The Income Tax Officer, Faridkot V. Smt. Harmanpreet Kaur, Faridkot

ITA 613/ASR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3277 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (International Taxation) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 19-06-2018
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S NEGI
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA
• Keywords: Gift; Salary income; Additional evidence; Onus to prove
• Section: 143(3); 250; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 613/ASR/2015 ASS ESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(4); FARIDKOT VS. HARMANPREET KAUR D/O SADHU SINGH, STREET NO. 3, HARINDRA NAGAR, FARIDKOT [PAN: ADVPK 0813H] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) CROSS OBJECTION NO. 15/ASR/2017 (ARISING O UT OF ITA NO. 613/ASR/2015) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 HARMANPREET KAUR D/O SADHU SINGH, STREET NO. 3, HARINDRA NAGAR, FARIDKOT [PAN: ADVPK 0813H] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(4); FARIDKOT (CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. S. S. NEGI (D .R.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. P. N. ARORA (ADV.) DATE OF HEARING: 19.06.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29.06.2018 ORDER PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTIO N (CO) BY THE ASSESSEE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS), BATHINDA ('CIT(A)', FOR SHORT) DATED 14.09.2015 FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR (AY) 2009-10, ITA NO.613/ASR/2015&C.O. NO.15/ASR/2017 ITO V. HARMANPREET KAUR (AY 2009-10) 2 ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTESTING HER ASSES SMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT' HEREINAFTER) DATED 09.12.2 011. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE, IN-SO-FAR AS THE RE LEVANT, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEES A TEACHER (IN A GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION) BY PROFESSI ON, RETURNING SALARY INCOME, BANK ACCOUNTS WITH AXIS BANK AND HDFC BANK WERE OBS ERVED TO BEAR CASH DEPOSITS AT RS.49 LACS (22.10.2008) AND RS. 1 LAC ( ON 22.09.2008) RESPECTIVELY. THE SAME STOOD DEEMED AS HER INCOME U/S. 68 IN THE ABSE NCE OF ANY EXPLANATION BEING FURNISHED. THE MATTER TRAVELED TO THE TRIBUNAL AT T HE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE FIRST A PPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHO HAD EARLIER DECLINED ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, DIRECTIN G HIM TO DO SO AND ADJUDICATE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE LD. CIT(A) ADMIT TING THE SAID EVIDENCES, CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) , WHO, HOWEVER, SENT HIS REPORT DATED 18.02.2015 WITHOUT COMMENTING ON THE E VIDENCES LED BY THE ASSESSEE (PARAS 6, 9 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER). THE SOURCE OF T HE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.49 LACS WAS EXPLAINED TO BE AN AGREEMENT TO SELL (ATS) DA TED 22.10.2008 ENTERED INTO BY SH. SADHU SINGH (S/O SH. SUNDER SINGH), THE ASSESSE ES FATHER, WITH ONE, SWARAJ SINGH S/O S. KUNDA SINGH, FOR SALE OF HIS 33 KANALS , 17 MARLAS OF LAND AT VILLAGE SANDHWAN, TEHSIL FARIDKOT, RECEIVING RS.50 LACS IN CASH (PB PGS. 12-16). FURTHER, THIS WAS AS THE BANK ACCOUNT UNDER REFERENCE WAS A JOINT BANK ACCOUNT OF SADHU SINGH WITH HIS DAUGHTERS, I.E., THE ASSESSEE AND KU LWINDER KAUR. THE ACCOUNT, IT WAS EXPLAINED, HAD IN FACT BEEN OPENED BY SADHU SIN GH, AND THE NAMES OF HIS TWO DAUGHTERS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH THE KYC NORMS, AS HE BEING AN AGRICULTURALIST DID NOT HAVE PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER (PAN). OF THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 50 LACS, RS.49 LAC WAS DEPOSITED IN THE SAID BANK ACCO UNT ON THE VERY SAME DAY, ISSUING CHEQUES FOR RS.7 LACS (SAVE ONE, WHICH WAS FOR RS.6 LACS) TO EACH OF THE 6 DAUGHTERS, INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE, I.E., AT AN AGGR EGATE OF RS.41 LACS (PB PG. 7). ITA NO.613/ASR/2015&C.O. NO.15/ASR/2017 ITO V. HARMANPREET KAUR (AY 2009-10) 3 CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE DAUGHTERS TO THAT EFFECT WER E FILED (PB PGS. 17-27). THE SALE, AS ENVISAGED IN THE ATS, WAS COMPLETED ON 16. 04.2009. THE SALE DEED WAS REGISTERED AT THE CIRCLE RATE OF RS.34.53 LACS PER ACRE, I.E., AS AGAINST THE AGREED SALE RATE (AS PER ATS) OF RS.40.50 LAC PER ACRE, RECEIVI NG SIX DEMAND DRAFTS OF RS.28.50 LACS EACH FROM EACH OF THE SIX PERSONS TO WHOM THE LAND WAS SOLD, AND THE BALANCE RS.92,86,562/- RECEIVED IN CASH (PARA 9 OF THE IMPU GNED ORDER). THE TRANSACTION STOOD COMPLETED THUS. AS REGARDS THE DIFFERENCE IN THE SALE PRICE, I.E., BETWEEN THAT SPECIFIED IN THE ATS (RS.40.50 LACS PER ACRE) AND T HE SALE DEED (RS.34.53 LACS PER ACRE), THE SAME WAS CONSIDERED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS OF NO CONSEQUENCE AS IT WAS A MATTER OF COMMON PRACTICE TO UNDER-REPORT SALE SO A S TO REDUCE THE INCIDENCE OF STAMP DUTY. AND, THEREFORE, WOULD NOT BE DETERMINAT IVE OF THE ACTUAL SALE PRICE, SO AS TO BRING THE EXCESS AMOUNT TO TAX AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME, UNLESS, OF COURSE, THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE SALE DEED REFLECTED TH E ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION, I.E., THE AMOUNT THAT CHANGED HANDS, EVEN AS HELD IN CIT V. INTEZAR ALI [2015] 372 ITR 651 (ALL). THERE WAS IN FACT A CASE FOR EXAMINING T HE TRANSACTION FROM THE PURCHASE SIDE IN-AS-MUCH AS IT WAS APPARENT THAT THE PURCHAS E PRICE/CONSIDERATION HAD BEEN SUPPRESSED. THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IN HIS VIEW, WAS TOWARD THE CASH DEPOSITED IN AXIS BANK AS BELONGING TO THE ASS ESSEES FATHER, SADHU SINGH, WHO ONLY HAD DEPOSITED THE SAME IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT . NO CASE WAS MADE OUT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE REVENUE HAD IN FACT ALSO REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT OF KULWINDER KAUR U/S. 147, I.E., IN VIEW OF RS.49 LAC DEPOSITED IN HER (JOINT) AXIS BANK ACCOUNT ON 22.10.2008, THOUGH, ON VERIFICATION , HAD FOUND NOTHING AMISS AND ACCEPTED HER RETURNED INCOME FOR AY 2009-10 (PB PGS . 66-67) (PARAS 6-15 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER). THE ADDITION HAVING BEEN DELETED T HUS, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL, RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: ITA NO.613/ASR/2015&C.O. NO.15/ASR/2017 ITO V. HARMANPREET KAUR (AY 2009-10) 4 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION M ADE BY THE AO U/S. 68 OF THE ACT, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO P ROVE SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT CREDITED TO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FAILING THE APPRECIATE T HAT THE ONUS TO PROVE SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ON HIM AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KALE KHAN MOHAMMAD HANIF VS. CIT-50 ITA 1 AND FOLLOWED BY THE HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. LACHHMAN DAS OSWAL -126 ITR 446. 3. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RELYING ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF INTEZAR ALI 372 ITR 651, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE QUITE DIFFERENT IN AS-MUCH-AS NO WITNESS TO SALE DEED HAS DEPOSED BEFORE ANY AUTHORITY AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER DISPUTED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BEFORE THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY AS WA S DONE IN THE CASE OF INTEZAR ALI . 4. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT TAKING COGNIZANCE OF REM AND REPORT SUBMITTED BY AO VIDE NO. 1075 DATED 18.02.2015 AND HAS NOT APPRECIATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AFFORDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO PROV E SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED RS. 50 LACS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT; THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMI T ANY AGREEMENT EXECUTED ON PRESCRIBED STAMP PAPER AND REGISTERED WITH THE STATE REVENUE D EPARTMENT OR OTHER RELEVANT RECORD AND THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ONLY AFFIDAVIT BEFORE CIT(A ) WHICH HAD NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. 3.1 THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PREFERRED A CO, RAISING L EGAL GROUNDS, WHICH THOUGH IS TIME BARRED BY A PERIOD OF 411 DAYS. THE CONDONATIO N PETITION DOES NOT SPEAK OF ANY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE SUBSTANTIAL DELAY. THE SAME IS THEREFORE NOT MAINTAINABLE. THE LD. AR, THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL, S H. P. N. ARORA, ADVOCATE, WHEN QUESTIONED ON THIS, WOULD STATE THAT HE DID NOT WIS H TO PRESS THE SAME, MAKING AN ENDORSEMENT TO THAT EFFECT ON THE CO ITSELF. 3.2 THE REVENUES CASE BEFORE US WAS THAT IT WAS WR ONG TO STATE (ON THE PART OF THE LD. CIT(A)) THAT THE AO HAD NOT OFFERED ANY COM MENTS PER HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 18.02.2015 (AT PB PGS. 55-56), THE RELEVANT P ART OF WHICH, READ OUT DURING HEARING, READS AS UNDER: EVIDENCE : COPIES OF TITLE DEED OF LAND ITA NO.613/ASR/2015&C.O. NO.15/ASR/2017 ITO V. HARMANPREET KAUR (AY 2009-10) 5 AOS COMMENTS : THESE ARE TWO REGISTERED SALE DEEDS OF LAND ONE IS FOR RS.24,62,500/- EXECUTED ON 16.4.2009. IN THIS SALE DEED ONLY RS.2, 50,000/- IS STATED TO BE RECEIVED BEFORE THE SUB-REGISTRAR AND REST OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.22,12,50 0/- IS RECEIVED THROUGH BANK DRAFTS. THE SECOND SALE DEED IS FOR RS.9,90,000/- EXECUTED ON 1 6.04.2009. IN THIS SALE DEED RS.6,00,000/- IS STATED TO BE RECEIVED BEFORE THE SUB-REGISTRAR A ND AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,30,000/- IS RECEIVED THROUGH BANK DRAFT AND NOTHING HAS BEEN MENTIONED A BOUT BALANCE OF RS.60,000/-. BOTH THESE SALE DEEDS HAVE BEEN EXECUTED BY THE SAME PER SON, I.E., SH. SADHU SINGH S/O SH. SUNDER SINGH, S/O HARI SINGH OF VILLAGE SANDHWAN, T EHSIL FARIDKOT AND ALSO BEARS THE SIGNATURE OF ASSESSEE SMT. HARMAN PREET KAUR AS BEI NG DAUGHTER OF SH. SADHU SINGH, SELLER. THESE DOCUMENTS SHOW THAT SH. SADHU SINGH RECEIVED MONEY OF RS.8,50,000/ - (600000+250000) IN CASH AND RS.25,42,500/ - THROUGH BANK DRAFTS FROM THE SALE OF LAND. THIS MONEY OF RS.8,50,000/- RECEIVED BY SH. SADHU SINGH (FATHER OF SMT. HARMANPREET KAUR) RECEIVED ON 16.04.2009 GAINS NO MERIT AS THE AMOUNT OF RS.49,00,000/-, OF WHICH THE ADDITION HAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF SMT. HARMANPREET KAUR, STA NDS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ON 22.10.2008 . HENCE, THIS DOCUMENT/EVIDENCE IS ALSO DEVOID OF M ERIT. (EMPH ASIS, BY UNDERLINING, OURS) HOW COULD, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) WOULD ASSEVERATE, RS.50 LACS BE PAID AS ADVANCE WHEN THE SALE DEEDS SUBSEQUENTLY EXECUTED, PURPORTEDLY ON THE BASIS THEREOF, ARE FOR A TOTAL OF RS.34.53 LACS? TH ERE IS APPARENTLY NO MENTION OF THE ATS, OR THE ADVANCE MADE THERE-UNDER, HE WOULD CONT INUE, IN THE SALE DEED/S, AND THE ENTIRE CASH THAT ACTUALLY CHANGED HANDS ON THE SALE OF LAN D WAS RS.8.50 LACS ONLY, GIVEN BEFORE THE SUB-REGISTRAR ON 16.04.2009 . THE ATS IS CLEARLY A SHAM DOCUMENT. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CAUSED FURTH ER VERIFICATION OF FACTS BY THE AO OR, ENJOY AS HE DOES CO-TERMINUS POWERS, DO IT H IMSELF, AND WHICH HE FAILED TO. 3.3 WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT WHILE THE ATS IS WITH O NE, SWARAJ SINGH, THE SALE DEED CONSPICUOUS BY ITS ABSENCE, STATES OF THE SA LE CONSIDERATION HAVING BEEN RECEIVED FROM SIX PERSONS, I.E., THE LAND STANDS SO LD NOT TO ONE BUT TO SIX PERSONS, ITA NO.613/ASR/2015&C.O. NO.15/ASR/2017 ITO V. HARMANPREET KAUR (AY 2009-10) 6 WHILE THE AGREEMENT FOR ITS SALE WAS WITH ONE. FURT HER, THE SIX DEMAND DRAFTS TOTAL TO RS.171 LACS. ADDING THE CASH COMPONENT OF RS.93 LACS (APPROX.), TOTALS TO RS.264 LACS, WHILE THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION, EV EN AT THE RATE OF RS.40.50 LAC PER ACRE, I.E., AS PER THE ATS, WORKS TO RS.1,71,36,562 /-. HOW COULD THIS BE ? THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO NOTE THESE APPARENT ANOMALIES. WHY, WE WONDER, DID THE LD. CIT(A) NOT SEEK EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE ON TH ESE CONFLICTING FACTS, AND ISSUE HIS DEFINITE FINDINGS UPON EXAMINATIONS/VERIF ICATION, CLARIFYING THE MATTER. ON THE CONTRARY, HE STATES OF THE AO NOT OFFERING ANY COMMENTS VIDE HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 26.02.2015 (PB PG. 54), WHICH IN FACT IS THE FORWARDING LETTER BY THE JT. CIT, RANGE 3, FEROZEPUR, TO THE REMAND REPORT DATED 18.0 2.2015 BY THE AO. THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT THE REVENUES SEEKS TO EMPHASIZE PER ITS GROUND 4. THE MATTER, PERHAPS, NEEDS TO TRAVEL TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT (A), WHO WAS APPARENTLY GIVEN A SET OF DOCUMENTS BY THE ASSESSEE DIFFERENT FROM THA T TO THE AO. THE QUESTION, HOWEVER, AS WE SEE IT, IS NOT THE A MOUNT AT WHICH THE LAND WAS ACTUALLY SOLD, WHICH IS IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR, BUT WHETHER THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.49 LACS COULD BE SAID TO FORM PART OF THE TRANSACTION OF SALE OF LAND BY THE ASSESSEES FATHER. SH. ARORA, ON BEING REQUIRED BY THE BENCH T O RECONCILE THE SALE DEED/S, I.E., AS ADDUCED BEFORE THE AO IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THEREFORE HE HAS MADE HIS COMMENTS, AND THAT PRODUC ED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), AND WHICH THEREFORE FORMS THE BASIS OF HIS ORDER, WOULD , AFTER SEEKING TIME TO PRODUCE THE SALE DEED/S, SHOW THAT THE LAND PARTICULARS REF ERRED TO IN THE ATS WERE THE SAME AS THAT MENTIONED IN TWO SALE DEEDS DATED 16.04.200 9 (PB PGS. 75-83), - WHICH ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT MENTIONED BY THE AO IN HIS R EMAND REPORT, SEEKING TO UNDER-SCORE THAT THE ASSESSEES FATHER DID INDEED S ELL THE LAND UNDER REFERENCE AT WHATEVER SUM. FURTHER, AS CLARIFIED BY THE LD. CIT( A), INVESTIGATION BY THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF KULWINDER KAUR THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R (FOR AY 2009-10) IN WHOSE CASE IS SANS ANY FINDINGS TO BE OF ANY VALUE, SHOWS THAT THE ST AMP PAPER ON WHICH ITA NO.613/ASR/2015&C.O. NO.15/ASR/2017 ITO V. HARMANPREET KAUR (AY 2009-10) 7 THE ATS IS EXECUTED WAS INDEED PURCHASED ON 22.10.2 008. IT WOULD THEREFORE BE INCORRECT TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ATS, WITNESSED BY TW O INDEPENDENT PERSONS, BESIDES BEING SIGNED ALSO BY THE SIX DAUGHTERS, IS A SHAM D OCUMENT. WHY, IF IT WAS INDEED, AS CONTENDED, A FABRICATED DOCUMENT, WOULD IT MENTI ON THE SALE RATE IN EXCESS OF THAT STATED IN THE SALE DEED/S. THERE IS, AT THE SA ME TIME, AND ONLY EXPECTEDLY, NO REFERENCE TO THE ATS THEREIN. HOW COULD, THEN, THE ATS EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITED ON 22/10/2008 ? FURTHER, THE SALE DEEDS, WHICH BEAR THE DETAILS OF THE LAND, STATE OF ONE AKSHAY KUMAR (S/O SH. VINOD KUMAR), FOR RS. 9.90 LACS) AND SUSHMA W/O SH. UMESH KUMAR AND ANJU W/O SH. PARVIN DER (BOTH SONS OF SH. OM PRAKASH), FOR RS. 24.625 LACS, AS TH E PURCHASERS. THUS, APART FROM DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT, THE BUYERS TOO ARE ALSO DIFFE RENT, WITH EACH OF THE THREE DOCUMENTS, VIZ. THE ATS; THE TWO SALE DEEDS PRODUCE D BEFORE THE AO AND THE TRIBUNAL; AND THAT (OR, IS IT AFFIDAVIT, AS THE REV ENUE CLAIMS PER ITS GD. 4) FURNISHED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), STATING DIFFERENT FACTS. W ITHOUT DOUBT, THERE IS MUCH THAT NEEDS TO BE EXPLAINED, INCLUDING THE TAXABILITY OF THE INCOME ARISING ON THE SALE OF LAND WHICH, AGAIN, THE ATS BEING AN UNREGISTERED DO CUMENT, WOULD BE IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR, I.E., AY 2010-11( CIT V. BALBIR S. MAINI [2017] 398 ITR 531 (SC)). THERE IS ACCORDINGLY NO QUESTION OF THE ASSESSEE HA VING EXPLAINED, MUCH LESS SATISFACTORILY, THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE CASH D EPOSITED IN HER AXIS BANK ACCOUNT ON 22.10.2008. CONTINUING FURTHER, ANYONE OF THE JOINT ACCOUNT HOL DERS COULD DEPOSIT HIS MONEY THEREIN, SO THAT AN ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS O F DEPOSIT/S THEREIN COULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF AN ACCOUNT HOLDER. IT IS EQUAL LY OPEN, IT FOLLOWS, FOR AN ACCOUNT HOLDER TO SHOW THAT THE MONEY HELD/DEPOSITE D IN A JOINT ACCOUNT DOES NOT BELONG TO HIM BUT TO ANOTHER ACCOUNT HOLDER, REBUTT ING THE PRESUMPTION OF LAW U/S. 69/69A, WHICH ARE ONLY RULES OF EVIDENCE INCORPORAT ING THE PRINCIPLES OF COMMON LAW JURISPRUDENCE, AS EXPLAINED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT TIME AND AGAIN (REFER: ITA NO.613/ASR/2015&C.O. NO.15/ASR/2017 ITO V. HARMANPREET KAUR (AY 2009-10) 8 CHUHARMAL V. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 250 (SC)). IN THE PRESENT CASE, NO OTHER CREDIT, APART FROM RS.49 LAC DEPOSITED CASH ON 22.10.2008, HAS BEEN ATTRIBUTED TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, OF THE SAID RS.49 LACS, RS.41 LA CS STANDS DISTRIBUTED/GIFTED BY THE ASSESSEES FATHER EQUALLY (ALMOST) AMONG HIS SIX DA UGHTERS. ONLY A FATHER WOULD DO SO AND, IMPLIEDLY, QUA HIS OWN PROPERTY. THE UNMISTAKABLE INFERENCE THAT ARISES IS THAT THE SAID AMOUNT BELONGED TO SH. SADHU SINGH, T HE ASSESSEES FATHER. AS SUCH, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE SOURCE THEREOF HAS BEEN SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE OR NOT, AND WHICH WE CATEGORICALLY FIND AS NOT, THE SAME CANNOT BE DEEMED AS THE ASSESSEES INCOME; THE ASSESSEE HAVING LED S UFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE SAME DID NOT BELONG TO HER, BUT, IN ALL PROBABI LITY, TO HER FATHER, WITH SHE BEING, IN FACT, ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE SAID SUM, I.E., ALONG WITH HER OTHER SIBLINGS. THIS, WE MAY ADD, IS ALSO THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE ADDITION FOR RS.49 LACS, THEREFORE, AS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEES SISTER, KULWINDER KAUR, NEEDS TO BE DELETED. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 3.4 THIS LEAVES US WITH THE SUM OF RS.1 LAC DEPOSIT ED CASH IN THE ASSESSEES HDFC BANK ACCOUNT, WHICH DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A JO INT ACCOUNT. THE SOURCE THEREOF IS EXPLAINED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EES HUSBAND, SH. JAGWINDER SINGH, STATED TO BE AN AGRICULTURIST. NO EVIDENCE T OWARD THE SAME, HOWEVER, HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE AT ANY STAGE (REFER PARA 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER). SO, HOWEVER, WE OBSERVE THAT THOUGH THE ASS ESSEE RAISED THIS ISSUE AS WELL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), HE HAS NOT ADJUDICATED THERE ON. THE SAME, THEREFORE, CANNOT FORM THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE REVENUES APPEAL BEF ORE US. NOT SURPRISINGLY, NO ARGUMENTS IN ITS RESPECT WERE URGED BEFORE US. NO I NTERFERENCE IS THEREFORE CALLED FOR. ITA NO.613/ASR/2015&C.O. NO.15/ASR/2017 ITO V. HARMANPREET KAUR (AY 2009-10) 9 4. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED , AND THE ASSESSEES CO IS DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JUNE 29, 2018 SD/- SD/- [ (N. K. CHOUDHRY) (SANJAY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 29.06.2018 /GP/SR. PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE APPELLANT: INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(4), F ARIDKOT (2) THE RESPONDENT: HARMANPREET KAUR D/O SADHU SINGH, STREET NO. 3, HAR INDRA NAGAR, FARIDKOT (3) THE CIT(APPEALS), BATHINDA. (4) THE CIT CONCERNED. (5) THE CIT-DR, I.T.A.T. TRUE COPY BY ORDER