SMT. SHAMSHADA YAQOOB MIR, SRINAGAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), SRINAGAR

ITA 437/ASR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1327 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 11-04-2019
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 28-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: BASHIR AHMED LONE LD
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Cost of acquisition; Set aside
• Section: 54F; 69; 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.437(ASR)/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 SMT. SHAMSHADA YAQOOB MIR, 275 JAWAHAR NAGAR, SRINAGAR KASHMIR [PAN:CDEPM 1507M] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), RAJ BAGH, SRINAGAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. BASHIR AHMED LONE (LD. CA) RESPONDENT BY: SH. CHARAN DASS (LD. DR) DATE OF HEARING: 11.04.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13.06.2019 ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM: THE INSTANT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.03.2017 PA SSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)- J&K, JAMMU, U/S. 250(6) OF THE IN COME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT) FOR ASST. YEA R:2012- 13. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN BOTH FACTS AN D LAWS BY CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.59,00,000/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS. 2. THAT THE LD. AO & LD. CIT(A) HAS TOTALLY OVERLOOKED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND HAVE NOT CO NSIDERED CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE. 3. THE UPHOLDING OF THE ADDITIONS BY CIT(A) IS IL LEGAL & ARBITRARY. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND, ALTER OR AD D ANY GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE THE SAME IS HEARD & DISPOSE D OFF. ITA NO.437/ASR/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13) SMT. SHAMSHADA YAQOOB MIR VS. ITO 2 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.59,00,000/- DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TWO BANK ACCOUNTS, AS UNEXPLAINED CASH INVESTMENT U /S 69 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE SAID ADDITION BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND MADE THE SUBMISSIONS THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD SOLD RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPERTY IN THE MONTH OF JULY, 20 11 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.69,00,000/- TO ONE MR. BASHIR A HMED SHAIKH AND THE MONEY PAID BY THE PURCHASER, SUBSTANTIALLY IN CASH AND RS.6,50,000/- THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE. THE ASS ESSEE THEREAFTER UTILIZED THAT MONEY FOR THE PURPOSE OF P URCHASE OF ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERAT ION OF RS.66,00,000/- FROM MR. MAKHAN LAL DHAR. THE CAPITA L GAIN INCOME DERIVED FROM THIS TRANSACTION WAS DULY DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING HOUSE WIFE, WAS IGNORANT ABOUT TAX M ATTERS AND THEREFORE AS USUAL ACCEPTED A CASH OF RS.62.50 LACS AND OUT OF WHICH DEPOSITED RS.59,00,000/- IN TWO BANK ACCOUNTS. IT W AS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE BELONGS TO LOWER MIDDLE CLASS FAMILY, THEREFORE SOLD THE SAID PROPERTY FOR GOOD PRICE, KEEPING IN VIEW OF ITS COMMERCIAL VALUE AND ACQUIRED ANOTHER P ROPERTY COMPRISING OF 10 MARLAS OF LAND AND A DILAPIDATED H OUSE FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.52.03 LACS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTENDE D THAT THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES AND DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT O F THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WERE ALSO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN SU PPORT OF ITS CASE, THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HO NBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT, ALLAHABAD & ANR. VS. SH. CHANDRA NARAIN CHAUDHRI. THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER DID NOT GET IMPRESS ON THE SUBMISSIONS AND CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND WHILE DIS TINGUISHING THE ITA NO.437/ASR/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13) SMT. SHAMSHADA YAQOOB MIR VS. ITO 3 FACTS OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH C OURT, AFFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.59,00,000/- DEPOSITED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN HER BANK ACCOUNTS AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS/INVESTMENTS U /S 69 OF THE ACT. FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY AND READY REFERENCE TH E CONCLUDING PART OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 . I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANTS COU NSEL STATED AS ABOVE. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS T HE APPELLANT'S COUNSEL REITERATED THE SAME WHAT WAS ST ATED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND COULD NOT PRO DUCE ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM THA T THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.59,00,000/- IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT S WERE THE ACTUAL SALE PROCEEDS OF THE PROPERTY SOLD TO M R. BASHIR AHMAD SHEIKH. THE APPELLANT'S COUNSEL THEN PLACED R ELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF INTEEZAR ALI VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN APPEAL NO.162/2013 (CITATIONS SUPPLIED) WHEREIN HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HAD ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE CLAIMING THE SALES CONSIDERATION RECEIVED IN CASH BEING THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION. I HAVE CONSIDERED T HE ABOVE DECISION. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAD ALLOWED THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENC ES PRODUCED BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES TO THE SA TISFACTION OF THE HON'BLE COURT THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE CIRCUMST ANTIAL EVIDENCES AND THE PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY, TIL TED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CASH DEPOSITS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS THE ACTUAL SALES CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY. HERE, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE APPELLANT'S COUNSEL HAS GIVEN FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM THAT TH E ACTUAL SALES CONSIDERATION OF THE SAID PROPERTY WAS AT RS.69,00,000/- THESE ARE:- -ACCEPTANCE OF PURCHASE VALUE OF PROPERTY AT RS.7, 00 LACS IN THE YEAR 1997-98 BY AO. -ACCEPTANCE OF ACQUISITION OF ANOTHER PLOT & DILAPI DATED HOUSE FOR 52.03 LACS IN THE SAME PERIOD. ITA NO.437/ASR/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13) SMT. SHAMSHADA YAQOOB MIR VS. ITO 4 - ACCEPTANCE OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF 69.00 LACS & SIMULTANEOUSLY UTILIZATION OF CAPITAL GAIN FOR ACQU IRING ANOTHER ASSET. -ACCEPTANCE OF SALE & PURCHASE OF PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE. -THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED CASH OF RS 53.00 LACS & RS 6.00 LACS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON 18/07/2011 & THE SALE D EED STANDS EXECUTED ON 27/07/2011 (JUST 11 DAYS BEFORE DATE OF EXECUTION OF SALE DEEDS) -ESTABLISHMENT OF HOTEL BY THE PURCHASED IN THE SAI D PROPERTY -GENERAL MARKET PRICES OF PROPERTY IN THE JAWHAR NA GAR DURING SAID PERIOD -AFFIDAVIT BY ASSESSEE & HIS SONS -ACCEPTANCE OF CASH DEPOSITED BY ASSESSEE IN THE BA NK ACCOUNT OF HIS SON I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE BUT IT IS FOUND THAT NONE O F THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS IS ACTUALLY A CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN TRUE SENSE AS THESE DOCUMENTS, IN NO WAY, COULD ESTABLISH THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION OF THE SAID PROPERTY WAS AT RS.69,00,000/-. IN THE CASE OF THE INTEEZAR ALI VS. CIT (SUPRA) THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE I NCLUDED, THE STATEMENT OF THE WITNESSES WHO HAD CONFIRMED THE CA SH PAYMENTS, LAND RECORDS, TEHSILDAR REPORT AND THE AS SESSMENT ORDER OF THE BUYER IN WHICH THE AO HAD ACCEPTED THA T THE ALLEGED AMOUNT WAS ACTUALLY PAID BY THE BUYER. ALL THESE EV IDENCES WERE NOT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT THE PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES WERE IN FAVOUR OF TH E APPELLANT. THUS, THE AO, HAS RIGHTLY TREATED THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.59,00,000/- DEPOSITED IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT A S UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS/INVESTMENTS U/S. 69 OF THE INC OME TAX. IN EFFECT THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.437/ASR/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13) SMT. SHAMSHADA YAQOOB MIR VS. ITO 5 4. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED FILED THE INSTANT APPE AL WHICH IS UNDER CONSIDERATION BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AT LENGTH AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE BEING A MIDDLE AGED LADY DURING THE FINANC IAL YEAR RELEVANT HEREIN, SOLD ONE HOUSE CONSTRUCTED ON 5.5 MARLAS, 102.60 SQ. FT. LAND, LOCATED AT JAWAHAR NAGAR, SRINAGAR WH ICH IS COMMERCIAL AREA TO THE BUYER SH. BASHIR AHMED FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.69,00,000/- OUT OF WHICH THE AS SESSEE RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.6 LACS THROUGH CHEQUE AND BALANCE O F RS.63 LACS AS CASH. FURTHER OUT OF SAID CASH OF RS.63 LACS, TH E ASSESSEE DEPOSITED CASH OF RS.6 LACS AND CHEQUE OF RS.6 LACS IN HER SAVING BANK ACCOUNT AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.53 LACS AS CASH I N THE BANK ACCOUNT OF HER SON NAMELY SH. JUBAR AHMAD MIR, BECA USE THE CONCEPT OF CIRCLE RATE WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN J&K IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR: 2011-12 AND AS THE AMOUNT DUE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE PAYABLE BY THE PURCHASER THEREFORE, THE SALE DEED WAS EXECU TED FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.7,37,150/- ONLY AND STAMP DUTY WAS PAI D BY THE PURCHASER ONLY. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE INVESTED AMOUNT OF RS.57,00,000/- FOR PURCHASE OF 10 MARLAS OF LAND AN D HOUSE IN THE SAME LOCALITY FROM SH. MAKHAN LAL DHAR IN JULY, 201 1. EVEN THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID THE AMOUNT OF RS.57,00,000/- AS CONSIDERATION AMOUNT TO THE SELLER, HOWEVER, THE SA LE DEED WAS REGISTERED FOR RS.13,97,978/- ONLY. THE ASSESSEE FU RTHER UTILIZED RS.9.00 LACS FOR ITS RENOVATION/CONSTRUCTION OF HER HOUSE. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASST. YEAR: 2012-13 DECLARED NE T INCOME OF RS.2,27,820/- FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND CLAIM ED EXEMPTION OF RS.50,12,058/- U/S 54 OF THE ACT. IT IS FURTHER CASE OF THE ASSESEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED ALL POSSIBLE CO-OPERATION FOR ITA NO.437/ASR/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13) SMT. SHAMSHADA YAQOOB MIR VS. ITO 6 FINALIZATION OF THE ASSESSMENT AND IT IS A FACT THA T DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS N EITHER DOUBTED THE STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME NOR SALE OF THE HOUSE, NOR PURCHASE OF ANOTHER HOUSE, NOR REJECTED THE EXEMPTI ON CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE MADE U/S 54 IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. HOWEVE R, ULTIMATELY MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.59 LACS U/S 69 OF THE ACT QU A CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.6,00,000/- IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT AN D CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.53,00,000/- IN THE ASSESSEES SONS ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, IT IS ALSO CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF PROPERTY AS RS.6 9,00,000/- AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AN D HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THE INDEX COSTS OF ACQUISITION OF THE PROP ERTY AMOUNTING TO RS.6,60,121/- AND ALSO ALLOWED EXEMPTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT, ON THE OTHER HAND, ADDED THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 59,00 ,000/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT WHICH AMOUNTS TO TAXING THE SAME RECEIPTS T WICE. 5.1 FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT REFLECTS THAT THE AS SESSEE DURING THE APPELLANT PROCEEDING HAS SUBMITTED SOME DOCUMEN TS AND DEMONSTRATED THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES IN SUPPOR T OF ITS CASE. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE INCOME TAX RETURN OF THE A SSESSEE AND ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN, IN COMP UTATION THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.69, 00,000/-, THE INDEX COST OF ACQUISITION VALUE AT RS.7,00,000/- AS IN 1997-98 AND ALSO INDEXATION COSTS OF ACQUISITION OF NEW PROPERT Y TO THE TUNE OF RS.16,60,120.85 AND SHOWN THE CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.52 ,39,879.15 AND CLAIMED THE EXEMPTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT ON THE AMOUNT OF RS.50,12,058.32 AND FURTHER SHOWN NET CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.2,27,820.83/-. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT REFL ECTS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER THOUGH TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT FAILED TO CONSIDER/MENTION THE CLAIM OF THE ITA NO.437/ASR/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13) SMT. SHAMSHADA YAQOOB MIR VS. ITO 7 ASSESEE QUA DECLARATION OF SALE CONSIDERATION, CAPI TAL GAIN AND EXEMPTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WI TH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ON ONE SIDE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER DID NOT REJECT THE CLAIM U/S 54F OF THE ASSESSEE, O N THE OTHER HAND, MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.59,00,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED C ASH DEPOSIT U/S 69 OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT H AS ALSO DEALT WITH THE IDENTICAL SITUATION WHEREIN THE COMPLETE A MOUNT WHICH WAS RECEIVED AS CONSIDERATION WAS NOT SHOWN IN THE SALE DEED HOWEVER, WHILE CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, THE HONBLE COURT ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 5.2 IN THE INSTANT CASE, FROM THE SALE DEED DATED 2 7 TH JULY, 2011, IT REFLECTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD A PROPERTY A LLEGED TO BE ON CONSIDERATION OF RS.69 LACS AND ON 6 TH DEC. 2012 PURCHASED ANOTHER PROPERTY ALLEGEDLY ON THE CONSIDERATION OF RS.57 LA CS AND FROM THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEES SONS COMPANY IT R EFLECTS THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.53 LACS WAS DEPOSITED WHICH CONNECTS T HE LINKAGE OF SELLING OF PROPERTY. FURTHER AS THE ASSESSEE HAS IN VESTED THE AMOUNT FOR PURCHASE AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERT Y ON 6 TH OF THE DECEMBER, 2012, WHICH GOES TO SHOW THAT IT WAS WITH IN 2/3 YEARS AS PRESCRIBED U/S 54F OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IN S UPPORT OF ITS CASE ALSO DEMONSTRATED THAT THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. -ACCEPTANCE OF PURCHASE VALUE OF PROPERTY AT RS.7,0 0 LACS IN THE YEAR 1997-98 BY AO. -ACCEPTANCE OF ACQUISITION OF ANOTHER PLOT & DILAPI DATED HOUSE FOR 52.03 LACS IN THE SAME PERIOD. -ACCEPTANCE OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF 69.00 LACS & S IMULTANEOUSLY UTILIZATION OF CAPITAL GAIN FOR ACQUIRING ANOTHER A SSET. -ACCEPTANCE OF SALE & PURCHASE OF PROPERTY BY THE A SSESSEE. ITA NO.437/ASR/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13) SMT. SHAMSHADA YAQOOB MIR VS. ITO 8 -THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED CASH OF RS 53.00 LACS & RS 6.00 LACS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON 18/07/2011 & THE SALE DEED STAN DS EXECUTED ON 27/07/2011 (JUST 11 DAYS BEFORE DATE OF EXECUTION OF SALE DEEDS) -ESTABLISHMENT OF HOTEL BY THE PURCHASED IN THE SAI D PROPERTY -GENERAL MARKET PRICES OF PROPERTY IN THE JAWHAR NA GAR DURING SAID PERIOD -AFFIDAVIT BY ASSESSEE & HIS SONS -ACCEPTANCE OF CASH DEPOSITED BY ASSESSEE IN THE BA NK ACCOUNT OF HIS SON -IN SUPPORT OF AFORESAID FACTS, THE APPELLATE ALSO RELIED ON JUDGMENT OF HONORABLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN CASE OF INTEEZAR ALI VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INCOME TAX APPEAL NO 162 OF 2013, THE COPY OF COMPLETE JUDGMENT STANDS ALSO SUB MITTED WITH PREVIOUS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. THE FACTS OF CASE ALM OST ARE SIMILAR WITH THE INSTANT CASE. THE APPELLATE BEING A SMALL TAX PAYER HAS BEEN IMPO SED WITH A TAX DEMAND OF RS.3656080.00 ON GENUINE SALE PROCEED S OF HOUSE BY TREATING THE SAME AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOU RCES. THIS APPROACH OF ASSESSING AUTHORITY IS HARSH AND AGAINS T THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE. THE AO BEING LOCAL WAS WELL A WARE ABOUT THE MARKET RATES OF PROPERTY IN THE AREA & IN ORDER TO TAX THE REAL INCOME AND TO HAVE JUSTICE WITH THE APPELLATE SHOUL D HAVE BROADENED HIS SCOPE BY SEEKING FAIR VALUE OF THE PR OPERTY. 5.3 IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED T HAT FROM CONSIDERATION OF THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IT IS FOUND THAT THE NONE OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS IS ACTUALLY A CIRCUMSTA NTIAL EVIDENCE IN TRUE SENSE, AS THESE DOCUMENTS, IN NO WAY, SHOUL D ESTABLISH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATIO N OF THE SAID PROPERTY WAS AT RS.69,00,000/-. FURTHER OBSERVED TH AT IN THE CASE OF INTEEZAR ALI VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INCOM E TAX (SUPRA) THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESS EE, INCLUDING THE STATEMENT OF WITNESSES WHO HAD CONFIRMED THE CA SH PAYMENTS, LAND RECORD, TEHSILDAR REPORT AND THE ASSESSMENT OR DER OF THE BUYER IN WHICH THE AO HAD ACCEPTED THAT THE ALLEGED AMOUN T WAS ACTUALLY ITA NO.437/ASR/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13) SMT. SHAMSHADA YAQOOB MIR VS. ITO 9 PAID BY THE BUYER. ALL THESE EVIDENCES WERE NOT PRO DUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. IN ABSENCE OF THAT IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT THE PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES W ERE IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THIS OBSERVAT ION AND CONCLUSION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS CONTRARY TO THE FAC TS AND DOCUMENTS ON RECORD, BECAUSE THE DOCUMENTS AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE A SSESSEE, AS ANALYZED BY US ABOVE. HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE SUFFERS FROM PERVERSITY AND IMPROPR IETY AND THEREFORE, LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ADDITION OF RS.59 LACS STANDS DELETED. 6. IN THE RESULT , THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.06.2019. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY ARORA) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUD ICIAL MEMBER DATED: 13.06.2019 /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) SMT. SHAMSHADA YAQOOB MIR, SRINAGAR (2) THE ITO, WARD 3(3), SRINAGAR (3) THE CIT(A)-J&K, JAMMU (4) THE CIT CONCERNED. (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., AMRITSAR TRUE COPY BY ORDER ITA NO.437/ASR/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13) SMT. SHAMSHADA YAQOOB MIR VS. ITO 10 DATE INITIAL 1 . DRAFT DICTATED ON SR. PS /PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR SR. PS / PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPRO VED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR. PS /PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR. PS / PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER