Sh. Charanjit Singh, Samrala V. ITO, Khanna

ITA 46/CHANDI/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8487 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 1992-1993
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Question of law; Corroborative evidences; Assessment record; Retraction
• Section: 133A; 68; 148; 12

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT & MS. ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 46/CHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1992-93 SH. CHARANJIT SINGH, VS. THE ITO, WARD-II(1), L/H OF (DECEASED) SH. GURBACHAN SINGH, KHANNA S/O SH. RATTAN SINGH, SAMRALA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. SUDHIR SEHGAL & SH. ASHOK GOYAL RESPONDENT BY : SH. SUSHIL KUMAR DATE OF HEARING : 07.01.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25.02.2016 ORDER PER H.L.KARWA, VP THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT-II, LUDHIANA DATED 27.10.2008 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YE AR 1992-93. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE WORTHY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-II, LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS . 27,53,I50/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE RE TURNED INCOME. 2. THAT THE WORTHY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-II, LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION AND BY NOT BELIEVING THAT OUT OF SUM OF RS.27,53,150/- CONFIRM ED BY HIM, 2 A SUM OF RS. 8,53,150/- WAS OUT OF SELF SAVINGS AND BALANCE OF RS. 19 LACS WAS OUT OF UNSECURED LOANS. 3. THAT THE WORTHY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ), LUDHIANA HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE ASSES SEE IS EXISTING ASSESSEE OF INCOME TAX FOR THE PAST MANY Y EARS AND BESIDES BUSINESS INCOME, HE HAS ALSO AGRICULTURAL I NCOME AND HE WAS IN POSITION TO INVEST SUM OF RS. 8,53,150/- OUT OF PAST SAVINGS. 4. THAT THE WORTHY CIT (A), LUDHIANA HAS ALSO NOT CONS IDERED THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN LOAN FROM FRIENDS AND RELATIVES FOR THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND ESP ECIALLY WHEN THEIR STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AS PER DIRECTION OF THE PREDECESSOR OF THE WORTHY C IT (A) AND ALL THE CREDITORS HAVE CONFIRMED HAVING ADVANCED TH E LOAN AND CONSIDERING THE FACT AND ENTIRETY OF CIRCUMSTAN CES, HIS WORTHY PREDECESSOR HAS DELETED WHOLE OF THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 27,53,150/-. 5. THAT THE WORTHY CIT (A), LUDHIANA HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND BY NOT CONSIDERING OUR SUBMISSION PROPERLY AND, IN FACT, ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED ON IMAGINATION AND. GUESS WO RK WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS PROPERLY. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT S URVEY U/S 133A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') IN THE CA SE OF KHALSA CLOTH STORE, CHANDIGARH ROAD, SAMRALA WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE ADI ON 8.8.1996. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, REGISTERED DEEDS FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BY SHRI GURBACHAN SINGH S/O SH. RATTAN SINGH (DECEASED ASSE SSEE) WERE FOUND. SHRI GURBACHAN SINGH EXPIRED ON 22.4.1999. ONE DIARY W RITTEN IN URDU CONTAINING DEBTORS ENTRIES REGARDING SALE OF CLOTH WAS FOUND. THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO HAVE MADE INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURA L LAND TO THE TUNE OF RS. 3 27,53,150/- (VALUE OF LAND + STAMP DUTY + OTHER EXP ENSES). STATEMENT OF SHRI GURBACHAN SINGH WAS RECORDED ON OATH BY ADI DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. AS PER THIS STATEMENT, HE SURRENDERED A SUM OF RS. 15 LAKHS AS UNDISCLOSED AMOUNT INVESTED IN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THE BALANCE O F RS. 12 LAKHS WERE STATED TO BE OUT OF LOAN RAISED FROM VARIOUS PERSONS. ANOTHER AMOUNT OF RS. 6 LAKHS WAS CLAIMED TO BE OUT OF HIS SAVINGS. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER NOTED THAT SINCE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAN D RELATED TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93 AND SOME SALES RECORDED IN THE DIARY ALSO P ERTAINED TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1992-93 TO 1995-96, NOTICE U/S 148 WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED HIS RETURN OF IN COME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 19,600/ - + RS. 15,000/- (AGRICULTURAL INCOME). DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A LETTER DATED 25.3.1997, WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 'THAT, THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS PURCHASED OUT O F BANK WITHDRAWAL AND ALSO AFTER SECURING CERTAIN LOA NS WHICH WAS EXPLAINED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. T HE ALLEGED SURRENDER WAS MADE BY ME OUT OF CONFUSION A ND UNDER DURESS, AS THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS PURCHASED MANY YEARS BACK NOT DURING THE FY 1996-97 , I AM AN OLD AND SICK MAN, 1 AM UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEXITY OF TAW AND NO ADVANCE TAX HAS BEEN P AID BY ME FOR THE ALLEGED SURRENDER.' THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEF ORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CLAIMED THAT TOTAL INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF AG RICULTURAL LAND WAS AS UNDER:- COST OF LAND RS. 24,25,000/- STAMP DUTY RS. 3,03,150/- MISC. EXPENSES RS. 2,50,000/- TOTAL RS. 27,53,150/- SOURCES OF THE ABOVE INVESTMENT WAS CLAIMED AS UNDE R:- UNSECURED LOANS RS. 19,00,000/- SELF SAVINGS RS. 8,53,150/- 4 THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A LIST OF UNSECURED LOANS OF RS. 19 LACS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT HE SOLD IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AMOUNT ING TO RS. 3,06,000/- AS UNDER:- DATE ITEM TOTAL VALUE SHARE VALUE 19.01.88 SHOP AT CHOMKKOR SAHIB 45,000 45,000 26.09.88 HOUSE AT BEWHOLPUR 27,000/- 27,000/- 08.09.89 PLOT 20,000/- 20,000/- 01.06.90 PLOT AT BEHOLPUR 36,000/- 36,000/- 07.01.91 SHOP AT BEHOLPUR 11,000/- 11,000/- 07.05.91 HOUSE AT BEHOLPUR 20,000/- 20,000/- 1.10.91 AGRI. LAND AT VILL BEHLOLPUR 1,98,000/- 1/3 RD 66,000/- 09.10.91 -DO- 1,98,000/- 1/3 RD 66,000/- 02.12.91 -DO- 75,000/- 1/3 RD 25,000/- THE SOURCE OF BALANCE INVESTMENT OF RS. 5,47,150/- WAS STATED TO BE OUT OF HIS PAST SAVING, WHICH FACT WAS NOT MENTIONED IN ASSESS EES LETTER DATED 4.12.1997. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A LETTER DATED 15.12.1997 AN D LETTER DATED 17.12.1997 ABOUT THE INVESTMENT MADE AND THE SOURCE THEREOF FO R THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. 4. AS REGARDS THE UNSECURED LOANS OF RS. 19 LAKHS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AFFIDAVITS OF 22 PARSONS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. WITH REGARD TO THE SOURCE AND OWNERSHIP OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND, AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED JAMABANDI OF 1985. CERTAIN PHOTOCOPIES OF FORM J WITH REGARD TO THE SALE OF PADDY IN 1987 AND 1990 TO ONE M/S INDE R SINGH, BHUPINDER SINGH, 5 MANDI CHAMKAUR SAHIB, DISTT. ROPAR WERE ALSO SUBMIT TED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASONS STATED IN PARA 9 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFIC ER, THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED INTEREST FREE LOANS AMOUNTING TO RS. 19 LAKHS IN TH E FINANCIAL YEAR 1991-92 AND THAT NOT A SINGLE PENNY WAS RETURNED TO THE CREDITO RS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT IN THE CASE OF LARGE NUMBER OF C REDITORS, CASH WAS FOUND TO BE DEPOSITED IN THEIR RESPECTIVE BANK ACCOUNTS ONE OR TWO DAYS EARLIER AND ISSUED CHEQUES TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MEN TIONED THAT ONE SHRI JASBIR SINGH OF SAMRALA FROM WHOM AMOUNT OF RS. 4.50 LAKHS WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN BORROWED BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS DEPOSITED ON 10.2.199 2 AND THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED A CHEQUE ON 13.2.1992. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLU DED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD UTILIZED HIS OWN UNDISCLOSED AMOUNT BY FIRST DEPOSI TING THE AMOUNT IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE CREDITOR AND THEN GET CHEQUE ISSUED IN HIS FAVOUR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE EARL IER SURRENDERED RS. 15 LAKHS, HE RETRACTED FROM THIS STATEMENT SUBSEQUENTLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WITH BANK OF BARODA DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD VIZ A VIZ RS. 2.50 LAKHS ON 8.2 .1992, RS. 80,000/-ON 3.3.1992 AND RS. 2,30,000/- ON 6.3.1992. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT SOURCES OF THESE INVESTMENTS WERE FROM UNSECURED LOANS OF R S. 19 LAKHS AND SELF SAVINGS AT RS. 8,56,150/-. ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF LOANS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 19 LA KHS AND ALSO SOURCES OF RS. 8,53,150/-/ CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AD DED A SUM OF RS. 27,53,150/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. ON APPEAL THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AND, HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L. 6 6. WE HAVE HEARD SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL, LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR, LD. DR AT LENGTH. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE ACT, STATEMENT OF SHRI GURBACHAN SINGH WAS RECORDED ON OATH BY THE ADI ON 8.8.1996, WHICH READS AS UNDER:- STATEMENT OF SHRI GURBACHAN SINGH S/O SH. RATTAN S INGH C/O M/S KHALSA CLOTH STORE, CHANDIGARH ROAD, SAMRALA RECORD ED DURING SURVEY PROCEEDINGS U/ 133(A) (1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 ON 8/8/1996 AT ABOUT 6 PM. STATED ON OATH THAT I SHALL SPEAK THE TRUTH, ONLY T RUTH AND NOTHING BUT TRUTH. Q. DURING SURVEY OPERATIONS, ONE DIARY MARKED 'GERO' COCA COLA COLOUR WAS FOUND AND WHOSE PHOTO COPIES HAVE BEEN T AKEN, YOU ARE REQUESTED TO EXPLAIN TO WHOM THIS DIARY RELATES, TO WHOM ALL THE ENTRIES RELATE, BY WHOM THE DIARY HAS BEEN WRITTEN, WHETHER ALL THE RECORDED ENTRIES RELATING TO DIFFERENT YEARS HAVE B EEN REFLECTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ANY BUSINESS CONCERN OF YOUR OR OF ANY FAMILY MEMBERS BUSINESS? ANS. I IDENTIFY AND ADMIT THAT THIS DIARY IS WRITTE N BY ME AND THE ENTRIES RELATE TO THE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS OF M/S KHALSA CLOTH STORE RELATING TO DIFFERENT YEARS IN 1992-93 AND MOST ALL THESE ENTRIES ARE REFLECTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF M/S KH ALSA CLOTH STORE, WHICH IS THE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN OF MY SON SH. C HARANJIT SINGH. Q. YOU HAD PURCHASED LAND AT VILLAGE ROUNKE KALAN A ND BEER VADANI, THE TOTAL EXPENSE/ ON THIS PURCHASE DEAL IS ABOUT R S. 27 LACS ( RS. 24 LACS + 3 LACS), SINCE IN THE EARLIER STATEMENT YOU HAD STATED THAT RS. FIVE TO SIX LACS INCURRED ON YOUR OWN ACCOUNT AND B ALANCE YOU HAD STATED THAT CASH LOANS HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM FRIENDS AND RELATIVES AND OUT OF WHICH , YOU HAD GIVEN FEW NAME BUT YOU HAD N OT EVIDENCES IN THIS REGARD TO SUBSTANTIATE YOUR CONTENTION. PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THE WHOLE AMOUNT I.E. THE AMOUNT OF RS. 22 LACS ( 27 LA CS) MAY NOT BE TREATED AS INVESTMENT, MADE OUT OF THE CONCEALED IN COME? ANS. IN THIS TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 27 LACS, RS. THRE E LACS BELONG TO STAMP PAPER, WHICH HAS BOUGHT BY THE SELLER OF THE LAND AND OUT OF 7 REMAINING RS. 24 LACS, AS I HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED THAT THIS AMOUNT IS CONTRIBUTED AS RS. 6 LACS OUT OF MY OWN SAVINGS AND CAPITAL AMOUNT WHEREAS REMAINING RS. 10 LACS IS FROM VARIOUS CREDI TORS AND OTHER SOURCES OF WHICH I DO NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENCE AT THIS MOMENT. I HAVE GOT AN APPRECIATION IN MY MIND THAT I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO LEAD EVIDENCE OF RS.15 LACS OUT OF THIS RS. 18 LACS AND, THEREFORE, OFFER A SUM OF RS. 15 LACS FOR TAXATION AND I WILL PAY DUE TAXES THEREON. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT I DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING AT THIS MOMEN T TO PAY AS TAX, I WILL BE ABLE TO PAY TAX ONLY AFTER THE SALE OF THE SAID LAND. THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS WITHOUT ANY COERCION AND IS VOLUNTARY AND IS CORRECT. SD/- SD/- GURBACHAN SINGH RO & AC 8/8/96 IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO STATE THAT ON 8.8.1996, ANOT HER STATEMENT WAS ALSO RECORDED ON OATH BY THE ADI, WHICH READS AS UNDER:- STATEMENT OF SHRI GURBACHAN SINGH S/O SH. RATTAN S INGH C/O M/S KHALSA CLOTH STORE, CHANDIGARH ROAD, SAMRALA RECORD ED DURING SURVEY PROCEEDINGS U/ 133(A) (1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 8/8/1996 . STATED ON OATH THAT I SHALL SPEAK THE TRUTH, ONLY T RUTH AND NOTHING BUT TRUTH. Q. WHAT ARE THE SOURCES OF YOUR INCOME? ANS. THE SOURCE OF INCOME IS AGRICULTURE SINCE 1959 . I ALONGWITH MY TWO BROTHERS PURCHASED LAND MEASURING OF NINE KILAS . MY UNCLE WAS ALSO SHARE HOLDER OF THIS LAND, SHARE RATIO OF THE LAND WAS AS UNDER- 1/3 UNCLE SH. SUHEL SINGH 2/3 OF THREE BROTHERS NAMELY 1. MYSELF I.E. SH. GURBACHAN SINGH 2. SH. HARNAM SINGH 3. SH. KULWANT SINGH 8 THIS LAND WAS SITUATED AT VILLAGE BEHOLELPUR DISTT. FERZEPUR. TEN ACRES OF LAND WAS TAKEN ON LEASE FROM THE GOVT. AT VILLAGE VILLON ADJOINING TO VILLAGE BEHOLEPUR. LATERON THE LAND ME ASURING TEN KILAS WAS PURCHASED/ALLOTTED TO ONE AT THE RATE OF RS. 20 0/- PER KILA BY THE GOVT. WITHIN YEAR 1961-62. TILL THEN, WE WERE DOING AGRICULTURE ON THIS LAND. I HAVE SHIFTED TO SAMRALA IN THE YEAR 19 51. THE LAND AT VILLAGE VILLON WAS SOLD 25 TO 26 YEARS BACK AT THE RATE OF RS. 3600/- PER KILA, (THREE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED PER KILA). TH E TOTAL CONSIDERATION WAS RS. 31,200/- THE LAND AT BEHALELPUR WAS SOLD ABOUT FIVE TO SIX Y EARS BACK AT THE RATE OF RS.15,03,000/- PER KILA BUT THE REGISTRY OF THE LAND WAS MADE AT LOWER RATE. I RECEIVED MY SHARE VALUE OF RS. 2-1 /2 LACS. IT WAS NOT DEPOSITED IN ANY BANK AND THE SAME WAS UTILIZED IN OUR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES LIKE MARRIAGE OF MY FIVE DAUGHTERS AND TWO SONS. Q. PLEASE EXPLAIN WHETHER YOU HAD PURCHASED AGRICU LTURAL LAND MEASURING 171 K-9 M AT VILLAGE RAUNKE KALAN AND 34 KANALS AT VILLAGE BEED VADANI IN THE YEAR 1991. PLEASE ALSO E XPLAIN THE AMOUNT SPENT AND SOURCE THEREOF? ANS. I ADMIT THAT I PURCHASE LAND MEASURING 171 K-9 M AT VILLAGE RAUNKE KALAN AND 34 KANALS AT VILLAGE BEED VADANI. THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF LAND OF BOTH VILLAGE IS RS. 24 LAC S. THERE ARE THIRTEEN REGISTRATION DEEDS. THE VALUE PER REGISTRATION DEED IS RS. 1,90,000/-. REGISTRATION EXPENSES AND STAMP DUTY EXPENSES ARE O VER AND ABOVE THIS AMOUNT. THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE IS ABOUT RS. 34 LACS. I HAVE SPENT ABOUT RS. FIVE TO SIX OF MY OWN AND THE BALANCE PAY MENT WAS MADE BY RAISING LOANS FROM FRIENDS AND RELATIVES THROUGH CH EQUES. NO INTEREST IS TO BE PAID BY ME ON THESE LOANS. ALL THE CHEQUES WERE DEPOSITED IN MY SB ACCOUNT WIT H BANK OF BARODA, SAMRALA. THE NAME OF THE FEW PERSONS FROM WHOM LOAN S ARE RAISED ARE AS UNDER:- 1. SH. UJJAGAR SINGH NAMBARDAR VILLAGE JETEN A RS. 50000/- (CASH) 2. SH. RAM DASS VILLAGE JODHEWAL RS. 50000/- (CASH) 3. SH. MOHINDER SINGH VILLAGE KHERA RS. ONE LAC - CASH 9 4. SH. HARBANS SINGH VILLAGE KHATRA RS. 7500 0 TO ONE LAC CASH THE BALANCE NAMES AND THEIR COMPLETE ADDRESSES WILL BE GIVEN LATERON IN YOUR OFFICE AND I WILL ALSO PRODUCE ALL THESE PE RSONS TO YOUR OFFICE. Q. PLEASE GIVE THE DETAILS OF YOUR OTHER MO VEABLE AND IMMOVEABLE ASSETS-PURCHASED/SOLD DURING THE LAST F IVE YEARS. ANS. I HAVE NOT PURCHASED/SOLD ANY ASSET IN THE SHA PE OF MOVEABLE AND IMMOVABLE OTHER THAN THE STATED ABOVE. HOWEVER, I P URCHASED ONE PLOT MEASURING 15' BISAWA, FIFTEEN YEARS BACK. THE CONSI DERATION WAS OF RS. 4550/. NO OTHER IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY ME OR MY FAMILY MEMBERS. I HAVE MY BANK ACCOUNT WITH BANK OF BARODA AND THERE IS NO LOCKER EITHER IN MY NAME OR IN THE NAME OF FAMILY M EMBERS. Q. DURING SURVEY PROCEEDINGS AGREEMENT DEED REGARDI NG SALE OF LAND MEASURING 6 K-15 M SITUATED AT VILLAGE BHARATHLA DA TED 13.08.1995 BETWEEN YOU AND SH. SOMNATH S/O SMT. MAYA DEVI OF V ILLAGE BARTHLA WAS FOUND WHEREIN THE RATE IS RS. 1,50,000/- PER AC RE I.E OF 8 KANALS AND IN THIS AGREEMENT, IT HAS BEEN RECORDED THAT RS . 40,000/- HAS BEEN GIVEN AS ADVANCE. PLEASE EXPLAIN ABOUT THIS AG REEMENT DEED AND SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF ADVANCE AMOUNT? ANS. ONE PARMINDER SINGH NAMBERDAR OF VILLAGE PALMA JRA WAS TO MAKE SOME ADVANCE TO SH. SOM NATH. SINCE, SH. PARMI NDER WAS NOT SURE THAT WHETHER SOM NATH WILL EXECUTE ANY AGREEME NT WITH HIM, THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED ME TO GET THIS PAPER EXECUT ED IN MY NAME. WHEREAS THE SAID PAYMENT OF RS. 40000/- HAS BEEN MA DE BY SH. PARMINDER ONLY. THIS AGREEMENT OF SALE IS A MERE SE CURITY ON BEHALF OF SAID PARMINDER SINGH. Q. YOU HAD STATED EARLIER THAT YOU HAD RAISED LOANS FROM DIFFERENT FRIENDS AND RELATIVES, PLEASE, STATE WHETHER ANY WR ITTEN AGREEMENT HAS BEEN EXECUTED BY YOU WITH THEM ?. ANS. NO WRITTEN AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN EXECUTED. Q. PLEASE GIVE DETAILS OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM YOU HAD ADVANCED LOANS AND INTEREST RECEIVED FROM THEM. ? ANS. I HAD ADVANCED LOAN OF RS. 1-1/2 LACS THROUG H DRAFT AND I USED TO RECEIVE MONTHLY INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 2 PERCEN T. THE INTEREST IS RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUES. 10 THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF AND NOTHING HAS BEEN CONCEALED. SD/- SD/-GURBACHAN S INGH 8/8/96 7. SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY BELOW HAS LAID MAIN EMPHASI S AT THE STATEMENTS OF ASSESSEE RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. ACC ORDING TO LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) HAS NOT TAKEN THE FACT INTO T HE CONSIDERATION THAT THE DECEASED ASSESSEE HAS ALSO STATED THAT HE HAS SURRE NDERED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 15 LAKHS ONLY ON THE APPREHENSION THAT HE MIGHT WILL N OT BE ABLE TO PRODUCE RELEVANT EVIDENCES FOR THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM VAR IOUS PERSONS. ACCORDING TO LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THIS FACT IS CLEARLY BORNE OUT FROM THE STATEMENT OF SHRI GURBACHAN SINGH RECORDED ON 8.8.1996 AT ABOUT 6 PM REFERRED TO ABOVE. SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PO INTED OUT THAT BECAUSE SHRI GURBACHAN SINGH BEING AN OLD MAN AND COULD NOT RUN AROUND FOR COLLECTING AND PRODUCING THE EVIDENCES, THEREFORE, ON APPREHENSION HE HAS STATED SO. ACCORDING TO LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY PR ODUCED THE EVIDENCE AND ALSO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RECORDED THE STATEME NT OF THE CREDITORS, CONFIRMING THE FACT OF THE AMOUNT ADVANCED TO THE A SSESSEE, AND THEREFORE, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 11.1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WHEREIN THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE STATEMENT U/S 133A WAS RECORDED ON 8.8.1996; WHEREAS THE RETRACTION WAS MA DE LONG TIME AFTER VIDE LETTER DATED 25.3.1997. SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL, LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A) ARE AGAINST THE LAW AND NOT TENABLE. IT IS TRUE THAT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. K HADER KHAN SON (2008) 300 ITR 157 (MADRAS), THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT SECT ION 133A OF THE ACT DOES 11 NOT EMPOWER ANY INCOME TAX AUTHORITY TO EXAMINE AN Y PERSON ON OATH, HENCE, ANY SUCH STATEMENT HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE AND ANY ADMISSION MADE DURING SUCH STATEMENT CANNOT, BY ITSELF, BE MADE THE BASIS FOR ADDITION. THE QUESTION BEFORE THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT WAS AS UNDER:- WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE STATEMENT MADE DURING SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE ACT H AS NOT EVIDENTIARY VALUE? THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS ANSWERED THE ABOVE QUEST ION IN AFFIRMATIVE, OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 7. FROM THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, THE FOLLOWING PR INCIPLES CAN BE CULLED OUT : (I) AN ADMISSION IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE BUT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT IS CONCLUSIVE AND IT IS OPEN TO THE PERSON WHO MADE THE ADMISSION TO SHOW THAT IT IS IN CORRECT AND THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN A PROPER OPPO RTUNITY TO SHOW THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DO NOT CORRECTLY DIS CLOSE THE CORRECT STATE OF FACTS, VIDE DECISION OF THE APEX C OURT IN PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO. LTD. V. STATE OF KERA LA [1973] (II) IN CONTRADISTINCTION TO THE POWER UNDER SECTIO N 133A, SECTION 132(4) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT ENABLES THE AU THORISED OFFICER TO EXAMINE A PERSON ON OATH AND ANY STATEME NT MADE BY SUCH PERSON DURING SUCH EXAMINATION CAN ALSO BE USED IN EVIDENCE UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT. ON THE OTHER HAN D, WHATEVER STATEMENT IS RECORDED UNDER SECTION 133A O F THE INCOME-TAX ACT IS NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENTIARY VALUE O BVIOUSLY FOR THE REASON THAT THE OFFICER IS NOT AUTHORISED T O ADMINISTER OATH AND TO TAKE ANY SWORN STATEMENT WHICH ALONE HA S EVIDENTIARY VALUE AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER LAW, VIDE P AUL MATHEWS AND SONS V. CIT [2003] (III) THE EXPRESSION ' SUCH OTHER MATERIALS OR INFO RMATION AS ARE AVAIL ABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER' CONTAINE D IN 12 SECTION 158BB OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961, WOULD I NCLUDE THE MATERIALS GATHERED DURING THE SURVEY OPERATION UNDER SECTION 133A, VIDE CIT V. G. K. SENNIAPPAN [2006] (IV) THE MATERIAL OR INFORMATION FOUND IN THE COURS E OF SURVEY PRO CEEDING COULD NOT BE A BASIS FOR MAKING ANY ADD ITION IN THE BLOCK ASSESS MENT, VIDE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN T. C. (A) NO. 2620 OF 2006 (BETWEEN CIT V. S. AJIT KUMAR; (V) FINALLY, THE WORD ' MAY' USED IN SECTION 133A(3 )(III) OF THE ACT, VIZ., ' RECORD THE STATEMENT OF ANY PERSON WHICH MAY BE USEFUL FOR, OR RELEVANT TO, ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT', AS ALREADY EXTRACTED ABOVE, MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE MATERIALS COLLECTED AND THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE SUR VEY UNDER SECTION 133A ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE PIECE OF EVIDENCE B Y ITSELF. 8. FOR ALL THESE REASONS, PARTICULARLY, WHEN THE CO MMISSIONER AND THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWED THE CIRCULAR OF THE CENTRAL B OARD OF DIRECT TAXES DATED MARCH 10, 2003, EXTRACTED ABOVE, FOR AR RIVING AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE MATERIALS COLLECTED AND THE STA TEMENT OBTAINED UNDER SECTION 133A WOULD NOT AUTOMATICALLY BIND UPO N THE ASSESSEE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL. 16. ACCORDINGLY, FINDING NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION, THE TAX CASE APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED . 8. IT IS WORTHWHILE TO MENTION HERE THAT REVENUE CH ALLENGED THE ABOVE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT BY WAY O F SLP AND THE SAME WAS REJECTED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT VIDE ITS JUD GEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 2012 WHICH IS REPORTED IN (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC). THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT PASSED IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. KHADER KHAN SON REPORTED IN 300 ITR 157 (MADRAS) . IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT REFERRED TO ABOVE, WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN HOLDING THAT THE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE ON THE BAS IS OF STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH AT THE TIME OF SURVEY U/S 133 OF THE ACT, WHIC H HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE. EVEN THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES (CBDT) HAS ISSUED INSTRUCTIONS TO THE 13 INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES THAT NO EFFORTS SHOULD BE MA DE TO EXTRACT SURRENDER WITHOUT CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. FROM THE FACTS OF T HE PRESENT CASE, AND THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE AMOUNT WAS SURRENDERED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF APPREHENSION THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO LEAD THE EVIDENCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 15 LAKHS OF THE REMAI NING AMOUNT AND BEING AN OLD MAN, HE HAD STATED THAT I DO NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENCE AT THIS MOMENT, WE HAVE ALREADY OBSERVED HEREIN ABOVE, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE RETRACTION WAS MADE AFTER LONG TIME. IN MY OPINION, THE OBSERVATION OF THE CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT BECAUSE IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT RETRACTION IS PERMI SSIBLE ONLY IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE IT IS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE THA T IT WAS CONTRARY TO THE REAL FACTS AND THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO LEAD THE EVIDENCE IN THAT REGARD. IN OUR OPINION, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE DECEASED ASSESSEE DID NOT RETRACT FROM THE STATEMENT, AS IT IS EVIDENTIALLY CLEAR FROM THE STATEMENT REPRODU CED HEREIN ABOVE, THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 15 LAKHS WAS SURRENDERED ONLY AS THE ASSESSEE WAS OF THE BELIEF THAT HE MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO COLLECT THE EVIDENCE FOR THE SAME. IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MANIPULATED ANYTHING IN THIS R EGARD. AT THE SAME TIME, THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED CERTAIN DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WHICH WE WILL DISCUSS IN SUCCEEDING PAR AGRAPHS. IN THIS CASE, THE FACTS ARE SO CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT HE WILL NOT ABLE TO COLLECT THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR HIS CLA IM. NOW, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN AND RELYING ON THE STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE RECORDED U/S 133A OF THE ACT, AND AT THE SAME TIME HOLDING THAT THERE WAS A TIME GAP BETWEEN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 133A OF THE ACT, AND THE RETRACTION MADE VIDE LETTER DATED 25.3.1997. 9. IT ALSO APPARENT FROM THE RECORDS THAT DURING TH E ORIGINAL APPEAL PROCEEDING, THE THEN CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECORD THE STATEMENT OF SOME ALLEGED CREDITORS. IT IS ALSO CLE AR THAT THE THEN ASSESSING 14 OFFICER I.E. ITO, WARD-II(1), (KHANNA) RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF 13 SUCH CREDITORS. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SU BMITTED HIS REPORT DATED 15.3.2002 TO THE CIT(A). IT APPEARS FROM THE IMPUGN ED ORDER THAT THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT TH E ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAD SURRENDERED RS. 15 LAKHS. THE CIT(A) ALSO DID NOT ACCEPT THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS OF RS. 8,53,150/- (RS. 5,47,150/- OUT OF LIFELONG PHERI BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME SAVINGS + RS. 3,06,000/- OUT OF SALE OF PROP ERTY AND AGRICULTURAL LAND.). SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CON TENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED UNSECURED LOANS FROM VARIOUS PERSONS. HE ALSO STATED THAT THE LOANS WERE RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. HE ALSO INV ITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE STATEMENT OF THE CREDITORS AS RECORDED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER, AFFIDAVITS, BANK ACCOUNTS, BANK CERTIFICATES ETC., WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAGES 14 TO 122 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT IS RELEVANT TO STATE AT THIS STAGE THAT TH E THEN CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER I.E. ITO, WARD-II(1), KHANNA AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED A REPORT ON 15 TH MARCH 2002 STATING THAT ABOUT 13 PERSONS HAVE STATED THAT THE LOANS WERE GIVEN TO TH E ASSESSEE. OUT OF 13 PERSONS, THREE HAVE STATED THAT THE AMOUNT GIVEN HAVE SINCE BEEN RETURNED BACK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO MENTIONED THE DETAILS OF THESE THREE PERSONS. AS REGARDS, SIX PERSONS MENTIONED IN THE REPORT, THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT SOME OF THEM ARE RESIDING ABOARD AND SOME HAVE DIED AS PER REPORT OF THE NOTICE SERVER OF HIS OFFICE AND THE DETAILS HAVE BE EN GIVEN IN REPORT. IT IS RELEVANT TO REPRODUCE THE REPORT, WHICH READS AS UN DER:- NO. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER. WARD-I, KHANNA, DATED. KHANNA 15.3 2002 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEALS). LUDHIANA. SIR, 15 SUB:-APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF LATE GURB ACHAN SINGH, SAMRALA- REPORT SUBMISSION OF- ************ KINDLY REFER TO APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IN THE ABOVE- MENTIONED CASE. THE MAIN ISSUE CONTESTED IN APPEAL RELATES TO INVES TMENT OF RS.27,53,150/-IN THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OUT OF WHICH A SUM OF RS.19,00,000/- WERE SHOWN AS UNSECURED LOANS FROM VARIOUS PERSONS. DURING THE COURSE OF LAST HEARING, THE APPELLANT HA S GIVEN HIS ARGUMENTS IN WRITING BEFORE YOUR HONOUR WHICH WERE HANDED OVE R TO ME FOR GIVING MY COMMENTS. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ON THE BASI S OF DISCUSSION MADE BEFORE YOUR GOOD SELF, THE APPELLANT HAS PROVIDED A LIST OF PERSONS WHICH CAN BE PRODUCED NOW FOR RECORDING THEIR STATE MENTS IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THAT THE LOANS WERE GIVEN BY THEM. IT IS SUBMITTED BEFORE YOUR HONOUR IT WAS MY CASE T HAT THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THOUGH HAD FILED AFFIDAVITS OF TWO PERSONS IN RESPECT OF THESE LOANS AMOUNTING TO RS.19 LACS BUT NO OTHER EVIDENCE WAS FILED INSPITE OF REPEATED OPPO RTUNITIES ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE LOANS HAVE NOT BEEN RETURNED BACK TO THE SAID CREDITORS EVEN AFTER LONG PERIOD O F TIME AND NO INTEREST WAS PAID TO THESE CREDITORS. IN SOME OF T HE CASES, THE AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN CASH IN CREDITORS BANK ACCOUNT ONE TWO DAYS BEFORE THE SAME WAS WITHDRAWN BY ISSUE OF CHEQUES/PAY ORDER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ONE OF THESE CREDITORS I.E SH. JASBIR S INGH HAD GIVEN HUGE SUM OF RS. 4.50 LACS BUT NO SOURCE OF THE DEPOSIT WAS GIVEN. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY TREATING THESE LOANS AS ASSESSEES OWN INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOU RCES EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF DENOVO ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER,AS PER YOUR DIRECTION DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE STATEMENTS OF FOLLOWING PERSONS WER E RECORDED AND THEY HAVE GIVEN CERTAIN AMOUNTS OUT OF THE SOURCES MENTI ONED AGAINST EACH. S.NO. NAME OF CREDITOR AMT (RS. SOURCE OF DEPOSIT I) SH.BALWANT SINGH S/O SH.MAL SINGH, VILL. JHAR-SAHIB RS. 25,000 4 ACRES OF LAND 16 II) SH.RAM SINGH S/O SH.BALWANT SINGH, VILL. BEHLOLPIIR RS. 75,000/- 32 ACRES OF LAND III) SH.SADHU SINGH S/O KHAZAN SINGH, VILL ATTARI RS. 20,000/- 11 ACRES OF LAND IV) SH.JASBIR SINGH S/O NACHATTAR SINGH,SAMRALA RS. 4,50,000/- 32 ACRES OF LAND V) SH.PARMINDER SINGH S/O BHAG SINGH, VILL PAUL-MAJRA RS. 40,000/- 25 ACRES OF LAND VI) SH.RAM DASS.S/O SEWA RAM, VILL CHAK SAMOO RS. 50,000/- 20 ACRES OF LAND VII) SH.BALJINDER SINGH S/O SHER SINGH, VILL BONDLI RS. 30,000/- 12 ACRES OF LAND VIII) SH.GURDIP SINGH S/O SH.LABH SINGH, VILL BONDLV 50,000/- 20 ACRES OF LAND IX) SH.BAGGA SINGH S/O ALBEL SINGH, VILL PATAUDI RS. 50,000/- 26 ACRES OF LAND X) SH.HARBANS SINGH S/O BHAGWAN SINGH, VILL KHATRAN RS. 75,000/- 23 ACRES OF LAND XI) SH.HARPAL SINGH S/O UAYAL SINGH, VILL. LADHRAN RS. 80,000/- TEACHER XII) SH.RAM PAL SINGH S/O JOGINDER SINGH, VILL PARODI RS. 30,000/- 12 ACRES OF LAND XIII) XIII) SMT.BALBIR KAUR W/O ATE BHAJAN SINGH, HARBANPURA 1,50,000/- 8 ACRES OF LAND IN THEIR STATEMENTS THE ABOVE PERSONS HAVE STATED T HAT THE LOAN WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. THOUGH ALL THESE PERSONS ARE MAINTAINING THEIR BANK ACCOUNT FROM THE LAST 18 TO 22 YEARS BUT THE F ACT REMAINS THAT THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION WERE DEPOSITED BY THEM JUST BEF ORE ISSUING CHEQUES TO THE APPELLANT AS IS CLEAR FROM THEIR BAN K ACCOUNTS ARE AVAILABLE ON FILE. HOWEVER THE FACT REMAINS THAT TH E SOURCE OF THE DEPOSIT IN THE BANKS IS NOT CONVINCING. IT IS FURTH ER TO BE MENTIONED THAT IN THE CASE OF SH. JASBIR S/O SH NACHATTAR SIN GH, SAMRALA (LISTED AT SR. . NO. IV) ABOVE, IT WAS STATED THAT APART FR OM HOLDING, HE ALSO SOLD LAND OF RS. 21 LACS. HOWEVER NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FILED. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF SMT. BALBIR KAUR WHERE THE CREDIT IS OF 17 RS.150000/- THE AMOUNT IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN OUT O F AGRICULTURAL LAND OF 8 ACRES AND OUT OF FUNDS RECEIVED ON THE DEATH O F HER HUSBAND. ON BEING ASKED THE PURPOSE OF GIVING THE LOANS TO S H.GURBACHAN SINGH, ALL OF THEM REPLIED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS GIVE N WITH A PURPOSE TO PURCHASE LAND BY SH.GURBACHAN SINGH AND WITH A VIE W TO SELL IT OUT LATER ON TO EARN PROFIT AND ACCORDINGLY NO INTEREST WAS CHARGED. IT WAS FURTHER REPLIED THAT AS THE LAND PURCHASED IS IN DI SPUTE AND THE MATTER IS PENDING IN THE COURT, THE LAND COULD NOT BE SOLD OUT AND THE AMOUNT IS STILL PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE EXCEPT IN THREE CA SES WHEREIN THE AMOUNT IS STATED TO BE RETURNED BACK ( NAMES GIVEN IN LAST PARA OF THIS REPORT) IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE FOLLOWING PERSONS COULD NOT BE CONTACTED AS SOME THEM ARE RESIDING ABROAD AND SOME HAVE DIED AS PER REPORT OF THE NOTICE SERVER OF OFFICE AND NARRA TION IS GIVEN AS HERE UNDER:- 1. SH.DARBARA SINGH S/O CHATTAR SINGH RS. 100000 ( EXPIRED) 2. SH.UJJAGAR SINGH VILL JATANA RS. 50000 (-DO- ) 3. MASTER DALIP SINGH, VILL. AJNOUR -DO- RESID ING IN CANADA 4. SH.ANIL KUMAR, VILL BHARTHALA - RS. 10,000/- RESIDING ABROAD 5. SH.LABH SINGH, VILL BURMA RS. 100000 -DO- 6. SH.HARI SINAH. VILI JHAR-SAHIB RS. 20000 -DO- IT IS FURTHER TO BE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER STATEMENT S RECORDED, ONLY THREE PERSONS HAVE STATED THAT THE AMOUNTS GIVEN HAVE SIN CE BEEN RETURNED BACK. THESE PERSONS ARE AS UNDER:- I) SH.BALWANT SINGH S/O SH. MAI SINGH, VILL JHAR-SA HIB RS. 25000/- II) SH.RAM SINGHS/O SH.BALWANT SINGH, VILL. BEHLOLP UR RS. 40,000/- III) SH.SADHU SINGH S/O KHAZAN SINGH, VILL. ATTARR I RS. 10,000/- THE ASSESSMENT RECORD IN ONE VOLUME IS ENCLOSED. YOURS FAITHFULLY, 18 SD/- (B.S.CHAUHAN) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-I, KHANNA 10. IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO OBSERVE HERE THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD SUBMITTED PHOTOCOPIES OF BANK ACCOUNTS IN MOST OF THE CASES A ND ON A PERUSAL OF SUCH BANK ACCOUNT IT IS CLEAR THAT THE CREDITORS HAD BANK ACC OUNTS AND THEY CONFIRMED HAVING GIVEN LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LIST OF UNS ECURED LOANS TAKEN BY SHRI GURBACHAN SINGH FOR THE PURPOSE OF LAND AND THEIR S OURCES ARE AS UNDER:- 11. WE HAVE PERUSED THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AVAILA BLE AT PAGES 17 TO 122 OF THE PAPER BOOK. OUT OF ABOVE 30 PERSONS (LISTED IN SCANNED COPY), THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND G ENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THESE ARE AS UNDER:- 19 THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT HE HAD TAKEN A LOAN OF RS . 1 LAKHS FROM MASTER DARBARA SINGH, BARMA (S. NO. 19), THE S AID PERSON. WE MAY OBSERVE HERE THAT ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI DARBARA SINGH DATED 2.9.1997, WHO DIED ON 7.10 .1998. THE SAID PERSON WAS NEVER PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS O F THE DECEASED SHRI DARBARA SINGH. IN THE AFFIDAVIT, HE H AS STATED THAT HE WAS HAVING 25 ACRES OF LAND BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT SHRI D ARBARA SINGH WAS OWNER OF 25 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. W E ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE AFFIDAVIT TENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE CAN BE TREATED MERELY AS SELF-SERVING DOCUMENT WHICH IS NO T SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THIS ADDIT ION. AS REGARDS SH. UJJAGAR SINGH, JATANA (S.NO.23), THE AS SESSEE HAS SUBMITTED ONLY DEATH CERTIFICATE WHICH IS AVAILABL E AT PAGE 105 OF THE PAPER BOOK. AS PER THE SAID CERTIFICATE SH. UJJAGAR SINGH DIED ON 16.5.1997. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD T O PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND HENCE WE CONFIRM THE SAME. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE TAKEN UNSECURED LOAN OF RS . 20,000/- FROM ONE FORM SHRI HARI SINGH JHARSAHIB (S.NO. 26). HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE T HE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CRED ITOR AND, HENCE, WE CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS. 20,000/-. SI MILARLY, AS PER THE ABOVE LIST IN THE CASE OF MASTER DILIP SING H, AJNOD (S.NO.28) THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED RS. 50,000/-. IT IS CLEAR THAT NO EVIDENCE IS SUBMITTED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND, HENCE, WE CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS. 50,000/-. 20 ALSO, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 10,000/- (S.NO. 29) FROM ONE SHRI ANIL KUMAR. THE A SSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR, CREDI TWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. TH E ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE IS RESIDING ABOARD. WE ALSO CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,000/-. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED UNSECUR ED LOAN OF RS. 1 LAKH RECEIVED FROM SHRI LABH SINGH BERMA (S. N0. 30) IN CASH. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A CERTIFICATE OF SARPA NCH WHICH HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE, BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAI LED TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR AND THE GENUIN ENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THUS, ADDITION IS CONFIRMED. THE ASSE SSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 30,000/- FO RM ONE MS. AMAR KAUR, BALLION (S.NO.27). THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR AND GENU INENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND, HENCE, WE CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS. 30,000/- . THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED A SUM O F RS. 10,000/- FORM ONE SHRI HARDEV SINGH, LALLON (S. NO. 25). IN THIS CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE ID ENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, AND ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 10,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT HE H AD RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 50,000/- FROM ONE SHRI GURDEV SINGH, GHA RKHANA (S.NO. 22). IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SU BMITTED THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI GURDEV SINGH (PAGE 104 OF THE PAP ER BOOK) AND ALSO DEATH CERTIFICATE WHO EXPIRED ON 16.5.1997. IN THE AFFIDAVIT, IT IS STATED THAT HE HAD ADVANCED A LOAN OF RS. 50, 000/- OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS. THERE IS NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF SHRI GURDEV SINGH. 21 THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED A SU M OF RS. 25,000/- FROM ONE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH KOTLA (S. N0 .21). THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI AMARJIT SI NGH WHEREIN IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS GIVNE OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. THERE IS NO SUPPO RTING EVIDENCE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROV E THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ADDITION O F RS. 25,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO CLAIMED TO HAVE REC EIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS. ONE LAKH FROM ONE SH. BALBIR SINGH, CHETAN (S. NO.4) S/O SHRI AJAIB SINGH RESIDENT OF VILL CHETAN (TEHSIL SAMRALA). THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI BALBIR SINGH. IN HIS AFFIDA VIT, SHRI BALBIR SINGH HAS STATED THAT THE HE HAS GIVEN A SUM OF RS. ONE LAKH TO SHRI GURBACHAN SINGH OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICU LTURAL PRODUCE. IN THIS CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED AN AMOU NT OF RS. 25,000/- AS A LOAN RECEIVED FORM ONE SHRI HARPAL SI NGH, CHEHLAN (S.NO.3). IN HIS AFFIDAVIT, SHRI HARPAL SINGH HAS S TATED THAT THE SAID LOAN WAS GIVEN OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICUL TURAL PRODUCE. THE AFFIDAVITS OF THE SAID PERSONS IS NOT SUBSTANTI ATED BY ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT HE WAS HAVING AGR ICULTURAL INCOME. IN THIS CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR AND THE GENUINENES S OF THE TRANSACTION. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ADDITION. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO CLAIMED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED A LOAN OF RS. 25,000/- AND RS. 30,000/- FROM MASTER HARI SINGH, TODARPUR (S.N O. 11) AND 22 SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, VILLAGE KATALA (S.NO.12) RESPEC TIVELY. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE AFFIDAVITS OF THESE TWO PERS ONS. ALTHOUGH THE PERSONS HAVE STATED THAT THE LOANS WERE GIVEN O UT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. HOWEVER, NO SUPP ORTING EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THEY W ERE HAVING AGRICULTURAL LAND AND INCOME THEREFROM. IN THE ABSE NCE OF SUCH EVIDENCE, WE CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS. 25,000/- A ND RS. 30,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED A SUM OF RS . 1 LAKH RECEIVED AS LOAN FROM SH. MOHINDER SINGH, KHERA (S. NO. 14). THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED AN AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI KHER A (PAGE 81 OF THE PAPER BOOK), WHEREIN HE HAS STATED THAT HE H AS GIVEN A LOAN OF RS. 1 LAKH TO THE ASSESSEE OUT OF SALE PROC EEDS OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. HE HAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT HE I S HAVING 20 ACRES OF LAND AT VILLAGE, KHERA, TEHSIL SAMRALA. HO WEVER, THERE IS NO SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT HE IS OWNER OF 20 ACRES OF LAND. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH EVIDENC E, THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR IS NOT PROVED AND, HENCE, WE CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS. 1 LAKH. FURTHER, THE AS SESSEE ALSO CLAIMED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 30,000/- FROM SHRI GURMAIL SINGH SAINI, BEHLOLPUR (S.NO. 15) AS A LOAN . THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI GURMAIL SIN GH SAINI S/O SHRI RAMJI WHEREIN HE HAS STATED THAT HE HAD GIVEN A SUM OF RS. 30,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF A GRICULTURAL PRODUCE. IT IS STATED THAT HE IS HAVING EIGHT ACRES OF LAND AT VILLAGE BEHLOLPUR. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE, THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE CANNOT B E ACCEPTED. 23 12. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT IN ORDER TO ESTABLI SH THE FACT OF THE RECEIPT OF THE CASH CREDIT , AS REQUIRED U/S 68 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE MUST PR OVE THE THREE IMPORTANT CONDITIONS NAMELY I) THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS, II) THE CAPACITY OF THE CREDITORS TO ADVANCE MONEY; AND III) THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION. THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE SOURCE OF CASH CREDITS IS ON THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABOVE TRANSACTIONS, THE ASSESSEE CREDITED THE AMOUN T BY CHEQUES. IN OUR OPINION, MERE PAYMENT BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES IS N OT SACROSANCT NOR CAN IT MAKE NON-GENUINE TRANSACTION AS GENUINE. IN VIEW O F THE ABOVE, WE CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS. 7,55,000/-. WE MAY ALSO OBSERVE HER E THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED A LIST OF UNSECURED LOANS REFERRED TO ABO VE, TOTALING TO RS. 18,80,000/-. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED UNSECURED LOANS OF RS. 19 LAKHS. THUS, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF RS. 20,000/- (RS. 19,00,000 RS. 18,80,000) FOR WHICH NO EXPLANATION HAS BEEN GIVEN. ACCORDINGLY THE TOTAL ADDITION COMES TO RS. 7,75,000/- (RS. 7,55,000 + RS . 20,000/-) ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ADDITION TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 13. AS REGARDS THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 11,25,000/ -, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS STATED IN THE REMAND REPORT DATED 15.3.2002 THAT 13 PERSONS MENTIONED THEREIN HAVE STATED THAT THE L OAN WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED THE ST ATEMENTS OF THE CREDITORS MENTIONED AT PAGE 2 OF THE REMAND REPORT. IT IS ALS O RELEVANT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE COPIES OF THE S TATEMENTS AS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFFIDAVITS, BANK ACCOUNT AND BAN K CERTIFICATES OF THESE CREDITORS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE IN ASSESSEES COMPILA TION. ALL THESE CREDITORS HAVE CATEGORICALLY STATED IN THEIR RESPECTIVE STATEMENTS THAT THEY HAD GIVEN THE LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE. THEY HAD ALSO PROVED THEIR CREDI TWORTHINESS AND TRANSACTION 24 ARE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. IT IS ALSO WORTH MENT IONING THAT IN THE REMAND REPORT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENTIONED THAT SHR I BALWANT SINGH S/O SH. MAL SINGH, SHRI RAM SINGH S/O SH. BAWANT SINGH AND SHRI SADHU SINGH S/O SH. KHAZAN SINGH HAVE STATED THAT THE AMOUNTS GIVEN WERE RETURNED BACK BY THE ASSESSEE. IT APPEARS THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAV E REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF CONJECTURES AND SURMIS ES. THEY HAVE ALSO NOT APPRECIATED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN RIGH T PERSPECTIVE. IN OUR OPINION, THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE KEEPING IN VIEW THE STAT EMENT OF ASSESSEE RECORDED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY AND THEY HAVE SIMPLY BRUSHED ASIDE THE EVIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY COGENT REASONS. IT I S WORTHWHILE TO MENTION HERE THAT REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE DOUBTED THE GENUINENE SS OF THE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI JASBIR SINGH. IT IS O BSERVED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF SHRI JASBIR SINGH (COPY I S AVAILABLE AT PAGES 106 & 107 OF THE PAPER BOOK) WHEREIN IN REPLY TO Q. NO.2 , HE HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT A SUM OF RS. 4,50,000/- WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSES SEE FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT NO. 6385 THROUGH CHEQUE. AS REGARDS THE PURPOSE OF ADVANCING THE MONEY, SHRI JASBIR SINGH STATED THAT THERE WAS AN UNDERSTANDING WITH SHRI GURBACHAN SINGH TO PURCHASE AGRICULTURE LAND WITH A PURPOSE TO BE SOLD LATER ON FOR EARNING PROFIT. THE REVENUE HAS NOT DOUBTED THE IDENTITY OF SHRI JASBIR SINGH AND ALSO CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR. IN HIS STATEMENT SHRI JASBIR SINGH HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT HE IS AN AGRICULTURIST AN D IS OWNING 32 ACRES OF LAND. THE TRANSACTIONS WERE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. THU S, THERE WAS NO QUESTION IN DOUBTING THE GENUINENESS OF THESE TRANSACTIONS. THE OTHER CREDITORS ALSO CONFIRMED HAVING GIVEN THE LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE AS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 15.3.2002 AND T HEY HAD ALSO EXPLAINED THE SOURCES OF DEPOSITS; AND THE TRANSACTIONS WERE TH ROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,25,000/- (RS. 19,00,000 RS. 7,75,000/-). ACCOR DINGLY, WE ALLOW A RELIEF OF RS. 11,25,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE. 25 14. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE TOTAL INVESTMENT FOR TH E PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IS AS UNDER:- 1) COST OF LAND RS. 24,25,000/- 2) STAMP DUTY RS. 3,03,150/- 3) MISC. EXPENSES RS. 2,50,000/- TOTAL RS. 27,53,150/- SOURCES OF THE ABOVE INVESTMENT WAS CLAIMED AS UNDE R:- 1) UNSECURED LOANS RS. 19,00,000/- 2) SELF SAVINGS RS. 8,53,150/- DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASS ESSEE CLAIMED THAT HE HAD SOLD IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AT RS. 3,06,000/- AS UNDER: - DATE ITEM TOTAL VALUE SHARE VALUE 19.01.88 SHOP AT CHOMKKOR SAHIB 45,000 45,000 26.09.88 HOUSE AT BEWHOLPUR 27,000/- 27,000/- 08.09.89 PLOT 20,000/- 20,000/- 01.06.90 PLOT AT BEHOLPUR 36,000/- 36,000/- 07.01.91 SHOP AT BEHOLPUR 11,000/- 11,000/- 07.05.91 HOUSE AT BEHOLPUR 20,000/- 20,000/- 1.10.91 AGRI. LAND AT VILL BEHLOLPUR 1,98,000/- 1/3 RD 66,000/- 09.10.91 -DO- 1,98,000/- 1/3 RD 66,000/- 02.12.91 -DO- 75,000/- 1/3 RD 25,000/- 26 THE SOURCES OF THE BALANCE INVESTMENT OF RS. 5,47,1 50/-, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE SAME WAS OUT OF HIS PAST SAVINGS AS HE WAS EAR NING AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID CONTENTION THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED A COPY OF JAMABANDI FOR THE YEAR 1985, WHICH WAS ISSUED BY THE PATWARI DATE D 8.2.1990. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED PHOTOCOPIES OF FORM NO.1 WITH RE GARD TO THE SALE OF PADDY IN 1987 AND 1990 WITH M/S INDER SINGH, BHUPINDER SING H, MANDI CHAMKAUR SAHIB, DISTT. ROPAR. THESE DOCUMENTS WERE FILED TO CLAIM T HAT THE ASSESSEE WAS EARNING AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THE AMOUNT WAS KEPT AT HOME AND ALSO GIVEN TO SOME PERSONS BY MORTGAGING AGRICULTURAL LAND. IT IS ALSO APPARENT FROM THE RECORD THAT PHOTOCOPIES OF SOME MORTGAGE DEEDS WERE PRODUCED BE FORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT HE WAS PARTNER IN M/S GURBACHAN SINGH C/O M/S M/S INDER SINGH CHAMKAUR SAHIB WHO W AS BEING ASSESSED ITO, ROPAR AND THE FIRM WAS DISSOLVED W.E.F. 1.4.1981. I T IS OBSERVED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED INCO ME OF ONLY RS. 19,600/- IN ADDITION TO THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 15,000/- IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. HE OBSERVED THAT IN THE PRECEDING YEAR, THE POSITION W OULD HAVE NOT BEEN BETTER THAN THIS. HE THEREFORE, REJECTED THE EXPLANATION O F THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR OPINION, THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) CANNOT BE HELD CO RRECT, PARTICULARLY WHEN HE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO DISPROVE THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHE D DETAILS OF PROPERTIES WHICH HE HAD SOLD DURING THE EARLIER YEARS. IN CASE OF DO UBT, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES SHOULD HAVE VERIFIED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE . IN FACT, NO SUCH EXERCISE HAS BEEN DONE. AS REGARDS THE PAST SAVINGS OF THE ASSES SEE ALSO, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY COGENT REASONS. SHRI GURBACHAN SINGH HAD BEEN DOING PHERI BUSINESS FOR THE PAST MANY YEARS AND HE WAS ALSO HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME. T HERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSE E THAT HE WAS OWNER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND HE HAD ALSO PRODUCED THE JAMA BADI FOR THE YEAR 1985 IN 27 SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED AN AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 15,000/- WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. IN OUR OPINION , THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE ASSESSEES EXPL ANATION ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED A SUM OF RS. 8,53,150/- OUT OF HIS PAST SAVINGS AND OUT OF SALE OF PROPERTIES MENTIONED HEREIN ABOVE. 15. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE CONFIRM THE ADDITION O F RS. 7,75,000/- AND ALLOW A RELIEF OF RS. 19,78,150/- (RS. 11,25,000 + RS. 8, 53,150/-) TO THE ASSESSEE. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED PARTLY AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.02.2016 SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA) (H.L.KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 25.02.2016 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR 28