Skynet Builders (P) Ltd., Chandigarh V. CIT, Gurgaon

ITA 508/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73560 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 04-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Revision of order; Business expenditure; Assessment record; Tax effect
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 508/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SKYNET BUILDERS (P) LTD. VS. THE CIT, SCO 75 CENTRAL SECTOR 20-C GURGAON CHANDIGARH PAN NO. AAICS2411G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI AMAN PARTI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 10/03/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25/03/2014 ORDER PER T.R.SOOD, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05/03/2012 OF CIT(CENTRAL), GURGAON 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS:- 1. BECAUSE THE ACTION FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 263 FOR REVISION OF ORDER U/S 153 A R.W. 143(3) IS BEIN G CHALLENGED ON FACTS AND LAW AND EVEN THE DIRECTIONS FOR VERIFICATION FROM DOCUMENTS WITH A FINDING TO M AKE DISALLOWANCE IS UNDER CHALLENGE SINCE DECLINING TH E OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING IN SUBSTANCE AS REQUIRED I N ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 2. BECAUSE THE ACTION IS UNDER CHALLENGE ON FACTS AND LAW, WHEREBY THE NOTICE U/S 263 FOR INVOKING THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 40A(3) BY THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDING WAS 2 CONFIRMED TO RS. 1,74,56,000/- WHEREAS THE CONCLUSI ONS ARE FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2,54,06,000/-. 3. BECAUSE THE ACTION IS UNDER CHALLENGE ON FACTS AND LAW FOR A DIRECTION TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40 A(3) FOR AN A MOUNT OF RS. 2,54,06,000/- AND WITHOUT EXAMINING THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 40A(3A) PROVISO 1 REFERRING TO CONSIDERATI ONS OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY AND OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT UPON EXAMINATION OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS, THE LD COMMISSIONER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PROPERLY EXAMINED THE RECORDS OF TH E ASSESSEE RELATING TO CASH PAYMENTS AGAINST PURCHASE OF LAND BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND ACCORDINGLY A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 1.2.2013 WAS ISSUED. ACCORDING TO LD. COMMISSIONER DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD EXAMINED THE PAYMENT OF CASH AGAINST THE LAND PURCH ASED THROUGH SHRI VINOD KUMAR ATTORNEY OF M/S NEW GENERATION REAL ESTATE (P ) LTD. IT WAS NOTICED BY ASSESSING OFFICER THAT CASH WAS PAID TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1.20 CRORES AND THERE WAS FURTHER PAYMENT OF RS. 45 LAKHS THROUGH SHRI V INOD KUMAR. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ONLY AGAINST THE CASH PAYMENT OF RS. 1.20 CRORES. ACCORDING TO LD. COMMISSIONER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT MAD E ADDITION OF RS. 45 LAKHS. IN FACT IN THIS REGARD HE OBSERVED IN THE NOTICE AS UNDER:- THUS, THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION U/S 40A(3) FOR CASH PAYMENT OF RS. 1,20,00,000/- BUT HE HAS NOT MADE ANY ADDITI ON FOR CASH PAYMENT OF RS. 45,00,000/-. AS PER RULE 6 DD T HERE IS NO SUCH EXCEPTION THAT IF THE SELLER INSISTS FOR CASH PAYMENT THEN THE ASSESSEE CAN MAKE THE PAYMENT IN CASH. 4. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE ITEMS HE ALSO RAISED OB JECTIONS IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER PURCHASES VIDE PARA 3 OF THE NOTICE WHICH IS AS UNDER:- 3. BESIDES ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED FOLLO WING LANDS DURING THE YEAR:- 3 A) LAND MEASURING 1983 SQ. YARD FOR A TOTAL COST OF RS . 50 LACS ON 17.01.2006 AND MEASURING 1872 SQ. YARDS AT A TOTAL COST OF RS. 48 LACS ON 02.02.2006 FROM SH. ME HBOOB ALI, KARAM DIN, SUDUGAR ALI, AMMIN SONS OF SH. GAMA R/O VILLAGE BHABAT THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY SH. BINDER PAL SINGH. B) LAND MEASURING 936 SQ. YARD FOR TOTAL COST OF RS. 28,12,500/- AND MEASURING 564 SQ. YARDS AT TOTAL CO ST OF RS. 16,93,500/- ON SURESH KUMAR, SH. VINOD KUMAR, S H MUNISH KUMAR AND SMT. SUSHMA MITTAL. C) LAND MEASURING 6 KANALS 12 MARLAS FOR A TOTAL COST OF RS. 1,20,000/- ON 19.10.2005 AT VILLAGE BABHAT FROM SH. MEHBOOB ALI, KARAM DIN, AND SH. AMMIN SONS OF SH. GAMA THROUGH NEW GENERATION REAL ESTATE (P) LTD. RS . 45,00,000/- PAID IN CASH. D) LAND MEASURING 14 BIGHAS 14 BISWA FOR COST OF RS. 8,52,60,000/- ON 15.09.2005 FROM SH. GURDIAL SINGH- RS. 3,50,000/- PAID IN CASH. E) LAND MEASURING 4 KANALS 19 MARLAS FOR COST OF RS. 31,00,000/- ON 02.12.2005 FOR SH. MANJIT SINGH, RS. 31,00,000/- PAID IN CASH. 4. THE ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS SHOW THAT THE AO FAILE D TO INVOKE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE I.T. ACT AND RU LE 6DD OF I.T. RULES AND DID NOT MAKE ADDITIONS OF RS. 1,74,56,000 /-. 5. THE ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS, ARISING FROM EXAMINAT ION OF ASSESSMENT RECORDS, INDICATE THAT WHILE FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT CONSIDER THE F ACTUAL POSITION AND DID NOT MAKE INQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION ON ABOVE MENTIONED ISSUE. FAILURE TO MAKE SUCH INVESTIGATION / ADDITION RESUL TING IN UNDUE BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE, HAS MADE THE ASSESSMENT OR DER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 6. THEREFORE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THIS IS A FI T CASE WHERE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ARE REQUIRED TO BE INVOKED AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOULD BE REVISED. 5. IN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE IT WAS MAINLY STATED THAT VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ABSOLUTELY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND, THEREFORE, SHE RIGHTLY TOOK THE JUDICIOUS VIEW IN A CCEPTING THE PAYMENTS MADE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. IT WAS FURTHER STATED IN THE REPLY THAT THE PLAUSIBLE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER LEGISLATIVE I NTENT AND THE WORDS MENTIONED IN SECTION 40A(3) CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS PAR TICULARLY WHEN IN THIS CASE AS AFOREMENTIONED THE ORDER IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO T HE INTEREST OF REVENUE BECAUSE 4 OF THE TRUTHFUL AND GENUINE EXPENSES PAID IN CASH F OR PURCHASE OF THE LAND. THIS IS SO BECAUSE THE SELLERS REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE PAY MENT BY CHEQUE DUE TO FRAUDS AND THE PURCHASERS BUSINESS INTEREST WOULD SUFFER DUE TO NON AVAILABILITY OF THE LAND OTHERWISE THAN FROM THE PARTICULAR SELLER. SHE WAS OF THE OPINION: OTHERWISE THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PROCUR E THE LAND FOR EXECUTION OF ITS PROJECT AND ITS BUSINESS WOULD HAVE SUFFERED. P AYMENTS WERE MADE TO THE SELLERS AFTER WITHDRAWING THE AMOUNT FROM THE BANKS DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS. 6. THE LD. COMMISSIONER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE RESPONSE AND OBSERVED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO INVOKE THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) READ WITH RULE 60-D. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NO EXCEPTION LIKE INSISTENCE OF CASH PAYMENT PROVIDED IN RULE 6DD AND, THEREFORE , IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE POSSIBLE VIEW. HE F URTHER OBSERVED THAT JUST BECAUSE THE SELLER OF THE LAND WAS AGRICULTURIST, T HE SAME WOULD NOT MAKE IT A CASE OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY. HE ALSO CONSIDERED TH E PAYMENT IN ALL CASES AND OBSERVED THAT IN FEW CASES BUYERS HAVE ACCEPTED CHE QUES AS WELL AS CASH, THEREFORE, HOW THE ASSESSEE CAN SAY THAT SUCH BUYER S REFUSED TO ACCEPT CHEQUES. IN THIS BACKGROUND, THE LD. CIT MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,54,06,000/- VIDE PARA 12 OF HIS ORDER WHICH IS AS UNDER:- THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS CLEARLY SHOW THAT RS. 2,54,06,000/- IS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ALSO DIR ECTED TO VERIFY THE CASH PAYMENTS FROM THE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE IN T HE ASSESSMENT RECORDS. I CONCLUDE THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE OF REVISION U/S 263 BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE @ 20% ON U/S 40A(3) OF THE I.T. ACT RE AD WITH RULE 6DD. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DI RECTED TO MAKE SUCH DISALLOWANCE ON RS. 2,54,06,000/- AFTER PROPER VERIFICATION OF THE AMOUNT AND REVISE THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 5 7. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) AND POINTED OUT THAT PROVISO ITSELF CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE HAVING REGARD TO THE NATU RE AND EXTENT OF BANKING FACILITIES AVAILABLE, CONSIDERATION OF BUSINESS EX PEDIENCY AND OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS. THEREFORE, ONCE THE SELLER REFUSE TO ACCE PT THE PAYMENT IN CHEQUE THEN BUYER WILL HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO MAKE THE PAYMENT I N CASH ONLY. THE NECESSARY AFFIDAVITS FOR INSISTENCE OF CASH PAYMENTS WERE DUL Y FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS CASE AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALRE ADY RECORDED THIS FACT BY WAY OF A NOTE WHICH BECOMES CLEAR FROM PARA 4 OF THE I MPUGNED ORDER WHEREIN THE COMMISSIONER HAS MENTIONED REGARDING THIS NOTE. THE BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND, THEREFORE, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEW THAT IF ASSESSING OF FICER TAKES SUCH POSSIBLE VIEW, SUCH ORDER CANNOT BE CALLED ERRONEOUS AND PRE JUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND IN THIS REGARD HE STRONGLY RELIED ON TH E DECISION OF CIT V MUNJAL CASTINGS 303 ITR 23 (P&H). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE NOTICE THROUGH PARA 4, THE COMMISSIONER HAS MENTIONED THE FIGURES OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) AT RS. 1,74,56,000/- WHEREAS IN THE FINAL OR DER HE HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAKE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,54,0 6,000/-. HE CONTENDED THAT COMMISSIONER HAS NOT POWER TO GO BEYOND THE NOTICE. THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO REFERRED TO THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS IN THE PAPER BOOK THAT HOW AFFIDAVITS AND OTHER DETAILS AND JUSTIFICATION REGARDING CASH PAYM ENT WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. HE REFERRED TO THE SUMMARY OF ACCOUNT EXTRACTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND POINTED OUT THAT SHRI MEHBOOB ALI AND OTHERS MENTIONED AT S R. NO.6 AND SHRI GURDIAL SINGH AT SR. NO. 7 HAS ACCEPTED THE SUBSTANTIAL AMO UNT THROUGH CHEQUES ALSO. THEN HOW IT CAN BE SAID THAT THESE PERSONS HAVE IN SISTED ONLY ON CASH PAYMENTS. THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THERE WAS NO BUSINESS EXPED IENCY. 6 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFUL LY. PROVISO TO THE SECTION CLEARLY SHOWS THAT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES , NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE AND SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE BEEN MENTIONED IN RULE 60-DD OF THE ACT. NOW IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AD DEFINITELY MADE INQUIRES REGARDING CASH PAYMENT AND IN FACTS SHE HAS ALREADY DISALLOWED A CASH PAYMENT OF RS. 1 CRORES 20 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF CASH PAID TH ROUGH SHRI VINOD KUMAR, ATTORNEY OF M/S NEW GENERATION REAL ESTATE (P) LTD. , 20% OF THIS AMOUNT AS PRESCRIBED U/S 40A(3) WAS DISALLOWED. 10. IN RESPECT OF OTHER PARITIES SHE WAS SATISFIED AFTER OBTAINING THE AFFIDAVITS THAT CERTAIN SELLERS OF THE LAND WERE INSISTING ON CASH PAYMENTS. THIS BECOMES CLEAR FROM THE NOTE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN PARA 4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND READS AS UNDER;- 4. AS REGARDS ABOVE-MENTIONED PURCHASES, SHE FURTHE R MENTIONED AS UNDER IN THE OFFICE NOTE:- THE ABOVE PURCHASES WERE MADE IN CASH. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED TH AT THE ABOVE PURCHASES WERE MADE IN CASH, AS ALL THE SELLE RS WERE RESIDENTS OF RURAL AREAS AND HAD MORE FAITH IN RECE IVED CASH PAYMENTS THAN GOING THROUGH THE BANKING CHANNEL. T HEY INSISTED THAT THEY MUST RECEIVE THE PAYMENT IN CASH ON ORDER TO COMPLETE THE TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSEE WAS LEFT WITH NO CHOICE BUT TO MAKE THE PAYMENT IN CASH. OTHERWISE T HE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PROCURE THE LAND FOR EXECUTION OF ITS PROJECT AND ITS BUSINESS WOULD HAVE SUFFERE D. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM AN AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI BINDER PA L WAS FILED WHO STATED THAT HE HAD INSISTED FOR CASH PAYMENT AS IN PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS THERE WERE POSSIBILITIES OR F RAUD IN BANK DRAFT OR CHEQUES. STATEMENT OF SHRI BINDER PA L WAS ALSO RECORDED ON OATH AND IN HIS STATEMENT HE STATED TH AT HE HIMSELF ALONGWITH THE FARMERS INSISTED THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE THE PAYMENT IN CASH. ALSO, THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & H ARYANA 7 HIGH COURT IN ITS JUDGMENT DATED 19.09.2007 IN THE CASE OF ITO, WARD NO.3, PHAGWARA VS. SOM DUTT PROPRIETOR (I TA NO. 65 OF 1999) AND M/S RAVI ENGINEERING CORPORATION V CIT, LUDHIANA (ITA NO. 173 OF 1998) HAS HELD THAT IF TH E ASSESSEE HAD FILED A CERTIFICATE TO THE EFFECT THAT CASH PAY MENTS WERE INSISTED ON BY THE RECIPIENT THEN IT WAS SUFFICIENT TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY OPTION BUT TO MA KE THE PAYMENT IN CASH. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE CIT V AVTA R SINGH AND SONS (1992) 194 ITR 80, AGGARWAL STEEL TRADERS V CIT AND OTHER (2001) 250 ITR 738, CIT AND ANOTHER V SUR ESH KUMAR AGGARWAL (2001) 294 ITR 113, THE HON'BLE CURT HAS HELD THE VIEW THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED CO NFIRMATION FROM HE CONCERNED RECIPIENTS THEN THE ASSESSEE CANN OT BE SAID TO HAVE VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 11. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT IF ASSESSING OFFICER TAK ES A ONE OF THE LEGALLY POSSIBLE VIEW THEN SUCH ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE CALLED ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS CO RRECTLY RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MUNJAL CASTINGS (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDE R;- HELD DISMISSING THE APPEAL THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAD TAKEN ONE VIEW WHICH WAS POSSIBLE. MOREOVER, THERE WOULD BE NO TAX EFFECT AS THE INTEREST INCOME REALISED FR OM THE CAPITAL INVESTED BY THE PARTNERS WAS BOUND TO BE AS SESSED IN THEIR HANDS. THE ORDER OF REVISION WAS NOT VALID. IN FACT IN THIS DECISION THE HON'BLE COURT HAS FOLL OWED THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIES CO LTD 243 ITR 83. HOWEVER, AT THE SAME TIME IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THIS CONTENTION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN RESPECT OF ALL THE SELLERS. THE DETAIL S OF LAND PURCHASED AND CASH PAYMENTS HAS BEEN EXTRACTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL AT P AGE 4, WHICH IS AS UNDER;- S.N NAME OF SELLER DESCRI- PTION OF LAND SALE CONSID- RATION CHEQUE AMT CASH AMT DATE OF CASH PAYMENT 1 MEHBOOB ALI, 1983 SQ. 50,00,000 NIL 50,00,000 17. 01.2006 8 KARAMDIN, SAUDAGAR ALI AMIN SONS OF SHRI GAMA R/O VILL : BABHAT DISTT. MOHALI YARDS 2 -DO- 1872 SQ YARDS 48,00,000 NIL 48,00,000 02.02.2006 3 BINDER PAL SINGH, SHRI SURESH KUMAR, SHRI VINOD KUMAR, SHRI. MUNISH KUMAR, SMT. SHSUMA MITTAL 936 SQ. YARDS 28,12,500 NIL 28,12,500 28.03.2006 4 -DO- 564 SQ. YARDS 16,93,500 NIL 16,93,500 28.03.2006 5 MR VINOD KUMAR, ATTORNEY M/S NEW GENERATION REAL ESTATE LTD 4 KANALS 1,20,00,000 NIL 1,20,00,000* 19.12.2005 6 SHRI MEHBOOB ALI, SHRI KARAMDIN, MR. SUDAGAR ALI AND SHRI AMIN SONS OF HS.GAMA 6 KANALS 12 MARLAS 1,20,00,000 7500000 45,00,000 19.10.2005 7 SHRI GURDIAL SINGH 14 BIGHAS 14 BISWAS 8,52,60,000 81760000 35,00,000 15.09.2005 8 MR MANJIT SINGH 4 KANALS 19 MARLAS 31,00,000 NIL 31,00,000 01.12.2005 12. IN THE ABOVE CASES, GENERALLY PAYMENT HAS BEEN INSISTED ON CASH BY THE BUYER BUT IN CASE AT SR NOS. 6 & 7 THESE TWO PARTIE S HAVE ACCEPTED THE SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT THROUGH CHEQEUS. IN SUCH CIRCUM STANCES WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND WHY THESE PARTIES WHICH HAS ACCEPTED SUB STANTIAL AMOUNT IN CHEQUES AND INSISTED FOR PAYMENT IN CASH ALSO. WE HAVE POS ED THIS QUERY TO THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO BUT HE COULD NOT GIVE ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTEN T OF RS. 45 LAKHS IN RESPECT OF LAND MEASURING 6 KANALS AND 12 MARLAS FROM SHRI MEHBOOB ALIL, SHRI KARAMDIN, MR.SUDGAR ALI AND SHRI AMIN SONS OF HS.GA MA, LAND MEASUING 14 9 BIGHAS 14 BISWAS PURCHASED FROM SHRI GURDIAL SING H TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 35 LAKHS IS REASONABLE. THEREFORE, ORDER PASSED BY LD. COMMISSIONER IS REQUIRED TO BE MODIFIED AND ACCORDING WE MODIFY THE SAME AND DI RECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE OF CASH PAYMENT OF RS. 45 LAKH S AND RS. 35 LAKHS PAID TO SHRI MEHBOOD ALI AND SHRI GURDIAN SINGH RESPECTIVEL Y AND ACCORDINGLY 20% OF THIS SUM SHALL BE DISALLOWED. 13. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 25/03/19 95 SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R.SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMER DATED : 25 TH MARCH, 2014 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR