED THE SAME IN HER STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE A.O. DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND HAD ALSO FILED COPIES OF SALE ITA NO.424/CHD/2018 A.Y.2011-12 12 DEEDS OF THE LAND SOLD DURING THE YEAR. WE ALSO FI ND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED HAVING RECEIVED RS.1.19 CRORE ON BEHALF OF SMT.RAJ BALA ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF AGRICU LTURAL LAND AND SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND HAD ALSO SHOWN RETURNING BACK THE SAME TO HER BY DIRECTLY TRANSFER RING IN HER BANK ACCOUNT OR TELEGRAPHICALLY TRANSFERRING TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE PERSON FROM WHOM LAND WAS PURCHASED BY SMT. RAJ BALA. COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF SMT.RA J BALA RECEIVING THE AMOUNT FROM THE ASSESSEE WAS FILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS FACT. EVEN THE EVIDENCE REGARDING PURCHASE OF LAND ON BEHALF OF SMT.RAJ BALA WAS FILED. FURTH ER EVEN SMT.RAJ BALA HAD CONFIRMED THIS FACT OF RECEIPT OF MONEY BACK FROM THE ASSESSEE IN HER STATEMENT RECORDED BE FORE THE A.O. NONE OF THE ABOVE FACTS HAVE CONTROVERTED BEFORE US NOR HAS ANY INFIRMITY BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE SAME BEFORE US. THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS, WE HOLD THEREF ORE, STANDS DULY EXPLAINED, SUBSTANTIATED AND EVEN CORRO BORATED AND EVEN APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE OF PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION APPEARS TO B E JUSTIFIED. THE ONLY REASON FOR REJECTING THE EXPL ANATION BY THE REVENUE IS THAT IT IS IMPROBABLE FOR SUCH HUGE AMOUNT TO BE HANDLED BY THE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF A FRIEND S WIDOW. ITA NO.424/CHD/2018 A.Y.2011-12 13 THIS CONTENTION, WE HOLD MERITS NO CONSIDERATION SI NCE IT IS NOT UNCOMMON IN HUMAN SOCIETY FOR FRIENDS TO LEND A HELPING HAND TO EACH OTHER AND MORE PARTICULARLY TO THE FAMILY OF A FRIEND WHO HAS EXPIRED, IN WHICH CASE, THE GESTURE IS EXTENDED WITH EXTRA WARMTH. THERE IS, TH EREFORE, NOTHING UNUSUAL IN THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD S OLD AND PURCHASED LAND ON BEHALF OF THE WIDOW OF HIS FRIEND , MORE PARTICULARLY, WHEN HE HAS SUBSTANTIATED THE SAID FA CT WITH DUE EVIDENCES AND EVEN THE WIDOW OF HIS FRIEND HAS CONFIRMED THE SAID FACT. ALSO HAVING DEMONSTRATED T HAT THE MONEY WAS RETURNED TO THE WIDOW OF THE ASSESSES FRI END, THERE REMAINS, WE HOLD, NO REASON TO DOUBT THE OWNE RSHIP OF THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE ASSESSES BANK ACCOUNT. TH E FACT THAT THE WIDOW HAD GROWN UP SONS OR THE FACT THAT S HE HAD A BANK ACCOUNT IN HER NAME EXISTING PRIOR TO SALE OF LAND BY HER, WE HOLD, DOES NOT MAKE THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IMPROBABLE OR ILLOGICAL. 9. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF T HE LD.CIT(A) AND DIRECT DELETION OF THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.1,65,21 ,000/-. ITA NO.424/CHD/2018 A.Y.2011-12 14 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS, T HEREFORE, ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- # $ % &' (SANJAY GARG ) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *# /DATED: 30 TH MAY, 2019 * ' * &) *+ ,+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ' - / CIT 4. ' - ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. +./ 0 , $ 0 , 123/4 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. /3 5# / GUARD FILE &) ' / BY ORDER, ! / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR