The Income Tax Officer, Abohar V. Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Jalalabad(W)

ITA 669/ASR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7800 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 13-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 28-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAHUL DHAWANLD
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA LD
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Additional evidence
• Section: 133A; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.669(ASR)/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-II(5), ABOHAR VS. SH. RAKESH KUMAR S/O SH. MOHAN LAL C/O M/S J.P. INDUSTRIES, JALALABAD. PAN:ACSPG-7253P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) CROSS OBJECTION NO. 03/(ASR)/2016 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 669/ASR/2015) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 SH. RAKESH KUMAR S/O SH. MOHAN LAL C/O M/S J.P. INDUSTRIES, JALALABAD. PAN:ACSPG-7253P VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-II(5), ABOHAR (CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. RAHUL DHAWAN (LD. D.R.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. P. N. ARORA (LD. ADV.) DATE OF HEARING :05.09.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:07.09.2017 ORDER PER N. K. CHOUDHRY (JM): THE INSTANT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, ON FEELING AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.10. 2015 PASSED IN APPEAL NO. 203-IT/CIT(A)/BTI/14-15 RELEVANT TO ASST. YEAR: 2 012-13 BY THE LD. CIT(A)- BATHINDA. ITA NO.669/ASR/2015 C.O. NO. 03/ASR/2016 ASST. YEAR: 2011-12 2 2. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PREFERRED TO FILE C.O. AS AGAINST THE A PPEAL OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND IN SUPPORT OF AFORESAID ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE. 3. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTME NT ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EV IDENCE DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IGNORING SUB RULE (1) OF RULE 46A OF T HE RULES, WHICH MANDATES ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE CAN BE ADMITTED BY CIT(A) ONLY IN THE CIRC UMSTANCES MENTIONED M CLAUSES (A) TO (D) OF SUB RULE (1) AND THE ASSESSEES CASE NOT BEING COVE RED UNDER ANY OF THESE CLAUSES, ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE COULD NOT BE ADMITTED. 2. THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS REQUIRED BY RULE 46(2) T O RECORD IN WRITING REASONS FOR ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH MEANS THAT RECORDING OF R EASONS SHOULD PRECEDE ADMISSION AND SUCH REASON NOT BEING MADE AVAILABLE TO THE AO BEFO RE ADMISSION WOULD LEAD TO AN INFERENCE THAT REASONS WERE NOT RECORDED MAKING THE ORDER BAD IN LAW. 3. THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE SOU RCE OF INVESTMENT OF RS.23,00,000/- ON 02.11.2011 AS GIFT FROM MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE SMT. NIRMALA DEVI IGNORING THE FACT THAT SMT. NIRMALA DEVI HAD SOLD HER LAND ON 03.11.2011 AND TH ERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE AMOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.23,77,000/- WAS RECEIVED BY HER ON 02.11.2011. 4. THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT OF RS.10,00,000/- ON 17.02.2012 PARTLY AS GIFT FROM SMT. NIRMALA DEVI, I GNORING THE FACT THAT SMT. NIRMALA DEVI HAD SOLD HER LAND ON 27.04.2012 AND THERE IS NO MENTION IN THE REGISTRATION DEED OF ANY RECEIPT OF SALE CONSIDERATION BY HER ON 17.02.2012. 5. THAT LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE CONTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AMOUNTING TO RS. 23,00,000/- WAS MADE ON 02.11.2011 IGNORING THE FACT THAT REGISTRATION DEED WAS EXECUT ED ON 17.02.2012 AND THERE IS NO MENTION IN THE REGISTRATION DEED THAT SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS .23,00,000/- EXCHANGED HANDS ON 02 . 1 1 . 2011 . 4. THE GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE R EPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND LAW IN NOT AD JUDICATING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THAT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 147/148 ARE VOID AB INITI O AND THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DESERVES TO BE QUASHED BECAUSE:- I) THE LD. AO INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE PURPOS E OF VERIFICATION OF THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE AS PER SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW. II) THE REASONS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/ 148 HAVE BEEN RECORDED WITHOUT PROPER APPLICATION OF MIND BECAUSE IN THE N OTICE U/S 148 THE LD. AO HAS NOT STRUCK OFF THE COLUMN IN THE NOTICE U/S 148 THAT WHETHER HE WANTED TO ASSESS/REASSESS THE INCOME IN THE CASE OF THE ASSES SEE. 2. THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR ALTE R ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING. ITA NO.669/ASR/2015 C.O. NO. 03/ASR/2016 ASST. YEAR: 2011-12 3 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: THAT THE APPELLANT IS STATED TO BE A PARTNER IN THE F OLLOWING FIRMS OF JALALABAD: (I) M/S J.P. INDUSTRIES; (II) M/S RAKESH KUMA R DAVINDER SINGH; (III) M/S SUCHKHAND TRADERS; AND (IV) M/S JAGTAR SINGH PRABH DAYAL. A SURVEY OPERATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF M/S J.P. INDUSTRIES, P URSUANT TO WHICH SOME INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE APP ELLANT WERE IMPOUNDED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 133A(3)(IA) OF THE ACT FROM WHICH DISCLOSES THE PURCHASE OF LAND MADE BY THE APPELLANT TO THE TUNE OF RS.87,63,375/-. ON THE BASIS OF THIS INFORMATION, NOTI CE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT BY CALLING UPON HIM TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF INVESTMENT IN LAND AND IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, THE APPELLANT REQUESTED THE AO THAT THE ITR ALREADY FILE D FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS COMPLIANCE TO THE NO TICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, STATUTORY NOTICES HAV E BEEN ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) AS WELL AS 144 WHICH REMAINED UN-COMPLIED AND IN THAT SITUATION THE AO LEFT WITH NO OPTION EXCEPT TO FRAME THE EX-PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PURCHASED THE L AND ON 17.02.2012 FROM ONE FAUJA SINGH FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.54,63,375/- FOR WHICH PAYMENTS WERE PURPORTED TO HAVE BEEN MADE ON 15 TH AND 20 TH FEB. 2012, WERE CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.69 OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, THE SAME WERE ADDED TO THE RETURNED I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED THE FIRST APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), AND DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A ), THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT TO EXPLAIN THE NON APPEARANCE BEFORE THE AO ON THE M ISCOMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE TAX CONSULTANT, SH. AMRIT SINGH KAKKAR A ND THE ASSESSING OFFICER QUA DATE FIXED FOR HEARING OF THE CASE ON 15 TH JANUARY, 2015. ITA NO.669/ASR/2015 C.O. NO. 03/ASR/2016 ASST. YEAR: 2011-12 4 FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED B Y SH. AMRIK SINGH KAKKAR TO THE EFFECT WHEN HE APPEARED TO EXPLA IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANTS MOTHER, SMT. NIRMALA DEVI, BEFORE THE AO AND REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT FOR THE APPELLANTS CASE THEREFORE IT WAS P RESUMED THAT THE DESIRED ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN GRANTED. IN THE AFORESAID CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT ON WRONG IMPRESSION, WAS PREVENTED BY SU FFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE, AS SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIE S WERE NOT GIVEN, THEREFORE, PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A(1)(B),(C) & (D) WERE INVOKED FOR ADMITTANCE OF NEW AND ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND BY CONSID ERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AS GENUINE , THE LD. CIT(A) ADMITTED THE NEW ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FOR CONSIDERATION ON MERITS AND THE SAID EVIDENCECES WERE FORWARDED TO THE AO FOR HIS COMMENTS WHO SUBMITTED ITS REPORT DATED 21.09.2015 AND IN THE SAID REPORT, NO ADVERSE INFEREN CE WAS DRAWN BY THE AO, IN RESPECT OF EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT, QUA SOURCES OF INVESTMENTS IN LAND. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETE D THE ADDITION AS ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. FEELING AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT PREFERRED THE INSTANT APPEAL AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE DUR ING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IGNORING SUB RULE (1) OF RULE 46A OF THE RULES, WHICH MANDATES ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE CAN BE ADMITTED BY CIT(A) ONLY IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED IN CLAUSES (A) TO (D) OF SUB RULE (1) AND T HE ASSESSEES CASE DOES FALL IN ANY OF THESE CLAUSES , THEREFORE ADDITIONAL EV IDENCE COULD NOT BE ADMITTED. FURTHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS REQUIRED BY RULE 46(2) TO RECORD IN WRITING REASONS FOR ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH MEANS TH AT RECORDING OF REASONS SHOULD PRECEDE ADMISSION AND SUCH REASON NOT BEING MADE AVAILABLE ITA NO.669/ASR/2015 C.O. NO. 03/ASR/2016 ASST. YEAR: 2011-12 5 TO THE AO BEFORE ADMISSION WOULD LEAD TO AN INFERENCE THAT BY NON-RECORDING THE REASONS, TANTAMOUNT THE ORDER BAD IN LAW. FURTHER THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS E RRED IN ACCEPTING THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT OF RS.23,00,000/- ON 02.11.201 1 AS GIFT FROM MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE SMT. NIRMALA DEVI IGNORING THE FACT THAT SMT. NIRMALA DEVI HAD SOLD HER LAND ON 03.11.2011 AND TH ERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE AMOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION O F RS.23,77,000/- WAS RECEIVED BY HER ON 02.11.2011. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT OF RS.10,00,000/- ON 17.02.2012 PARTLY GIFT FROM SMT. NIRMALA DEVI, IGNORING THE FACT THAT SMT. NIRMALA DEVI HAD SOLD HER LAND ON 27.04.2012 AND THERE IS NO MENTIONIN G IN THE REGISTRATION DEED OF ANY RECEIPT THAT SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED BY HER ON 17.02.2012. FURTHER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY A MOUNTING TO RS.23,00,000/- WAS MADE ON 02.11.2011 IGNORING THE FA CT THAT REGISTRATION DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 17.02.2012 AND THERE IS NO MENTI ON IN THE REGISTRATION DEED THAT SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.23,00,00 0/- EXCHANGED HANDS ON 02.11.2011 AND FINALLY THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IS SUFFERED FROM PERVERSITY, ILLEGALITY AND THE SAME IS ILLOGICAL AND UNREASONED ORDER, HENCE, LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. 8. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE OR DER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IS A WELL-REASONED, LOGICAL AND REASONABLE ORDER PASSED IN PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND DOES NOT DESER VES TO BE INFERRED WITH. ITA NO.669/ASR/2015 C.O. NO. 03/ASR/2016 ASST. YEAR: 2011-12 6 9. ADJUDICATION OF GROUND NO.1 & 2 WE HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE DOCUMENTS, FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES, AND RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES. SUB RULE (1) OF RULE 46A PRESCRIBES FOUR SITUATIONS IN WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) CAN ALLOW PRODUCTION OF ANY EVIDENCE, WHETHER O RAL OR DOCUMENTARY, OTHER THAN THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED, DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXCEPT IN THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES, NAMELY :- (A) WHERE THE [ASSESSING OFFICER] HAS REFUSED TO ADMIT EVIDEN CE WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; OR (B) WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CA USE FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE WHICH WAS CALLED UPON TO PRODUCE B Y THE [ASSESSING OFFICER]; OR (C) WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAU SE FROM PRODUCING BEFORE THE [ASSESSING OFFICER] ANY EVIDENCE WHICH IS RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL; OR (D) WHERE THE [ASSESSING OFFICER] HAS MADE THE ORDER APP EALED AGAINST WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES TO THE APPELLANT TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. IN THE INSTANT CASE AS PER OBSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRO DUCING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE WHICH RELIED UPON BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY WHICH IS RELEVANT TO GROUND OF APPEAL. THEREFORE, FROM THE SIMPLE READING OF SUB-CLAUSE C OF SUB-RULE-1 OF RULES 46A OF THE I.T. RULES IT IS CLEAR THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE SQUAREL Y FALSE UNDER THE SAID PROVISION AND WHILE GOING FURTHER AS THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT HAS SPECIFICALLY RAISED GROUND NO.2 QUA AND ADMISSION OF ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT RECORDING OF REASONS SHOULD PRECEDE ADMISSION IN SUCH REASO N NOT BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO THE AO BEFORE THE ADMISSIONS WOULD LEAD TO ANY INFERENCE THE REASONS WERE NOT RECORDED THEREFORE THE ORDER BE T REATED AS BAD IN LAW. ITA NO.669/ASR/2015 C.O. NO. 03/ASR/2016 ASST. YEAR: 2011-12 7 AS PER PROVISION OF 46A(2) WHAT IT CONSPIRE THAT NO EVI DENCE SHALL BE ADMITTED UNDER SUB-RULE (1) UNLESS THE DY. CIT OR AS TH E CASE MAY BE, THE CIT(A) RECORDED IN WRITING THE REASONS FOR ITS ADMISSION , HOWEVER, FURTHER SUB-RULE 4 OF RULES-46A PRESCRIBES THAT NOTHING CONTAINE D IN THIS RULE SHALL AFFECT THE POWER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO DIRECT THE PRODUCTION OF ANY DOCUMENT, OR THE EXAMINATION OF ANY WITNESS, TO ENABLE HIM TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL, OR FOR ANY OTHER SUBSTANTIAL CLAUSE INCLUDI NG THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE ASSESSMENT OR PENALTY WHETHER ON HIS OWN MOTION OR ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER CLAUSE-(A) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SEC.251 OR THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271.] FROM THE ORDER REFLECTS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA NO.4 IN IMPUGNED ORDER OBSERVED THAT :- ' CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT QUA THE CHARGE OF NON-APPEARANCE BEFORE THE AO, IT IS HELD THAT THE A PPELLANT WAS INDEED NOT GIVE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO ADDUCE EVIDENCES TO EXPLAIN THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY HIM AS BORN OUT OF THE IMPOUNDE D INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SURVEY UNDER THE PROVISIONS O F SEC.133A OF THE ACT AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF ONE OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRMS, WHERE THE APPELLANT IS PARTNER. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANTS MOTHER, IT HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED BY THE APPELLANT THAT HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE DID APPEAR BEFORE THE AO ON 15 TH JULY, 2015 AND IT WOULD HAVE SERVED NO PURPOSE AND MET NO REASONS TO LET THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT BE DECIDED EX-PARTE FOR NOT APPEARING IN RESPONSE TO THE FINAL SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, EVEN WHEN THE SAID AUTHORIZED RE PRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT WAS PRESENT BEFORE THE AO. IT IS, THEREFO RE, SEEN TO BE APPARENT THAT THERE WAS SOME MIS-COMMUNICATION WHICH RESULTE D IN THE APPELLANT NOT BEING REPRESENTED BEFORE THE AO ON THE APPOINTE D DATE NOR ANY WRITTEN REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS MADE. ON THE AFORESAID CONSIDERATION, THE NEW ADDITIONAL EVI DENCES WERE ADMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION ON MERITS BY LD. CIT(A). IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, IN THE AFORESAID OBSERVATION, THE LD. CIT(A) ALTHOUGH , ANALYZED THE POSITION OF ADMISSION OF NEW/ ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, HAS NOT GIVEN ANY SPECIFIC REASON AS TO WHY THE ADDITIONAL ITA NO.669/ASR/2015 C.O. NO. 03/ASR/2016 ASST. YEAR: 2011-12 8 EVIDENCES HAVE ANY IMPORTANCE AND /OR ANY IMPACT TO TH E GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND/OR APPEAL ITSELF, HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE SUB-RUL E-4 OF RULE 46A AS SAME HAS GIVEN AMPLE POWER TO THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO DIRECT THE PRODUCTION OF ANY DOCUMENT, OR FOR THE EXAMINATION OF THE ANY WITNESS TO ENABLE HIM TO DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL OR FOR ANY OTHE R SPECIAL CAUSE , THEREFORE , WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT NON- REASONING AS TO WHY THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES NEW/ADDITIONAL HAVE TO BE ADMITT ED DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE. HENCE, THE GROUND NO. 1 & 2 STANDS DISMISSED. GROUND NO.3 TO 5 ARE INTERLINKED WITH EACH OTHER, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY, TAKEN SIMULTANEOUSLY FOR ADJUDICATION. THE LD. CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF LAND AMOUNTING TO RS.33 LAKHS FROM SH. FAUZA SINGH, SOUGHT THE EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE QU A SOURCE AS CASH GIFTS RECEIVED FROM HIS MOTHER SMT. NIRMALA DEVI AND I T WAS OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT SMT. NIRMALA DEVI HERSELF ASSESSED THE T AX AMOUNTING TO RS.32,50,000/- AND GIFTS OF RS.2,50,000/- FROM SMT. SA VITA GROVER WIFE OF SH. HARISH GROVER (BROTHER OF THE APPELLANT), FOR W HICH ALL THE NECESSARY EVIDENCES WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN, IT WAS OBSERVE D BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT AO CROSS VERIFIED THE SAID EVIDENCES IN THE R EMAND PROCEEDINGS AND FINALLY CONCLUDED THAT NO DISCREPANCIES COULD BE FOUND IN THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION. FURTHER IN ADDITION TO THE AFORESAID CASH GIFTS OF RS.32 ,50,000/- AND RS.2,50,000/-, THE ASSESSEE INSISTED THAT THE BALANCE AMOUN T OF RS.80,000/- WAS ALSO RECEIVED FROM HIS MOTHER WHO IS HAVING RENTAL I NCOME AND PENSION AS HER SOURCE OF INCOME WHICH WAS ALSO ASSESSED AT RS.80,390/- AND RS.5,50,144/- FOR THE ASST. YEARS: 2010-11 AND 2011-12 RESPECTIVELY, WHICH WERE USED TO MEET THE COST OF THE PURCHASE OF LAND AND ITS REGISTRATION. ITA NO.669/ASR/2015 C.O. NO. 03/ASR/2016 ASST. YEAR: 2011-12 9 IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WHILE CONSIDERING AVAILAB LE RECORDS AND REMAND REPORT OF THE AO/JCIT DULY SUPPORTED BY THE D OCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE APPELLANT, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE LD. C IT(A) THAT THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND AMOUNTING TO RS.33 L AKHS STANDS EXPLAINED. WITH REGARD TO THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR, THE RE VENUE DEPARTMENT TO THE EFFECT THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTIN G THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT OF RS.23 LAKH ON 2.11.2011 AND RS.10 LAKH O N 17.02.2012 IGNORING THE FACT THAT SMT. NIRMALA DEVI HAD SOLD HER LAND ON 3.11.2011 AND 27.04.2012 RESPECTIVELY, THEREFORE, GIFTS TO THE APPE LLANT TO THE TUNE OF RS.23 LAKHS AND 10 LAKHS ALLEGEDLY MADE ON 2.11.2011 A ND 17.02.2012 DOES NOT ARISE. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IT IS NOT IN CONTROVERSY THAT SMT. NIRMALA DEVI HAD SOLD LANDS ON 3.11.2011 AS WELL AS ON 27.04.21012 AND THERE IS NO CONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD WHICH CAN SUGGESTS THAT THE SAID LADY HAS NOT RECEIVED THE AMOUNT UNDER CONSIDERATION BE FORE THE EXECUTION OF THE SALE DEED. EVEN OTHERWISE FROM THE SALE DEED, I T REFLECTS THAT IT IS THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.47,54,000/- HAS ALREADY BEEN RECEIVED CASH AT THE RESIDENCE AND NOTHING IS DUE NOW. FROM THE AFFIDAVITS OF SMT. NIRMALA DEVI, IT REFLECTS THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.23,7 7,000/- AND RS.8,70,000/- ON DATED 2.11.2011 AND 17.02.2012 RESPE CTIVELY AND BY FILING AN AFFIDAVIT, ON OATH, CONFIRMED THE AMOUNT OF RS.23 ,87,000/- AND RS.80,000/- PAID TO THE ASSESSEE AS A GIFT. THE LD. DR FA ILED TO BRING ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF ITS GROUNDS OF APPEAL. HENCE, ON THE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS GROUNDS NO.3 TO 5 ALSO STANDS DISMISSED . IN OVER ALL EFFECT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT STANDS DISMISSED. ITA NO.669/ASR/2015 C.O. NO. 03/ASR/2016 ASST. YEAR: 2011-12 10 C.O. NO.03(ASR)/2016 , THE LD. AR HAD WITHDRAWN THE C.O. HENCE DOES NOT REQUIRE SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE DEPA RTMENT STAND DISMISSED AND C.O FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAND DISPOSED OFF. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 0 7.09.2017. SD/- SD/- (T. S. KAPOOR) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JU DICIAL MEMBER DATED:07.09.2017. /GP/ SR.PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE ASSESSEE: (2) THE (3) THE CIT(A), (4) THE CIT, (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER