KRISHNA DEVI YADAV, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 514/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5395 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 25-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gift; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH YFYR DQEKJ] U; KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM & SHRI LALIET K UMAR, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NOS. 514/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 . SMT. KRISHNA DEVI YADAV, SHOP NO. S-30, MAHAVEER NAGAR-II, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. AAAPY 9685 R VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY S BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. BATEJA (ADDL. CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 23.03.2016. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26/04/2016. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI LALIET KUMAR, J.M. THIS APPEAL IS ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) ON 18.03.2015 WHEREBY THE LD. CIT (A) HAS UPHELD THE A DDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 15,98,400/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINE D INVESTMENT IN THE LAND. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION O F RS. 2,00,000/- AS THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE I N THE LAND. 2. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SHE IS RUNNI NG A DEPARTMENTAL STORE IN THE NAME OF KRISHNA DEPARTMENTAL STORE AT DURGAPURA, JAIPUR FOR THE LAST MANY YEARS AND SHE HAS BEEN DECLARING THE INCOME FROM DEPARTME NTAL STORE UNDER SECTION 44AF OF THE IT ACT, 1961. DURING THE YEAR, SHE FILED TH E RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 2 ITA NO. 514/JP/2015 SMT. KRISHNA DEVI YADAV VS. ITO 1,76,710/-. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION CERTAIN PLOTS WERE PURCHASED BY THE FAMILY MEMBERS, THE DET AILS ARE AS UNDER :- S.NO. NAME AND ADDRESS OF SELLER DATE OF SALE DEED PURCHASE CONSIDERATION 1. GOVIND NA RAIN 30.07.2005 5,00,000/ - 2. MADAN LAL 07.07.2005 10,00,000/ - 3. MANNALAL 03.08.2005 5,00,000/ - 4. ADD : STAMP DUTY AND OTHER EXPENSES PAID DURING THE YEAR ON THE ABOVE PROPERTIES 1,93,400/ - TOTAL 21,93,400/ - THE AO HAD CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE AFTER ISSUING T HE NOTICE TO FURNISH THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE INVESTMENT MADE AND THE SOURCE OF TH E INVESTMENT. THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN THE NOTICE BY THE AO AND WAS CALLED UPON TO G IVE THE DETAILS OF THE INVESTMENT MADE AND THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT. IN PURSUANC E THERETO, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE REPLY, WHICH THE AO HAS REPRODUCED IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PARA 3.3. AS UNDER :- 3.3. IN RESPONSE THERETO THE ASSESSEES A/R VIDE H IS REPLY FILED ON 28.02.2014 HAS STATED AS UNDER :- WITH REFERENCE TO YOUR NOTICE DATED 25.02.2014 WE DO HEREBY SUBMIT REPLY OF YOUR QUERIES AS UNDER :- 1) REGARDING THE POINT NO. 1 TO 6 IN WHICH THE DETAILS OF THE CASH FLOW RECEIPT ITEMS HAVE BEEN MENTION. THE EVID ENCES IN RESPECT OF THE SAME HAS ALREADY BEEN PRODUCED AND ACCEPTED BY YOU ALSO. 2) IN RESPECT OF POINT NO. (I) TO (VI) WE NEED FURTHER TIME TO COLLECT THE REQUIRED DETAILS AS DOCUMENTS TO PRODUC E BEFORE YOUR HONOUR HAS THE INFORMATION WHICH ARE RELATED T O OTHER ASSESSEE IT WILL TAKE AT LEAST 15 TO 20 DAYS TO COL LECT, HENCE YOUR HONOUR IS KINDLY REQUESTED TO ALLOW THE TIME A ND FIXED THE HEARING IN THE LAST WEEK OF MARCH 2014. 3 ITA NO. 514/JP/2015 SMT. KRISHNA DEVI YADAV VS. ITO SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT COMING FORWARD TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS, THE AO WAS, THEREFORE, LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO DECIDE THE MATTER ON THE BASIS OF THE RECORD AVAILABLE AND ACCORDINGLY HAS DECIDED THE MA TTER. WHILE DECIDING THE MATTER, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 17,98,400/-. HOWEV ER, THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION FOR A SUM OF RS. 3,95,000/-. 3. FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ACCEPTE D THE EXPLANATION FOR A SUM OF RS. 2,00,000/-. HOWEVER, HE SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF R S. 15,98,400/-. THE RELEVANT PARA OF LD. CIT (A) UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1 5,98,400/- IS AS UNDER :- 2.5. HAVING EXAMINED THE ENTIRE CONSPECTUS OF FAC TS, AS STATED BY THE APPELLANT, THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES AND IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS HELD THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT WITH RESPECT TO THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE CASH CONSID ERATION FOR PURCHASE OF LAND TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 15,98,400/-, IS NOT SATISFACTORY. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 15,9 8,400/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTM ENT IN LAND, IS UPHELD, U/S 69 OF THE I.T. ACT. THE BALANCE ADDITIO N OF RS 2,00,000/- IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. GROUND NO. 1 & 1.1 ARE PART LY ALLOWED AND GROUND NO. 1.2 IS DISMISSED. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 4.1. THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WERE WRONG IN NOT ACCEPTING THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3,15,000/-, RS. 6,00,000/-, RS. 1,20,000/- AND RS. 3,15,000/-. THEREAFTER IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF RS. 11,50,000/-. WITH RESPECT TO RS. 4,48,400/-, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT TH E HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI M.L. YADAV HAS CONTRIBUTED THE SAID AMOUNT. THUS IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE COMPLETE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT AND, THEREFORE, THE 4 ITA NO. 514/JP/2015 SMT. KRISHNA DEVI YADAV VS. ITO ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE REQUIRED TO BE SET ASIDE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS :- R.K. DAVE VS. ITO 94 TTJ 19 (JOD.)(TRIB.) ACIT VS. BALDEV RAJ CHARLA & ORS. 121 TTJ 366 (DEL.)(TRIB.) SHRI HEMANT PRABHAKAR VS. DCIT ITA NO. 684/JP/98 : 31 TAX WORLD 198. VINOD KUMAR GOYAL VS. ACIT ITA NO. 310/JP/08 DATED 30.05.2008 (JPR.) 4.2. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WAS CORRECT AS THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW HAVE THREAD BEAR EXAMINED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DESPITE THAT CO NTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND CORRECT AND WERE FOUND TO BE AGAINST PREPONDE RANCE OF PROBABILITY AND NATURAL HUMAN CONDUCT. THE LD. D/R DREW OUR ATTENTION TO TH E FACT THAT A SMALL BUSINESSWOMEN LIKE ASSESSEE WILL NOT KEEP THE CASH IN HIS POCKET WITHOUT ENSURING THE INTEREST ON THAT. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IF THE AMOUNT WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE, THEN THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE DEPOSITED TH E SAID AMOUNT WITH THE BANK AND KEEPING THE CASH FOR SUCH A LONG TIME BY THE AS SESSEE I.E. YEAR 2000 ONWARDS, CLEARLY INDICATE THAT IT WAS THE ASSESSEE WHO GAVE THE AMOUNT TO THE SAID PERSONS. THE LD. D/R HAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIAL TRANSACTION IN THE BANK ACCOUNT EITHER OF THE ASSESSEE OR OF THE CREDI TOR. LASTLY IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT TO JUSTIFY THE CASH ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF THE LAND AND THE RECEIPT OF CASH, BUT ACCORDING TO THE LD. D /R THE FACTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDGED IN THE LIGHT OF PROBABILITY OF HUMAN CONDU CT. THE LD. D/R RELIED UPON THE 5 ITA NO. 514/JP/2015 SMT. KRISHNA DEVI YADAV VS. ITO FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE AO AND THE SURROUNDING CIR CUMSTANCES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION SHOULD BE UPHOLD. 4.3. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENT IONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE BEFORE US. WE WILL BE EXAMINING THE HEAD -WISE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND BEFOR E US IN RESPECT OF FOUR AMOUNTS STATED HEREIN ABOVE. 4.4. OPENING CASH IN HAND AS ON 1.4.2001 OF RS. 3,1 5,000/-. IT IS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN RUNNING A DEPAR TMENTAL STORE SINCE LAST MORE THAN 15 YEARS. IN THE SAID STORE PURCHASE AND SALES ARE OF SMALL AMOUNT AND, THEREFORE, THE CASH IS AVAILABLE. IT WAS FURTHER SU BMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS A BANK ACCOUNT AND HAS HARDLY ANY TRANSACTION IN THIS ACCOUNT AND THE AMOUNT IS KEPT IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED T HAT THERE IS NO LAW WHICH PROHIBITS THE ASSESSEE TO KEEP THE CASH IN HAND. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING RS. 3,15,000/- AS CASH IN HAND PRIOR TO 1.4.2001 AND IT WAS UTILIZED BY HER FOR THE PURPOSE OF PLOT. THE CASH FLOW STATEMEN T WAS SUBMITTED. THE LD. A/R HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE FINDING OF THE AO IN PAR A 3.4.1 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH ARE AS UNDER :- 3.4.1. OPENING CASH IN HAND AS ON 01.04.2001:- TH E ASSESSEES CLAIM OF HAVING OPENING CASH IN HAND AS ON 01.04.2001 OF RS. 3,15,000/- IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- (I) THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS AS SUCH IT CAN NOT BE BELIEVED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF RECOR DS ONE CAN REMEMBER WHAT WAS CASH AVAILABILITY ON A PARTICULAR DAY MORE THAN 12 YEARS BACK. (II) THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING BANK ACCOUNT AS SUCH THERE IS NO REASON TO ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OF HAVING CASH IN HAND. (III) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY USE OF SUCH HUGE CASH IN HAND FOR MORE THAN 5 YEARS PERIOD AS SUCH NO ONE CA N KEEP IDLE 6 ITA NO. 514/JP/2015 SMT. KRISHNA DEVI YADAV VS. ITO CASH FOR SUCH A LONG PERIOD AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T FURNISHED ANY DETAILS OF ANY INCOME EARNED FROM SO CALLED CAS H IN HAND. (IV) NOBODY IS EXPECTED TO PILE UP CASH IN HAND FOR YEAR S TOGETHER PARTICULARLY WHEN THERE IS BANK ACCOUNT OF SELF AND BUSINESS CONCERN. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS OF THE CASE THE ASSESSEE S CLAIM IS REJECTED AND IT WILL BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING PAYMENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND AND RELATED EXPENSE. AS THE ASSESS EES CLAIM OF AFOREMENTIONED SOURCES IS REJECTED, THEREFORE TH E YEAR IN WHICH THE ADDITION IS TO BE MADE IS TO BE DECIDED O N THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD WITH REGARD TO THE PERIOD OF INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MA INTAINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR RECORDS OF HER BUSINESS OR PERSONAL AFFAIRS. IT IS ALSO ADMITTED FACT THAT THE AMOUNT, IF ANY SURPLUS, AS PROJECTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE OPENING OF 1.4.2001 AS ALLEGED BY THE AO AT RS. 3,15,000/- WAS LYING IN CASH WITH THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS 200 6-07 AND THERE WAS AMPLE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE THE INVESTMENT IN THE BUSINESS THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 3,15,000/- AND EARN THE PROFIT ON THA T. WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THAT IF THE CASH TO THE TUNE OF RS. 3,15,000/- WAS AVAILABL E WITH THE ASSESSEE AND WAS NOT BEING UTILIZED FOR ANY PURPOSE THEN THE ASSESSEE IN ALL PROBABILITY OF HUMAN CONDUCT SHOULD HAVE INVESTED THE SAID AMOUNT, IF NOT BEING UTILIZED IN THE BUSINESS, IN THE BANK AT THE BANK INTEREST. NO BUSINESSMAN WOULD KEE P THE AMOUNT IDLE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 3,15,000/- WHEN SHE IS ONLY FILING RETURN OF INCOME FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,76,710/-. NO RECORD WHATSOEVER WAS PRODUCED BY TH E ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW SHOWING THE AVAILABILITY OF RS. 3 ,15,000/- AT THE BEGINNING OF 1.4.2001. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IN OUR VIEW, THE A UTHORITIES WERE RIGHT IN REJECTING THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW THER EOF, THE EXPLANATION FOR RS. 7 ITA NO. 514/JP/2015 SMT. KRISHNA DEVI YADAV VS. ITO 3,15,000/- GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY NOT ACCE PTED AND THE ADDITION IS SUSTAINED. 5. CASH RECEIVED FROM SHRI MANISH YADAV RS. 6,00,00 0/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT A SUM OF RS. 6,00,000/- WAS PROVIDED BY THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT SHRI MANISH YADA V HAD PURCHASED A PLOT NO. 57 SITUATED AT ARYUMAN NAGAR, DURGAPURA, JAIPUR ON 19. 12.2001 AND THEREAFTER HAD SOLD THE SAME ON 21.2.2002 VIDE UNREGISTERED SALE D EED OF EVEN DATE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A/R THAT THE DOUBT RAISED BY T HE AO HAS NO SUBSTANCE AS IT IS NOW MORE THAN 12 YEARS AFTER THE TRANSACTION. THERE FORE, NON PRODUCTION OF THE BUYER IS NOT A REASON TO DENY THE SALE TRANSACTION. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WAS WRONG IN CONCLUDING THAT SHRI MANISH YADAV H AS NOT PAID ANY CAPITAL GAIN OR HAS NOT DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT IN THE BANK AND FURTHE R THE AMOUNT WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS A LOAN OR GIFT AND NO DOCUMENTAR Y EVIDENCE HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THIS REGARD. 5.1. THE LD. D/R ON THE OTHER HAND HAS DRAWN OUR AT TENTION TO THE DOCUMENT AND HAD ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 3.4.2 WHEREBY THE AO HAS GIVEN 9 REASONS FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE EXPLANATION OF RS. 6,00,000/-. T HE REASONS GIVEN BY THE AO ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW :- I) THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THAT RETURN OF INCOM E WAS NOT FILED BY SHRI MANISH YADAV FOR RELEVANT PERIOD A.Y. 2002- 03. II) THERE IS EVIDENCE ON RECORD WHICH CAN JUSTIFY T HAT SHRI MANISH YADAV HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY AN D NO CAPITAL GAIN WAS PAID AS SUCH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IS NOT PROVED. III) THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD WHICH CAN JUSTI FY AS TO HOW AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES SHRI MANISH YADAV WAS HAVI NG A LIQUID CASH OF RS. 6,00,000/- FOR THE PERIOD 21.02.2002 TILL 07 .07.2005 I.E. DATE OF PURCHASE OF LAND BY THE ASSESSEE. 8 ITA NO. 514/JP/2015 SMT. KRISHNA DEVI YADAV VS. ITO IV) FROM ANY PROBABILITY IT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED FROM A PERSON WHO IS HAVING A BANK ACCOUNT WILL KEEP A SUM OF RS. 6,00,0 00/- AS CASH IN HAND WITHOUT ENTERING INTO ANY TRANSACTION FOR SUCH A LONG PERIOD. V) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE BUYER OF THE P LOT AS SUCH GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IS DOUBTFUL. VI) THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD WHICH CAN JUSTIF Y THAT SHRI MANISH YADAV HAS GIVEN A SUM OF RS. 6,00,000/- IN C ASH TO SMT. KRISHNA DEVI AS THIS AMOUNT HAS NEITHER BEEN DEPOSI TED IN ANY BANK ACCOUNT NOR ANY IMMEDIATE USE THEREOF IS MADE. VII) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS WHE THER IT WAS A LOAN OR GIFT OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER. VIII) THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHICH CAN PROVE THE OWNE RSHIP OF SHRI MANISH YADAV ON THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WHICH IS SHO WN AS SOLD BY HIM. IX) THE ASSESSEE HAS PLANTED THIS TRANSACTION WITH THE INTENTION THAT NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN AGAINST SHRI MANISH YADAV AS IT HAS BEEN BARRED BY LIMITATION AS SUCH IT IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT OF THE ASSESSEE. 5.2. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD AND CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. BEFORE WE DEAL WITH THE MATTER AND THE EXPLANATION, WE MAY POINT OUT THAT THE AGREEMENT DATED 21.2.2002 IS A NOTARIZED DOCUMENT A ND IS NEITHER REGISTERED WITH THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITY NOR IS DULY STAMPED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REGISTRATION OF THE DOCUMENT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE SAID D OCUMENT CANNOT BE RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF SALE TRAN SACTION BETWEEN SHRI MANISH YADAV AND SMT. INDU HARKAWAT. WE HAVE EXAMINED THE DOCUMENTS AND FOUND THAT THE EARLIER CHAIN OF TITLES IN RESPECT OF THE PROPE RTY ARE NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS MENTIONED IN THE DOCUMENT THAT SHRI SHYAM SINGH SON OF SHRI JEEVAN SINGH RESIDENT OF JAIPUR WAS ALLOTTED THE PLOT OF LAND BY JAI CHAM UNDA GRAH NIRMANSAHKARI SAMITI LTD. AND SHRI MANISH YADAV HAS PURCHASED THE SAID L AND ON 19 TH DECEMBER, 2001 9 ITA NO. 514/JP/2015 SMT. KRISHNA DEVI YADAV VS. ITO AND THEREAFTER THE SAID LAND WAS SOLD BY SHRI MANIS H YADAV, IRONICALLY THE PARTICULARS OF SALE MADE ON 19.12.2001 ARE NOT MENTIONED AND FU RTHER THE DETAILS OF SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE SALE TRANSACTION DATED 19.12. 2001 ARE ALSO NOT MENTIONED. IT WAS MENTIONED THAT DUE TO FAMILY NEED, THE SHRI MAN ISH YADAV IS SELLING THE LAND BEARING PLOT NO. 57 SITUATED ARYUMAN NAGAR, DURGAPU RA, JAIPUR TO SMT. INDU HARKAWAT FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 6,00,000/- . IN OUR VIEW, TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF THE PLOT WERE TAKEN PLACE DURI NG THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2001-02 AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNIS H THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2002-03 AND THAT WILL DEMONSTRATE THE SOURCE O F PURCHASE OF THE LAND AND THE CAPITAL GAIN, IF ANY ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE OR NOT . IN THE ABSENCE OF SAID INFORMATION AND ALSO IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE D OCUMENT DATED 21.2.2002 IS NEITHER REGISTERED NOR PROPERLY STAMPED, WE HAVE NO HESITATION BUT TO CONCLUDE THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE RIGHT IN NOT ACCEPTING T HE DOCUMENTS AS CORRECT AND FURTHER THEY WERE RIGHT IN REJECTING THE EXPLANATIO N GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RS.6,00,000/-. MOREOVER, WHEN THE ASSESSEES SON NA MELY, SHRI MANISH YADAV WAS INTO THE SALE AND PURCHASE OF LAND, THEN IT IS AGAI NST HUMAN PROBABILITY THAT HE WILL SPARE THE AMOUNT OF RS. 6,00,000/- FROM 21.2.2002 T ILL IT WAS ALLEGEDLY MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND WITHOUT EARNING THE INTEREST ON THAT AMOUNT OR AS A GIFT OR AS A LOAN. IN VIEW THER EOF, THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE FOR AFORESAID AMOUNT OF RS. 6,00,000/- IS REJECTED AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE UPHELD TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 6,00,000/-. 6. THE NEXT ISSUE IS RS. 1,20,000/-. IT IS SUBMITTE D BY THE LD. A/R FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE PLOT NO. 24 SITUATED AT ARYUMAN SINGH NAGAR, DURGAPURA, JAIPUR WHICH WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 19.12.2001 FOR 10 ITA NO. 514/JP/2015 SMT. KRISHNA DEVI YADAV VS. ITO AN AMOUNT OF RS. 99,500/- AND THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE SAID PLOT BY UNREGISTERED AND INADEQUATELY STAMPED DOCUMENT ON 22.2.2002. ON THE BASIS OF SAID DOCUMENT, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS 1,20,000/- T HE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, THE AUT HORITIES BELOW WERE WRONG IN REJECTING THE EXPLANATION FOR THE SUM OF RS. 1,20,0 00/- 6.1. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R HAS DRAWN OUR A TTENTION TO PARA 3.4.3 WHEREIN THE AO HAS GIVEN THE REASONS FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE EXPLANATION, THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW :- I) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED COPY OF RETURN O F INCOME FILED AND ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD I.E. A.Y. 2002-03. II) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS AND E VIDENCES SO AS TO PROVE THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS REFLECTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD A.Y. 2002-03. III) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS WIT H REGARD TO IMMEDIATE USE OF THE FUNDS AS WELL AS THE REASONS A S TO HOW THE SAME WAS NOT DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT. IV) THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING BANK ACCOUNT AS SUCH TH ERE IS NO REASON TO ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OF HAVING CASH IN HAND. V) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY USE OF SUCH H UGE CASH IN HAND FOR MORE THAN 4 YEARS PERIOD AS SUCH NO ONE CA N KEEP IDLE CASH FOR SUCH A LONG PERIOD AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T FURNISHED ANY DETAILS OF ANY INCOME EARNED FROM SO CALLED CAS H IN HAND. VI) NOBODY IS EXPECTED TO PILE UP CASH IN HAND FOR YEARS TOGETHER PARTICULARLY WHEN THERE IS BANK ACCOUNT OF SELF AN D BUSINESS CONCERN. 6.2. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD AND HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE BEFORE US. IN OUR VIEW, THE REASONING GI VEN HEREIN ABOVE IN RESPECT OF THE EXPLANATION OF RS. 6,00,000/- ARE EQUALLY APPLICABL E TO THE PRESENT AMOUNT OF RS. 11 ITA NO. 514/JP/2015 SMT. KRISHNA DEVI YADAV VS. ITO 1,20,000/-. WE APPLY THE SAME REASONING TO THE AMO UNT OF RS. 1,20,000/- AND IN VIEW THEREOF WE DO NOT FIND THE EXPLANATION GIVEN B Y THE ASSESSEE IS CORRECT. ACCORDINGLY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SUM O F RS. 1,20,000/- IS REJECTED AND, THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,20,000/-. 6.3. TAKING ALL THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES MENTI ONED HEREIN ABOVE AND PUTTING THEM TO TEST ON THE UNVEIL OF THE HUMAN CONDUCT AN D BEHAVIOR, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT DESPITE THE VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE SALE TRANSACTIONS AND ALSO THE AVAILABILITY OF THE CASH. FOR THIS PURPOSE, WE RELY UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPRE ME COURT IN THE MATTER OF CIT VS. DURGA PRASAD MORE, (1973) CTR (SC) 500 AND AL SO THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE MATTER OF SUMATI DAYAL (1995) 125 CTR (SC) 124. IF WE APPLY THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT, THEN WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED ARE NOT TO BE ACCEPTED IN THE JU DICIAL/QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AS THE SAID DOCUMENTS ARE NEITHER REGISTERED NOR AD EQUATELY STAMPED. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE ITR RETURNS OF H ERSELF AS WELL AS OF HER SON SHOWING THE SALE AND PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS. APPLYIN G THE TEXT LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND EXAMINING THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. 7. THE NEXT ISSUE OF RS. 3,15,000/- FROM THE DEPART MENTAL STORE FOR THE PERIOD 2001-02 TO 2004-05. THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE SAVINGS OF RS. 3,15,000/- IN A.Y. 2002-03 TO 05-06 AND THE SAID SAVINGS HAS BEEN UTILIZED IN PURCHASE OF PLOTS. BESIDES THAT THE HU SBAND OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO CONTRIBUTED FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND. THE LD. C IT (A) CONSIDERING THE REPLY HAS 12 ITA NO. 514/JP/2015 SMT. KRISHNA DEVI YADAV VS. ITO ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 2,00, 000/- AND HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,15,000/-. 7.1. THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,15,000/- IS ALSO REQUIRED TO BE ALLOWED AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW IS REQUIRED TO BE SET ASIDE. 7.2. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED T HAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) IS CORRECT AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR THE DE LETION OF RS. 1,15,000/-. 7.3. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH RECORD AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL. IN OUR VIEW THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE ENTIRE CASH RECEIP T OF RS. 3,15,000/-.THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW THE LD.CIT (A) WAS NOT RIGHT IN UPHOLDING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,15,000/-. IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF OF RS. 1,15,000/- AS THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO EXPLAIN SATISFACTORILY THE SAVINGS FOR THE PERIOD OF 4 YEARS. 7.4. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED AND THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,35,000/- IS UPHELD. 8. WITH RESPECT TO RS. 4,48,400/- CONTRIBUTION OF H USBAND, THE LD. A/R FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT RS. 4,48,400/- WAS THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI M.L. YADAV FOR THE PURCHASE OF PR OPERTY AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME MAY ALSO BE ACCEPTED AND TH E ADDITION MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IS REQUIRED TO BE SET ASIDE. 8.1. THE LD. D/R HAS TAKEN US TO THE ORDER PASSED B Y THE AO AND HAS SOUGHT TO JUSTIFY THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,48,400/-. 8.2. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD AND PERUSED TH E ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN OUR VIEW, THE LD. AO HAS FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD THE BASIS OF MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,48,400/- AND NEITHER IN THE ASSES SMENT ORDER NOR IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) THIS FACT HAS BEEN CLEARLY BROUGHT ON RECOR D. ACCORDINGLY, WE DEEM IT 13 ITA NO. 514/JP/2015 SMT. KRISHNA DEVI YADAV VS. ITO APPROPRIATE TO REMAND BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE O F THE AO FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXAMINING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPEC T OF RS. 4,48,400/-. ACCORDINGLY THE MATTER IS SET ASIDE TO THIS EXTENT. 9. IN THE RESULT, WE UPHOLD THE ADDITION OF RS. 10, 35,000/-. WE ALLOW THE EXPLANATION FOR RS. 1,15,000/- AND REMAND BACK THE MATTER TO THE AO FOR THE AMOUNT OF RS. 4,48,400/-. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO COOPERATE WITH THE AO IN CONCLUDING THE PROCEEDINGS AT THE EARLIEST. THE AS SESSEE IS FURTHER DIRECTED TO PRODUCE ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS ON THE FIRST DAT E OF HEARING WITHOUT ANY DELAY. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED . 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26/04/201 6. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO] YFYR DQEKJ (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (LALIET KUMAR) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 26/04/2016 DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT-SMT. KRISHNA DEVI YADAV, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 514/JP/2015) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR 14 ITA NO. 514/JP/2015 SMT. KRISHNA DEVI YADAV VS. ITO SL. NO. DATE INITIAL 1 DATE OF DICTATION 2 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER OTHER MEMBER 3 DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./P.S 4 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P.S./P.S. 6 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 7 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 8 THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER 15 ITA NO. 514/JP/2015 SMT. KRISHNA DEVI YADAV VS. ITO