Raghubir Singh, Haryana V. ITO, Rewari

ITA 660/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 66020114 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 11-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS RAKHI VIMAL
• Keywords: Source of fund; Valuation report
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : SMC-2 NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO: 660/DEL/2015 ASSTT. YEAR : - 2007-08 RAGHUBIR SINGH VS. ITO S/O SHRI MANGTU RAM, VILL. BALLAWAS AHIR WARD-2, PO BORIA KAMALPUR, TEHSIL & DISTRICT REWA RI REWARI HARYANA (PAN BHJPR0217H) (APPELLANT) ( RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI GAUTAM JAIN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY :MRS. RAKHI VIMAL, JCIT DATE OF HEARING :11.8.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 .9.2015 O R D E R PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE D IRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ROHTAK DATED 28.11.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE : THE ASSESSEE IS A SENIO R CITIZEN AND IS AN AGRICULTURIST . HE ALONGWITH HIS BROTHER SOLD AGRICULTURAL LAND DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 FOR RS. 17, 44,000/-. THE REVENUE, ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF T HE ACT, CALLING UPON THE ASSESEE TO EXPLAIN THE DEPOSITS MADE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, NEW GRAIN MARKET, REWARI. THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A DEPOSIT OF RS. 14,02,000/-. THE AO HELD ITA NO. 660/DEL/2015 RAGHUBIR SINGH VS. ITO 2 THAT, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 8,72,000/- I.E. 50% OF THE S ALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, SOLD BY HIM, ALONGWITH HIS BROTHER, AS A SOURCE WHI CH EXPLAINS THE DEPOSIT OF CASH IN BANK ACCOUNT. THE BALANCE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 5,30, 000/- WAS HELD AS UNEXPLAINED AND TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 5,00,000/- FROM HIS B ROTHER FROM OUT OF THE JOINT SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THIS WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THAT HIS BROTHER PASSED AWAY ON 10.7.2010. DEATH CERTIFICATE WAS ENC LOSED. AN AFFIDAVIT FROM THE SON OF HIS DECEASED BROTHER WAS PRODUCED AS EVIDENCE OF THE FACT OF THE BROTHER HAVING GIVEN THE ASSESSEE RS. 5,00,000/- OUT OF HIS SHARE OF SALE PROCEED OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. AS THE SON OF THE BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PRODUCED FOR EXAMINATION BEFORE THE AO THE ADDITION WAS MADE. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 54F, ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. THE DISALL OWANCE WAS MADE OF THIS CLAIM BY THE AO, FOR THE REASON THAT THE SALE PROCEEDS OF AG RICULTURAL LAND WAS NOT PER SAY INVESTED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERT Y. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL WITHOUT SUCCESS. FURTHER AGGRI EVED THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT UPHOLDING THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 530000/- IS QU ITE ARBITRARY, EXCESSIVE AND UNJUSTIFIED. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE FACTS AND DOCUMENTS ON RECORD ALLEGING NO EXPLANATION BACKED BY EVIDENC E IS QUITE ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED WHILE THE SALE DEED OF AGRICULTURAL LAN D, THE DULY SWORNED AFFIDAVIT WITH RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AND COPY OF DAY TO DAY CASH FLOW I.E. CASH BOOK ARE VERY WELL ON RECORD. 2. THAT UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 732356/- ALLEGIN G NO EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM IS QUITE ARBITRARY, UNJUSTI FIED AND AGAINST FACTS AND LAW OF THE CASE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERR ED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE VALUATION REPORT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS ON RECORD. ITA NO. 660/DEL/2015 RAGHUBIR SINGH VS. ITO 3 4. I HAVE HEARD SHRI GAUTAM JAIN THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SMT. RAKHI VIMAL, LD. SR. DR. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATIO N OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, A PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, I HOLD AS FOLLOWS. 5. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE CLAIMS THAT HIS BR OTHER SHRI KHEM CHAND HAS SOLD AGRICULTURAL LAND ALONGWITH HIM AND THAT THIS MONEY WAS GIVEN HIM. THE SOURCE OF FUNDS IS SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. BEING BROTHERS AND CO-OWNERS, THIS CLAIM CANNOT BE REJECTED AS A FARFETCHED CLAIM. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CLAIM THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED AN AFFIDAVIT OF HIS BROTHER SHRI KHEM CHAND, SON. JUST BECAUSE SHRI DALIP SINGH WAS NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO, IN MY VIEW THE ADDITION CA NNOT BE MADE. THE EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTE D BY THE AO BY INVESTIGATION OR DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE. MERELY THE CLAIM MADE HAS BE EN REJECTED. UNDER THIS CIRCUMSTANCES I DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,30,000 /- ON THE GROUND THAT SOURCES OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN SATISFACTORI LY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. ON THE ISSUE OF DEDUCTION U/S 54F, THE PR OPOSITION OF LAW THAT IS LAID DOWN BY THE VARIOUS BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IS THAT, THE A SSESSEE, NEED NOT INVEST THE VERY SAME AMOUNT AS WAS OBTAINED TO SALE PROCEEDS AND LO NG TERM CAPITAL GAINS, IN THE HOUSE PROPERTY, FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 54F. THE B BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, IN THE CASE OF KAPIL KUMAR AGARWAL VS. ACIT 63 SOT 22 (DEL HI TRIBUNAL), HAS CONSIDERED VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE HIGH COURTS AND TRIBUNALS AND GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ITA NO. 660/DEL/2015 RAGHUBIR SINGH VS. ITO 4 ASSESSEE, ON THE GROUND THAT THE SOURCE OF INVESTME NT IN THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, NEED NOT BE THE SAME AMOUNT AS WAS RECEIVED ON SALE OF C APITAL ASSET. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE COORDINATE BENCH DECISION I DELETE TH IS ADDITION MADE. 7. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015. SD/- (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: THE 11 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 VEENA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR SL. NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 1. DATE OF DICTATION BY THE AUTHOR 11.8.2015 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 13.8.2 015 3. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT APPROVED BY THE SECOND MEMBER 5. DATE OF APPROVED ORDER COMES TO THE SR. PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER 7. DATE OF FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER