Sh. Sunil Kumar, Bhiwani V. ITO, Bhiwani

ITA 6746/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3139 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 12-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAUSHLENDRA TIWARI
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHISH CHADHA
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM ITA NO. 6746/DEL/2014 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2011-12 SUNIL KUMAR, S/O SH. DARIYAO SINGH, AGGARWAL BHAWAN, JHARNA GHAT, HIRA CHOWK, CH. DADRI, DISTT. BHIWANI VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BHIWANI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AWNPK0793P ASSESSEE BY : SH. VED JAIN, CA & SH. ASHISH CHADHA, CA REVENUE BY : SH. KAUSHL ENDRA TIWARI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 28.05.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : .08.2018 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2014 OF LD. CIT(A), ROHTAK. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEA L: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE HAS ERRED IN LAW IN CONFORMING THE ADDITIO N MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS. 1,62,50,000/- MERELY BY REJECTING THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT CONSIDERING THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED ON SALES TRANSACTIONS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND ARE DIFFERENT THA N THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN BANK. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS COMMITTED FACTUAL ERROR IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT NEITHER DEP OSITED ITA NO. 6746/DEL/2014 SUNIL KUMAR 2 AMOUNT OF RS. 1,57,50,000/- IN THE BANK ON 17/02/20 11 OR THERAFTER NOR SUCH AMOUNT WAS CREDITED IN HIS SAVIN G BANK ACCOUNT OPENED ON THE SAME DATE, DEPOSIT OF RS . 1,37,25,000/- AFTER OPENING VARIOUS SAVING BANK ACC OUNT ON 17/02/2011 EXPLAINED & CONFIRMED BY SUCH DEPOSIT ORS IN THEIR STATEMENT BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER OUT OF PART PAYMENT RECEIVED FROM THE PURCHASER BEFORE EXECUTION AND REGISTRATION OF SALE DEEDS FOR WHICH STAMP PAPERS WERE EVEN PURCHASED ON 15/02/2011 BUT THE SA ME COULD NOT BE EXECUTED AND REGISTERED AS THE AMOUNT OF TOTAL SALES CONSIDERATION COULD NOT BE ARRANGED BY 16/02/2011. 3. THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN NOT APPRECIATING THE LD. INCOME TAX OFFICER HAD FAILED TO PROVE THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT AS INCORRECT. IN LAW IT IS THE DUTY OF TH E LD. INCOME TAX OFFICER TO PROVE THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CORRECT. 4. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) HAS BEEN ADVERSELY EFFECTED DUE TO MISCONSTRUING THE FACTS REGARDING S ALE PROCEEDS RECEIVED REGARDING SALE DEED NO 7144 DT. 22.03.2011 AT RS.7,52,500/- AGAINST THE EXACT AMOUN T OF RS. 75,25,000/- AND HAS WRONGLY CONSIDERED THE TOTA L AMOUNT OF THE CONVEYANCE DEED EXECUTED BY BALJEET, BHUPINDER AND SHER SINGH S/O SH. LAXMI NARAYAN AT R S. 55,77,500/- AGAINST THE EXACT AMOUNT OF RS. 1,23,50 ,000/- . BY SUCH MISCONSTRUING THE FACTS THE APPEAL AS BEE N WRONGLY DISMISSED AGAINST FACTS. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD AMEND OR RECIND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OR BEFORE T HE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 6. THAT THE APPEAL IS WITHIN LIMITATION AND NO AD MITTED TAX IS DUE TO BE PAID. ITA NO. 6746/DEL/2014 SUNIL KUMAR 3 THE APPEAL MAY KINDLY BE HEARD AND THE ORDERS OF TH E LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS OF THE CIT(A) BE QUASH ED AND CANCELLED. 3. FROM THE ABOVE GROUNDS, IT IS GATHERED THAT THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITIO N OF RS.1,62,50,000/- MADE BY THE AO. 4. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SALARIED PERSON WORKING WITH BIRLA SUN LIFE INSURANCE COMPAN Y, CHARKHI DADRI. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS E-FILED BY HIM ON 22.11.2011 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.2,96,270/- WHICH WAS PROC ESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REF ERRED TO AS THE ACT). LATER ON, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING BANK ACCOUNT WITH ORIE NTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, CHARIKHI DADRI, COPY OF WHICH WAS OBTAINE D FROM THE BANK WHICH REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE CASH DEP OSITS OF RS.1,57,50,000/- AND RS.5,00,000/- ON 17.02.2011 IN CASH. HOWEVER, CASH ENTRY OF RS.1,57,50,000/- WAS REVERSE D ON THE SAME DAY. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURC E OF CASH DEPOSIT AND HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED. THE ASSESSE E STATED THAT HE DID NOT MAKE DEPOSIT OF RS.1,57,50,000/- AND THAT H E MADE THE DEPOSIT OF RS.5,00,000/-, THE SOURCE OF WHICH WOULD BE EXPLAINED LATERON. HOWEVER, HE ADMITTED THAT HE HAD MADE THE DEPOSIT OF RS.17,25,000/- IN THE ACCOUNT OF HIS WIFE SMT. ANNU , SOURCE OF WHICH WAS STATED TO BE EXPLAINED BY 17.01.2014. SIN CE, THE ASSESSEE DENIED TO HAVE MADE DEPOSIT OF RS.1,57,50, 000/-, ITA NO. 6746/DEL/2014 SUNIL KUMAR 4 THEREFORE, THE AO RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF BANKING AUTHORITIES I.E. SH. VED PARKASH, MANAGER ON 08.01.2014. IN HIS STAT EMENT SH. VED PARKASH, MANAGER STATED THAT ON 16.02.2011, THE ASS ESSEE SH. SUNIL KUMAR FOGAT CAME IN THE BANK WITH RS.1,57,50,000/- WHICH WERE DEPOSITED IN HIS ACCOUNT ON 17.02.2011. HOWEVER, ON THE SAME DAY, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS NOT HI S AND THAT A SUM OF RS.5,00,000/- ONLY BELONGED TO HIM. HE STATED TH AT THE AMOUNT TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE FOLLOWING ACCOUNTS: ANNU D/O SH. BALJEET SINGH 01222191021544 20,00,000/- SUNIL KUMAR PHOGAT S/O SH. DARIYAO SINGH 01222191021544 5,00,000/- SMT. SUSHILA W/O SH. BALJEET 01222191021568 25,00,000/- SUNNY S/O SH. BHUPENDER SINGH 01222191021551 20,00,000/- YASHWANTI W/O SH. BHUPENDER SINGH 01222191021575 50,00,000/- VEENA RANI W/O SH. SUNIL PHOGAT 01222191021650 17,25,000/- 5. ACCORDINGLY, RS.1,37,25,000/- WAS DEPOSITED IN T HE AFORESAID ACCOUNTS AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT I.E. RS.20,25,000 /-, THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN BACK TO HIS HOME. WHEN THE AO ASKED THE B ANK MANAGER, THE DETAILS OF THOSE PERSONS, THE BANK MANAGER STAT ED THAT HE WAS NOT HAVING THE RECORD OF THEM. THE AO AGAIN ASKED T HE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT OF RS.1,57,50,000/- A ND RS.5,00,000/-. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 29.01.2 014 SUBMITTED AS UNDER: KINDLY REFER TO THE ABOVE SAID QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 05- 03-2013 IN THE CASE OF SH. SUNIL KUMAR, AGGARWAL ITA NO. 6746/DEL/2014 SUNIL KUMAR 5 BHAWAN, JHARNA GHAT, HIRA CHOWK, CHARKHI DADRI, BHIWANI TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. THE DETAILE D REPLY IN REFERENCE TO ABOVE SAID QUESTIONNAIRE IS SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- 1. SINCE NO ASSETS WERE EITHER PURCHASED OR SOLD DURIN G THE LAST TWO YEARS IN MY INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. THERE FOR THE REQUIRED INFORMATION MAY KINDLY BE TREATED AS NIL. 2. NO MOVABLE OR IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED BY ME IN MY INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY NOR ANY OF MEMBERS OF MY FAMILY ACQUIRED ANY SUCH PROPERTY IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL HANDS IN THE LAST TWO YEARS. 3. I, MAINTAINED BANK ACCOUNT WITH THE HDFC BANK, WHICH IS SALARY ACCOUNT AND WITH THE AXIS BANK, WHERE MY SALARY WAS RECEIVED PREVIOUSLY. COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNTS ARE ALREADY ON THE RECORDS. THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH THE OBC BELONG TO MY HUF WHICH WAS OPENED AFTER THE SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND FALLEN IN MY SHARE AFTER THE DEATH OF MY FATHER 25 YEARS BACK. COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT WITH THE OBC IS ALSO ON RECORD . MY WIFE ALSO MAINTAINED BANK ACCOUNT WITH THE OBC CHARKHI DADRI WHICH HAS BEEN OPENED AFTER THE SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND OF OUR HUF. SHE IS ALSO CO- PARTNER OF THE HUF. THIS ACCOUNT WAS ALSO OPENED AT THE TIME OF SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND BELONGING TO O UR HUF. 4. NEITHER ANY LAND/PLOT/HOUSE WAS SOLD DURING THE LAS T THREE YEARS IN MY INDIVIDUAL STATUS. SO FAR AS QUES TION OF CASH DEPOSIT WORTH RS. 1,62,50,000/- IS CONCERNE D, NECESSARY REPLY IS FURNISHED SEPARATELY. DETAILS OF HOUSE HOLD WITH DRAWLS ALONGWITH JUSTIFICATION THEREOF IS SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- A) MY FAMILY CONSISTS OF MYSELF, MY WIFE, ONE SON 4 YEARS OLD & ONE DAUGHTER I YEAR OLD AS ON 31 -03- 2011. ITA NO. 6746/DEL/2014 SUNIL KUMAR 6 B) 1 AM RESIDING IN RENTAL HOUSE BELONGING TO SH. VINOD KUMAR IN HOUSE NO. 212, SECTOR-23, AT A MONTHLY RENT OF RS. 4000/-. C) DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11 RELEVANT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 MONTHLY ELECTRICITY BILL WAS ABOUT RS. 1000/- PER MONTH & TELEPHONE BILLS WAS ABOUT 1500/- PER MONTH. D) MY SON AS ON 31-03-2011 WAS ABOUT 4 YEARS OLD AND HE WAS ADMITTED IN BPS STEPPING SCHOOL, BHIWANI IN JAN. 2011. NOMINAL FEES CHARGES WERE PAID UPTO 31-03-2011. AT THAT TIME MY DAUGHTER WAS ONLY I YEAR OLD. E) NEITHER ANY SOCIAL NOR ANY RELIGIOUS FUNCTION WA S ARRANGED BY ME DURING THAT PERIOD, THEREFORE NO EXPENSES WAS INCURRED ON ANY FUNCTION. THE INFORMATION MAY KINDLY BE TREATED AS NIL. I HAVE FILED MY INCOME-TAX RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2011-12 THROUGH E-FILING ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO. 316402920221111 DATED 22-11-2011. PHOTOCOPY OF THE SAME, IS ON THE RECORD ALREADY FURNISHED. AT THAT T IME I WAS EMPLOYED AS ASSISTANT BRANCH MANAGER IN MAX NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., FROM WHERE I RECEIVED SALARY WORTH RS. 3,32,320/- FOR WHICH I HA VE PAID THE REGULAR INCOME TAX WITH THE DEPARTMENT. 6. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED AS UNDER: IN THIS REGARD, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT NO CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.1,62,50,000/- WAS MADE IN MY ACCO UNT WITH THE OBC, CHARKHI DADRI. THE FOLLOWING FAMILY MEMBERS OF OUR FAMILY SOLD AGRICULTURE LAND WORTH R S. 1,98,00,000/-ON 15-02-2011 AGAINST WHICH THE FULL & FINAL PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED IN THE NON BANKING HOURS ON 16 -02- 2011. MY GRANDFATHER SH. RAMJI LAL HAS GOT THREE SO N NAMELY LAXMINARAYAN, DARYYAV SINGH & SH. JAI SINGH. THE LAND IN QUESTION HAS FALLEN IN THE HANDS OF THR EE BROTHERS AS STATED ABOVE AFTER THE DEATH OF MY GRAN DFATHER NEAR ABOUT 60 YEARS BACK. THE ABOVE SAID LAND HAS C OME TO ITA NO. 6746/DEL/2014 SUNIL KUMAR 7 SHARES OF OUR FAMILY, UNCLE FAMILY & TAU FAMILY (EL DER THAN OUR FATHER). AFTER THE DEATH OF MY FATHER NEAR ABOUT 25 YEARS BACK AND IN THE HANDS OF BALJEET, BHUPENDE R, SHER SINGH SONS PREM AND RAJ KUMARI DAUGHTERS AFTER THE DEATH OF MY TAU JI 20 YEARS BACK. THE FAMILY TREE I S AS UNDER:- SHREE RAMJI LAL (GRAND FATHER) 1. LAXMINARAIN 2. DARIYAO SINGH 3. VIJAY SINGH PANMESHWARI(WIDOW) SAROJ(WIDOW) HE I S ALIVE. BALJEET(SON) ANIL KUMAR (SON) BHUPENDER SINGH(SON) SUNIL KUMAR (SON) SHER SINGH(SON) HEMLATA (DAUGHTER) PREM(DAUGHTER) RAJ KUMAR (DAUGHTER) THE AGRICULTURE LAND SITUATED OUTSIDE MUNICIPAL LIM IT CHARKHA DADRI MEASURING 15 KANAL 1 MARIA BELONGING TO SHRI SUNIL KUMAR (SON) AND MOTHER SAROJ (WIDOW) SOL D ABOVE SAID LAND FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS, 75,25,000/ - ON 15-02-2011 FULL -AND FINAL PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED IN THE NON BANKING HOURS ON 16-02-2011. THE DEED OF CONVEY ANCE WAS TO BE EXECUTED ON 16-02-2011 AS THE STAMP WORTH RS.49500/- WERE PURCHASED ON 15-02-2011. DUE TO SOC IAL PROBLEM WITH THE PURCHASER, HE REQUESTED THAT I AM MAKING FULL AND FINAL PAYMENT BUT THE SALE DEED WILL BE EX ECUTED AFTER ONE MONTH. THUS THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 22- 03-2011 AFTER NEAR ABOUT ONE MONTH OF RECEIVING THE FULL AND FINAL PAYMENT. IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED EXECUTED ON 22-03-2011. PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED IS SUBMITTED HEREWITH. SIMILARLY THREE SALE DEED WERE EXECUTED BY SH. BALJ EET, BHUPENDER SINGH, SHER SINGH (SONS) AND SMT. PREM AN D RAJ KUMARI(DAUGHTERS). THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS ALS O SOLD ON 15.02.2011 AND FULL AND FINAL PAYMENT WAS RECEIV ED IN NON BANKING HOURS ON 16.02.2011. ALL THE OTHER FACT S ARE SIMILAR TO FACTS OF THE CASE AS MENTIONED ABOVE IN THE ITA NO. 6746/DEL/2014 SUNIL KUMAR 8 HANDS OF SHRI SUNIL KUMAR HUF. THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION IN ALL THE FOUR SALE DEED IS AS UNDER : S. NO. CONVEYANCE DEED NO. WITH DATE AMOUNT EXECUTED BY 1. 7145 DT. 22.03.2011 75,25,000 SUNIL AND SMT. SAROJ 2. 7144 DT. 22.03.2011 75,25,000 BALJEET, BHUPENDER SINGH AND SHER SINGH 3. 7260 DT. 22.03.2011 36,50,000 BALJEET, BHUPENDER SINGH, SHER SINGH (SONS) PREM & RAJ KUMARI (DAUGHTER) 4. 7263 DT. 22.03.2011 11,75,000 BALJEET, BHUPENDER SINGH AND SHER SINGH TOTAL AMOUNT 1,98,75,000 SINCE THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED IN THE NON BANKING HO URS, SH. KULWANT IS OUR REAL COUSIN BROTHER, ALL OF US HAVE GOT FULL FAITH ON HIM, WE DISCUSSED THE MATTER IN HIS HOUSE AT DADRI HOW TO KEEP THIS AMOUNT IN SAFE CUSTODY. HE TOLD THAT BANK MANAGER O F OBC IS WELL KNOWN TO HIM. THEREFORE, IT WAS DECIDED TO CARRY TH E CASH WORTH RS, 1,57,50,000/- IN THE BANK ON 16-02-2011 AT 5:30 PM. IT WAS WELL KNOWN TO US THAT IT IS NON BANKING HOURS AND DEPOSI T CANNOT BE MADE ON 16-02-2011. HE WAS REQUESTED TO KEEP THIS AMOUNT IN THE SAFE CUSTODY OF THE BANK. SHRI RAJU RANJAN MANAGER CALLE D HIS CASHIER SHRI SURESH GUPTA TO KEEP THIS AMOUNT IN THE LOCKER AND LOCKER KEY MAY BE HANDED OVER TO SHRI KULWANT OUR COUSIN BROTH ER. ON 17-02- 2011 WHEN I REACHED THE BANK, THE BANK MANAGER TOLD ME THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE NAME (SUNIL KURNAR ). WHEN I TOLD HIM THAT THE AMOUNT BELONGED TO THE ABOVE SAID FAMI LY MEMBERS AND IT IS NOT MY INDIVIDUAL AMOUNT, HE FELT SORRY AND S TATED THAT HE WILL ITA NO. 6746/DEL/2014 SUNIL KUMAR 9 REVERSE THE ENTRY. THEREFORE, THE REVERSE ENTRY WOR TH RS. 1,57,50,000/- WAS MADE. NEITHER ANY DEPOSIT FORM OR WITHDRAWAL FORM WAS SIGNED BY ME. SINCE THE AMOUNT OF RS. 75,2 5,000/- BELONGED TO MY HUF SHARE AND SHARE OF MY MOTHE R SMT. SAROJ. THUS I OPENED THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH THE OBC ON 17-0 2-2011 AND DEPOSITED RS. 5,00,000/-. MY WIFE IS ALSO MEMBER OF MY HUF A SUM OF RS. 17,25,000/- WAS DEPOSITED IN THE NAME OF SMT . VEENA RANI W/O SH. SUNIL KUMAR. HALF OF THE AMOUNT WHICH WORKS OUT OF RS. 37,62,500/-. SHARE BELONGED TO MY MOTHER SMT. SAR OJ, SHE HAS TAKEN THE CASH AND REFUSED TO THE DEPOSIT THE SAME WITH THE BANK.] REST OF THE AMOUNT WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS.1,23,50,00 0/- BELONGING TO THE THREE BOTHERS NAMELY SHRI BARJEET, BHUPENDER AND SHER SINGH AND SMT. PREM AND RAJ KUMAR(SISTER). BANK ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF SUSHILA W/O SH. BALJEET (25,00,000/-) ANNU D/O SH. BALJEET(20,0 0,000 YASHWANTI W/O SH. BHUPENDER (50,00,000/-) TOTAL AMO UNT 1,15,00,000/- WERE DEPOSITED OUT OF THE TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE WORTH RS.1,23,50,000/-. BOTH THE SISTER S MT. PREM AND SMT. RAJ KUMARI ARE MARRIED 1 IN WELL SETTLED FAMILIES AND THEY HAVE GOT SUFFICIENT LAND IN THEIR IN-LAWS SIDE, THEY REFUSED TO CARRY ANY AMOUNT WITH THEM. A NYHOW ALL THE BROTHERS SHRI BALJEET, BHUPENDER AND SHER S INGH REQUESTED THEM TO CARRY SOME AMOUNT TO THEIR HOME, THEREFORE THEY AGREED TO CARRY A SUM OF RS. 4,00,00 0/-EACH WITH THEM. THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 1,15,00,000/ - WAS DEPOSITED IN THE HANDS OF FAMILY MEMBERS OF SHRI BA LJEET AND BHUPENDER AS MENTIONED ABOVE. SINCE THE WHOLE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED ON SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND BEL ONGING TO THE HUF OF SHRI SUNIL KUMAR AS SH. BALJEET, BHUP ENDER AND SHER SINGH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE OBC BANK ON 17- 02- 2011 ITSELF. THUS CASH DEPOSITED WORTH RS. 1,57,50, 000/- HAS BEEN WELL EXPLAINED AND THE PHOTOCOPY OF ALL TH E FOUR CONVEYANCED DEED ARE ENCLOSED FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL . PHOTOCOPY OF NAKAL JAMABANDI YEAR 2004-05 IS ENCLOS ED WITH THIS REPLY. IT PROVES THAT THE WHOLE AGRICULTU RE LAND BELONGED TO HUF OF SH. SUNIL KUMAR, SHRI BALJEET, S HRI BHUPENDER AND SH. SHER SINGH. THE SAID LAND HAS FAL LEN TO ITA NO. 6746/DEL/2014 SUNIL KUMAR 10 THE HANDS-OF ABOVE SAID PERSON AFTER THE DEATH OF T HEIR FATHER 20-25 YEARS BACK. IT IS HUMBLY REQUESTED THA T IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID SUBMISSION THE PROCEEDING IN ITIATED UNDER SECTION 142(1)/143(2) IN THE HANDS OF SHRI SU NIL KUMAR INDIVIDUAL MAY KINDLY BE DROPPED. ANY OTHER INFORMATION/EXPLANATION IF REQUIRED WE ARE READY TO FURNISH. 7. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED COPIES OF THE FOLLOW ING SALE DEED: I) SALE OF LAND BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS MOTHER SMT . SAROJ FOR RS.75,25,000/- ON 22-03-2011 II) SALE OF LAND BY SH. BALJEET SINGH, BHUPINDER SI NGH AND SH. SHER SINGH FOR RS.75,25,000/- III) SALE OF LAND BY SH. BHUPINDER SINGH, BALJEET S INGH AND SH. SHER SINGH, PREM AND RAJ KUMARI FOR RS.36,50,000/- ON 25-03-2011 IV) SALE OF LAND BY SH. BALJEET, BHUPINDER AND SHER SINGH FOR RS.11,75,000/- ON 25-03-2011. 8. THE AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS SOLD AFTER T HE DEPOSIT OF RS.1,57,50,000/- AND RS.5,00,000/- AND NO EVIDENCE HAD BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN REGARD TO RECEIPT OF SALE PROCEE DS OF THE ABOVE LAND. THE AO ALSO RECORDED THE STATEMENTS OF THE PE RSONS IN WHOSE ACCOUNTS, THE AMOUNTS WERE DEPOSITED AND OBSERVED A S UNDER: I) ANNU D/O SH. BALJEET SINGH. IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THIS LADY, A SUM OF RS.20 LA CS WERE DEPOSITED. IN HER STATEMENT, MISS ANNU DEPOSED THAT SHE RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.20 LACS FROM HIS FATH ER OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF HIS LAND ON 17-02-2011 WHICH WA S DEPOSITED BY HER IN THE BANK. SHE DID NOT KNOW THE DETAILS AS TO WHEN SALE OF LAND WAS EFFECTED PARTIC ULARLY WHEN SHE CLAIMED THAT SHE HAS TO DO HOME AFFAIRS AS HIS FATHER IS NOT MENTALLY SOUND. II) SMT. SUSHILA DEVI. ITA NO. 6746/DEL/2014 SUNIL KUMAR 11 IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THIS LADY, A SUM OF RS.25 LA CS WERE DEPOSITED. IN HER STATEMENT, SHE STATED THAT S HE MADE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.25 LACS AFTER OPENING A BAN K ACCOUNT WHICH WAS RECEIVED FROM HER HUSBAND AFTER S ALE OF LAND. SHE DID NOT KNOW THE DETAILS OF LAND HOLDI NG, DATE OF SALE OF LAND, AS SHE IS AN ILLITERATE LADY. SHE ONLY KNOWS HOW TO SIGN. III) SH. SUNNY S/O BHUPINDER SINGH. HE IS A STUDENT OF BA THIRD YEAR AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.20 LACS WAS SLATED TO HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED BY HIMSELF O N 17- 02-2011 WHICH WAS RECEIVED FROM HIS FATHER SH. BHUPINDER SINGH OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF LAND. IV) SMT VEENA RANI W/O SUNIL KUMAR(ASSESSEE) STATEMENT OF SMT. VEENA RANI WAS RECORDED AND SHE STATED THAT A SUM OF RS.17,25,000/- WAS DEPOSITED B Y HERSELF AFTER OPENING THE BANK ACCOUNT ON 17-02-201 1 WHICH WAS RECEIVED FROM HER HUSBAND SH. SUNIL KUMAR AFTER SALE OF HIS LAND. SHE DID NOT KNOW THE DETAIL S OF SALE CONSIDERATION. V) SMT. YASHWANTI W/O SH. BHUPENDER SINGH HER STATEMENT WAS RECORDED AND SHE STATED THAT SHE MADE A DEPOSIT, OF RS.50 LACS ON 17-02-2011 IN ORIE NTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, CHARKHI DADRI AFTER OPENING THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THE BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER WAS NOT REMEMBERED TO HER. THE AMOUNT WAS STATED TO HAVE BE EN RECEIVED FROM HER HUSBAND SH. BHUPINDER SINGH AFTER THE SALE OF HIS LAND. 9. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE PERSONS IN WHOS E ACCOUNTS THE CASH HAD BEEN DEPOSITED, STATED THAT AMOUNTS WE RE DEPOSITED BY THEMSELVES WHEREAS BANKING AUTHORITIES CATEGORICALL Y CONFIRMED THAT SH. SUNIL KUMAR-ASSESSEE HIMSELF MADE CASH DEP OSIT ON 17.02.2011 AND LATERON INSTRUCTED TO TRANSFER THE S UM OF RS.1,57,50,000/- IN THE ACCOUNTS OF ABOVE PERSONS A FTER OPENING THE ITA NO. 6746/DEL/2014 SUNIL KUMAR 12 BANK ACCOUNTS ON THE SAME DAY. HE, THEREFORE, WAS O F THE VIEW THAT THE DEPOSITS OF RS.1,57,50,000/- AND RS.5,00,000/- TOTALING TO RS.1,62,50,000/- REMAINED UNEXPLAINED AND TO BE TRE ATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A OF THE ACT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: (I) THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS MADE ON 17-02-2011 WHEREAS THE SALE, OF LAND IS AFTER CASH DEPOSITS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO RECEIPT OF SALE PROCEED PRIOR TO CASH DEPOSITS. II) ON 08-01-2014 WHEN THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSE E WAS RECORDED. HE COULD NOT INTIMATE THE SOURCE OF C ASH DEPOSITS IN HIS ACCOUNT AND IN THE ACCOUNT OF HIS W IFE. AT THE FIRST INSTANCE HE DENIED TO HAVE MADE DEPOSIT O F RS.1,57,50,000/- AND LATER ON CONCOCTED STORY WAS M ADE THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENT PERSONS OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF LAND. HAD THIS WAS A TRUE STORY, THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE EXPLAINED THIS POSITION ON 08-01-2014 ITSELF WHEN HIS STATEMENT WA S RECORDED. ON 08-01-2014 HE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT EXCEPT THAT IT WILL BE EXPLAINED LATERON. 10. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AO ON THE BASIS OF TH E STATEMENT OF SH. VED PARKASH, MANAGER OF THE BANK HELD THAT THE DEPOSITION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENT WAS NOT TRUE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO RECORDED THE STATEMENTS OF TH E PERSONS IN WHOSE ACCOUNTS, THE CASH WAS DEPOSITED AND THE SAID PERSONS STATED THAT MONEY WAS DEPOSITED IN CASH AFTER SELLING THE AGRICULTURAL LAND COMING FROM THEIR BIG GRANDFATHER TO GRANDFATHER TO THEIR FATHER AND THEN IN THE HANDS OF ALL THE SELLERS. IT WAS FURTHE R STATED THAT THE ITA NO. 6746/DEL/2014 SUNIL KUMAR 13 CONVEYANCE DEED DULY EXECUTED BY ALL SUCH PERSONS W ERE SUBMITTED TO THE AO. THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION IN ALL THE SALE DEED WAS AS UNDER: S. NO. CONVEYANCE DEED NO. WITH DATE AMOUNT EXECUTED BY 1. 7145 DT. 22.03.2011 75,25,000 SUNIL AND SMT. SAROJ 2. 7144 DT. 22.03.2011 75,25,000 BALJEET, BHUPENDER SINGH AND SHER SINGH 3. 7260 DT. 25.03.2011 36,50,000 BALJEET, BHUPENDER SINGH, SHER SINGH (SONS) PREM & RAJ KUMARI (DAUGHTERS) 4. 7263 DT. 25.03.2011 11,75,000 BALJEET, BHUPENDER SINGH AND SHER SINGH TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION 1,98,75,000 11. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO RECORDED T HE STATEMENT OF SH. KULWANT SINGH S/O SH. VIJAY SINGH ON 27.01.2014 WHO INFACT BROUGHT THE CASH WORTH RS.1,62,50,000/- IN THE LATE HOURS ON 16.02.2014. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED THE FAMILY PEDIGREE AS UNDER: 1 . LAXMI NARAIN (DECEASED) 2. SH. DARYAO SINGH (DECEASED) 3.SH.VIJAYSINGH (ALIVE) A) BALJIT SON SMT. SAROJ DEVI WIDOW KULWANT SINGH (SON) B) BHUPENDER SON SH. ANIL KUMAR SON ITA NO. 6746/DEL/2014 SUNIL KUMAR 14 C) SHER SINGH SON SH. SUNIL KUMAR SON D) PREM KUMARI DAUGHTER HEM LATA DAUGHTER E) RAJ KUMARI DAUGHTER 12. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO DISBELIEVED THE RE AL FACTS PRODUCED BEFORE HIM AND HELD THAT A SUM OF RS.1,57, 50,000/- AND RS.5,00,000/- TOTALING TO RS.1,62,50,000/- REMAINED UNEXPLAINED AND TREATED THE SAME AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE AO DISBELIEVED T HE ACTUAL HAPPENING OF THE EVENTS WHICH GENERALLY OCCURS DURI NG THE COURSE OF SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED OUTS IDE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF CHARKHI DADRI, THE DEED OF CONVEYANCE WAS TO BE EXECUTED ON 16.02.2011 AND ALL THE STAMP PAPERS WERE PURCHAS ED ON 15.02.2011 WHICH WAS PROVED BY THE CONVEYANCE DEED ITSELF WHICH WAS TO BE EXECUTED ON 16.02.2011 BUT DUE TO CERTAIN PROBLEMS WITH THE PURCHASERS WHO REQUESTED THAT THE SALE DEED WO ULD BE EXECUTED LATERON, BUT FULL AND FINAL PAYMENTS WAS MADE TO TH E SELLERS AND THE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 22.03.2011 NEARLY ABOUT 34 DAY S OF MAKING THE FULL AND FINAL PAYMENT. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT T HE AO NEVER REQUIRED ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS DISBELIEVIN G THE ASSESSEES STATEMENT AND THAT INSPITE OF PRODUCING ALL THE CON VEYANCE DEEDS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE KIND NOTICE OF THE A.O. BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AM OUNT DID NOT BELONG TO HIM AND HE HAD NEVER DEPOSITED THE SAME W ITH O.B.C. CHARKHI DADRI ON 17.02.2011. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HIMSELF ITA NO. 6746/DEL/2014 SUNIL KUMAR 15 HAD WRITTEN A LETTER TO THE MANAGER OBC CHARKHI DAD RI U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT AND THE BANK MANAGER FURNISHED THE CERTI FICATE AS UNDER: 'TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN IT IS CERTIFIED THAT SH. SUNIL KUMAR PHOGAT S/O DARYAO SINGH R/O HEERA CHOWK NEAR AGGARWAL BHAWAN, CHARKHI DADRI DISIT BHIWANI IS MAINTAINING A SAVING ACCOUNT NO 01222191021520 WITH US AND AS ON 17.02.2011, A SUM OF RS. 15750000/- HAS BEEN WRONGLY CREDITED AS CASH DEPOSITED IN ACCOUNT AND SAME CASH ENTRY HAS ALSO BEEN REVERSED FROM THE ACCOUNT AS CASH PAYMENT FOR SAME AMOUNT ON SAME DAY. ORIGINAL CERTIFIED COPY IS ENCLOSED.' 13. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.1, 62,50,000/- WAS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OF HUF COMI NG FROM THE FOREFATHERS OF THE FAMILY. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNIS HED PHOTOCOPY OF INTKAL VARASAT THROUGH WHICH THE LAND HAD FALLEN IN THE HANDS OF SH. SUNIL KUMAR, SH. ANIL KUMAR S/O DARIYAO SINGH, HEML ATA D/O SH. DARYAO SINGH AND SMT. SAROJ BALA W/O SH. DARYAO SIN GH ALONGWITH NAKAL JAMABANDI AND KHASRA GIRDAWRI. IT WAS ALSO ST ATED THAT AGRICULTURAL LAND OF HUF COMING FROM FOREFATHER HAD FALLEN IN THE HANDS OF SH. BALJEET SINGH, SHER SINGH, BHUPENDER S /O LAXMI NARAIN AND SMT. PREM AND RAJ KUMARI D/O SH. LAXMI N ARAIN. PHOTOCPY OF INTKAL VARASAT VIDE REPORT NO. 396 DATE D 12.08.1989 WAS ALSO FURNISHED. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE BANKI NG AUTHORITY HIMSELF ADMITTED IN WRITING VIDE CERTIFICATE DATED 27.12.2013 THAT THE CASH ENTRY WAS WRONGLY CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF SH. SUNIL KUMAR (ASSESSEE), BUT THE SAME WAS REVERSED FROM HI S ACCOUNT AS ITA NO. 6746/DEL/2014 SUNIL KUMAR 16 CASH PAYMENT FOR THE SAME AMOUNT ON THE SAME DAY AN D THAT THE FDR WORTH RS.1,37,25,000/- IN DIFFERENT NAMES WERE MADE AS ADMITTED BY THE BANK MANAGER DURING THE COURSE OF HIS STATEMENT RECORDED ON 08.01.2014. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT IN HIS STATEMENT , THE ASSESSEE DULY AFFIRMED THAT THE AMOUNT WORTH RS.1,62,50,000/- WAS NOT DEPOSITED BY HIM IN HIS ACCOUNT BUT THE BAN KING PERSONS HAVE DEPOSITED THE SAME IN HIS ACCOUNT UNDER SOME M ISTAKEN BELIEF. IT WAS STATED THAT HE HAD DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS.5,0 0,000/- IN HIS ACCOUNT IN CASH AND THE EVIDENCE OF THE SAME WOULD BE PRODUCED WITHIN A WEEKS TIME. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASS ESSEE STATED THE REAL FACTS BEFORE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THAT IN HIS STATEMENT IT WAS STATE D THAT AMOUNT DID NOT BELONG TO HIM BUT BELONGED TO SEVERAL PERSONS O F HIS FAMILY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT HE WOULD EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF D EPOSIT AND THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM IT RELATED WOULD BE EXPLAINED WITHIN WEEKS TIME. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THEREAFTER THE AO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 27.01.2014 TO PRODUCE ALL THE SIX PERSONS BY WHOM T HE MONEY WAS RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BE LONGING TO HUF AND ALL THE PERSONS WERE PRODUCED ON 29.01.2014. TH E AO RECORDED THEIR STATEMENTS IN WHICH ALL OF THEM STATED THAT T HE MONEY WAS RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CO MING FROM THEIR FOREFATHERS. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT NEITHER ANY CA SH VOUCHER WORTH RS.1,57,50,000/- NOR ANY WITHDRAWAL FORM FOR THIS A MOUNT WAS FILLED UP BY THE ASSESSEE OR SIGNED BY HIM. SO, IT WAS A CLEAR CUT BANKING MISTAKE WHICH HAD OCCURRED ON 17.02.2011 AN D RECTIFIED ON ITA NO. 6746/DEL/2014 SUNIL KUMAR 17 THE SAME DAY BY THE BANKING AUTHORITIES ITSELF AND THAT WHILE FORWARDING THE AIR INFORMATION, THE BANKING AUTHORI TIES HAD FORWARDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND IT HAD BECOME THE SELECTED CASE FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS. T HE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED THE BANK CERTIFICATE IN ORIGINAL DAT ED 01.08.2014. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN HIS INDI VIDUAL CAPACITY WAS EARNING SALARY OF RS.3,00,000/- PER ANNUM, SO I T WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR HIM TO DEPOSIT SUCH A HUGE AMOUNT IN H IS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND THAT THE AO WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSME NT MERELY RELIED UPON SOME PORTION OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED BY HIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND BANK MANAGER SH. VED PARKASH BUT IGNOR ED THE SECOND PART OF THEIR STATEMENTS AS WELL AS THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE BANKING AUTHORITIES IN THIS REGARD. IT WAS CONTENDE D THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATIONS IN THE CASES OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES ARE GENERALLY RECEIVED IN CASH PRIOR TO THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF THE CONVEYANCE DEEDS TO SAFEGUARD THE INTEREST OF THE SELLER AS WE LL AS THE PURCHASER. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT IT WAS CATEGO RICALLY MENTIONED ON THE FIRST PAGE OF THE CONVEYANCE DEED THAT THE FULL AMOUNT HAD ALREADY BEEN RECEIVED BY THE SELLERS AT THEIR HOUSE BEFORE THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF SALE DEED AND THAT THE PAYMENT HAD BEEN RECEIVED IN FULL AND NOTHING REMAINED RECEIVAB LE BY THE SELLER AND THAT THE CONVEYANCE DEED WOULD BE EXECUTED AS A ND WHEN IT SUITED THE SELLERS AS WELL AS THE PURCHASER. THE R ELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS CHINNATHAMBAN K (2007) 292 ITR 682. ITA NO. 6746/DEL/2014 SUNIL KUMAR 18 IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS CASE, THE BANKING AUT HORITY WRONGLY DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS.1,62,50,000/- IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ON 17.02.2011 AND REVERSED THE ENTRY SUO M OTU WITHOUT ANY DIRECTION OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THE SAME DAY FDRS WE RE PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF SIX PERSONS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHE D THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A): I) ITOS LETTER DATED 09-12-2013. II) BANK MANAGER LETTER IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE LE TTER DATED 27-12-2013. III) ITOS LETTER DATED 08-01-2014. IV) BANK MANAGER LETTER IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE LE TTER DATED 29-01-2014. V) PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SH. SUNIL KUMAR ASSESS EE DATED 08-01-2014 RECORDED BY THE LD. AO. VI) PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SH. VED PARKASH BRANC H MANAGER DATED 08-01-2014 RECORDED BY THE AO. VII) PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SMT. YASHWANTI W/O S H. BHUPENDER SINGH, SUNNY S/O SH. BHUPENDER SINGH, SMT . VEENA RANI W/O SH. SUNIL KUMAR, SUSHILA DEVI W/O SH . BALJEET SINGH, MISS ANU D/O SH. BALJEET SINGH. VIII) PHOTOCOPY OF ALL THE FOUR CONVEYANCE DEED DAT ED 22-03-2011. IX) PHOTOCOPY OF INTKAL VARASAT OF LATE SH. DARYAO SINGH DATED 29-04-1986 AND LATE SH. LAXMI NARAIN DATED 09-09-1989. X) PHOTOCOPY OF CASH DEPOSIT VOUCHER DATED 17-02-20 11. ITA NO. 6746/DEL/2014 SUNIL KUMAR 19 XI) PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SH. KULWANT SINGH DAT ED 27-01-2014 RECORDED BY THE AO WHO CARRIED ON THE CASH WORTH RS. 1,57,50,000/- TO THE BANK ON 16-02-2011 AFTER THE BANKING HOURS. XII) PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE MANAGER OBC CHARKHI DADRI DATED 01-08-2014 IN WHICH THE BANKIN G AUTHORITY HAS CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED THAT NEITHER A NY CREDIT VOUCHER NOR ANY DEBIT VOUCHER FOR ABOVE BOTH ENTRIES WAS FILLED UP & SIGNED BY THE DEPOSITOR. XIII) ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF STATEMENT OF SH. SUNIL KUMAR, SH. VED PARKASH, SH. KULWANT SINGH, MISS. AN U, SMT. SUSHILA DEVI, SMT. YASHWANTI, SH. SUNNY & SMT. VEENA RANI. 14. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION S OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT IT WAS INCOMPREHENSIBLE AS T O HOW AND WHY THE ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, CHARKHI DADRI BRANCH ACCEPTED A SUM OF RS.1,57,50,000/- IN CASH ON 17.02.2011 DEPOS ITED THE SAME IN THE ACCOUNT OF SH. SUNIL KUMAR AND REVERSED THE SAID ENTRY ON THE VERBAL REQUEST OF THE CUSTOMER, SH. SUNIL KUMAR . THE BRANCH MANAGER, VIDE A LETTER DATED 29.01.2014 HAS STATED THAT THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE WITHDRAWAL FORM WAS NOT AVAILABLE BECAUSE IT WAS A VERBAL REQUEST AND THAT AS PER THE SAID VERBAL RE QUEST OF SH. SUNIL KUMAR A SUM OF RS.1,37,25,000/- WAS CREDITED IN THE NAMES OF SH. SUNNY S/O SH. BHUPINDER SINGH (RS 20,00,000), SMT. YASHWANTI W/O SH. BHUPINDER SINGH (RS 50,00,000), SH. SUNIL KUMAR PHOGAT S/O SH. DARYAO SINGH (RS 5,00,000), SMT. VEENA RANI W/O SH. SUNIL PHOGAT (RS 17,25,000), SMT. SUSHEELA W/O BALJEET SI NGH (RS 25,00,000) AND MS ANNU D/O BALJEET SINGH (RS 20,00, 000). THE BANK ALSO STATED THAT THEY HAD NO RECORD OF THE BAL ANCE AMOUNT OF ITA NO. 6746/DEL/2014 SUNIL KUMAR 20 RS 20,25,000/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD. CIT(A), THE EN TIRE TRANSACTIONS APPEARED TO BE A METHOD TO HOODWINK THE TAX DEPARTM ENT WITH THE HELP OF BANKING INSTRUMENTS AND THAT NO BANK WOULD ACCEPT CASH WITHOUT A DEPOSIT SLIP NOR MAKE TRANSACTIONS ENTRIE S ON VERBAL REQUESTS. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE STATEMENTS OF S H. SUNIL KUMAR HAD A QUERY WHICH MADE IT CLEAR THAT HE TOOK THE CA SH OF RS.1,57,50,000/- TO THE BANK ON 16.02.2011 AND THE BANK AUTHORITIES ASKED TO DEPOSIT THE SAME THE NEXT DAY, SH. SUNIL K UMAR OPENED AN ACCOUNT ON 17.02.2011 AND THIS ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS DE POSITED IN HIS ACCOUNT, WITHIN A SPAN OF A FEW HOURS, HE GOT ENTRY REVERSED BY STATING THAT THE AMOUNT DID NOT BELONG TO HIM ALONE AND INTERESTINGLY, SMT. VEENA RANI, SH. SUNNY, SMT. YAS HWANTI, SMT. SUSHEELA DEVI, MISS ANNU AND THE ASSESSEE ALL OPENE D THEIR ACCOUNTS IN THIS BANK ON 17.02.2011. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,62,50 ,000/- BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: THE APPELLANT CLAIMED THAT THIS WAS OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND HELD BY THE HUF. WHAT IS STRANGE IS THAT THE SAID SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 22.03.2011, A MONTH AFTER THE SAID AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT, THE TOTAL SAL E CONSIDERATION RECEIVED WAS RS.1,98,75,000/-. THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUENT OF THE HUF OWING THE SAID LAND WERE 3 BROTHERS, LAXMI NARAYAN (DECEASED), DARYAO SINGH (DECEASED) AND SHRI VIJAY SINGH. AGAIN, THE APPORTIONMENT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN EQUAL AMONGST THEIR SUCCESSORS. HOWEVER, IT IS SEEN THAT OUT OF THE FOUR SALE DEEDS EXECUTED, THE SAID PROPE RTY WAS SOLD IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:- S. NO. CONVEYANCE DEED NO. WITH DATE AMOUNT EXECUTED BY ITA NO. 6746/DEL/2014 SUNIL KUMAR 21 1. 7145 DT. 22.03.11 7525000/- SUNIL & SMT. SAROJ 2. 7144 DT. 22.03.11 752500/- BALJEET, BHUPENDER SINGH & SHER SINGH 3. 7260 DT. 25.03.11 3650000/- BALJEET, BHUPENDER SINGH & SHER SINGH (SONS) 4. 7263 DT. 25.03.11 1175000/- BALJEET, BHUPENDER SINGH & SHER SINGH TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION 19875000/- THE TOTAL AMOUNT ON THE CONVEYANCE DEED EXECUTED BY BALJEET, BHUPENDER & SHER SINGH SS/O LAXMI NARAYAN COMES TO RS 55,77,500/- AND THAT EXECUTED BY SUNIL AND HIS MOTH ER SMT. SAROJ WAS RS 75,25,000/-. THE FAMILY TREE HAS BEEN STATED TO BE IN THE FOLLOW ING ORDER: SH. RAMJI LAL S/O SH. KISHAN LAL 1. LAXMI NARAIN (DECEASED) 2. SH. DARYAO SINGH (DECEASED) 3. SH. VIJAY SINGH (ALIVE) A) BALJIT (SON) SMT. SAROJ DEVI (WIDOW) KULWANT SINGH (SON) B) BHUPENDER (SON) SH. ANIL KUMAR (SON) C) SHER SINGH (SON) SH. SUNIL KUMAR (SON) D) PREM KUMARI (DAUGHTER) HEM LATA (DAUGHTER) E) RAJ KUMARI (DAUGHTER) WHAT IS AGAIN ABNORMAL IS THE FACT, THAT IT WAS SHR I KULWANT SINGH S/O SH. VIJAY SINGH, A COUSIN OF THE APPELLANT WHO RECEIVED THE CASH. THE APPORTIONMENT OF CASH SHOWS THAT THE TOTA L DEPOSIT IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE WIFE AND DAUGHTER OF SHRI BALJEET S INGH WAS RS 45,00,000/-(RS 25 LAKHS AND RS 20 LAKHS), FOR THE W IFE AND SON OF SHRI BHUPINDER SINGH IT WAS RS 70,00,000 (RS 20 LAK HS PLUS RS 50 LAKHS) AND FOR THE APPELLANT AND HIS WIFE, IT WAS R S 22.25 LAKHS (RS 5 LAKHS PLUS RS 17.25 LAKHS). OUT OF THE BALANCE AM OUNT, ACCORDING TO SHRI KULWANT SINGH SON OF SHRI VIJAY S INGH AND A COUSIN OF THE ASSESSEE RS 20,25,000/- IN CASH WENT TO SH. SHER SINGH, ANOTHER SON OF SHRI LAXMI NARAIN AND BROTHER OF SH. BHUPINDER AND SH. BALJEET SINGH. IT IS STRANGE THAT NO MONEY WENT TO SHRI ANIL KUMAR, BROTHER OF THE APPELLANT NOR TO THE APPELLANT'S, ITA NO. 6746/DEL/2014 SUNIL KUMAR 22 SURVIVING UNCLE, SHRI VIJAY SINGH AND THE LATTER'S SON, SHRI KULWANT SINGH. 3. THIS DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE TRULY ACCOUNTING FOR WHAT WERE THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF THE HUF LAND. HENC E, THE PROPERTY SOLD BY THE HUF IN ACTUAL FACT, REGIST ERED CONVEYANCE DEED, NOT WITHSTANDING, HAS NOTHING TO D O WITH THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE APPELLANT'S BANK ACCOUNT. ALL THE TRANSACTIONS IN RESPECT OF HUF LAN D ARE DISTINCT AND SEPARATE FROM THE SOURCES OF DEPOSITS OF RS 1,57,50,000/- AND RS 5 LAKHS MADE IN THE APPELLANT' S BANK ACCOUNT. HENCE, THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NO SUBSTANCE OR RELEVANCE TO THE SOURC E OF DEPOSITS. I, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS 1,62,50,000/-. 15. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS BEL ONGING TO SIX PERSONS WHO WERE HAVING THE BANK ACCOUNTS AND NAMES OF ALL THE PERSONS WERE APPEARING IN THE CONVEYANCE DEED. IT W AS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY SOLD BELONGED TO THE HU F BUT THE AMOUNT WAS WRONGLY DEPOSITED BY THE BANK AUTHORITIE S IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND WHEN THEY CAME TO KNOW THE MISTAKE, THE SAID ENTRY WAS REVERSED ON THE SAME DAY AND DEP OSITED IN THE NAME OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE AMOUNT BELONGED. A REFERENCE WAS MADE TO PAGE NO. 51 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK WH ICH IS A CERTIFICATE GIVEN BY THE BANK MANAGER. IT WAS FURTH ER SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD ON 15.02.2011 WHICH IS EVIDEN T FROM THE DATE MENTIONED IN THE STAMP PAPERS USED IN CONVEYANCE DE ED. A REFERENCE WAS MADE TO PAGE NO. 56 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK. IT WAS STATED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY THE COPA RCENERS OF HUF ITA NO. 6746/DEL/2014 SUNIL KUMAR 23 ON 16.02.2011 AND THIS FACT HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN T HE SALE DEED ALSO WHEREIN IT IS WRITTEN THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECE IVED BY THE SELLERS AT HOME AND NOT AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION OF THE CONVEYANCE DEED WHICH TOOK PLACE ON 22.03.2011, THEREFORE, THE ALLEGATION OF THE AO THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS NOT RELATING TO THE SALE DEED WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE, PARTICULARLY WHEN, THIS FACTS WAS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE CONVEYANCE DEED THAT THE STAMP PAP ERS WERE PURCHASED ON 15.02.2011 AND THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED AT HOME AND NOTHING WAS TO BE PAID AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION. IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE CONTENTION, A REFERENCE WAS MADE TO PAGE NOS. 56 & 57 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK WHICH IS THE COPY OF THE CONV EYANCE DEED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO REFERRED TO T HE STATEMENT OF SH. KULWANT SINGH (COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE NOS. 71 TO 74 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK), AND STATED THAT HE WEN T TO THE OBC BANK ON 16.02.2011 FOR DEPOSITING THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY HIM IN LATE EVENING AND THE SAID AMOUNT WAS RELA TING TO SH. BHUPENDER SINGH, SH. BALJEET SINGH, SH. SHRE SINGH, SMT. PREM AND SMT. RAJ KUMARI WHO SOLD THEIR 7.5 ACRES OF LAND AN D SH. KULWANT SINGH IS THEIR COUSIN I.E. SON OF THEIR UNCLE. IT W AS CONTENDED THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS WRONGLY ADDED IN THE HAN DS OF THE ASSESSEE, EVEN WHEN FACTS WERE VERY MUCH CLEAR FROM THE CONVEYANCE DEED, STATEMENTS OF THE BANK MANAGER AS WLL AS SH. KULWANT SINGH. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 16. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. SR. DR STRONG LY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITT ED THAT THE ITA NO. 6746/DEL/2014 SUNIL KUMAR 24 AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASS ESSEE, SO , ONUS WAS ON HIM TO PROVE THE SOURCES OF THE SAID DEPOSIT WHICH COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE AMOUNT WA S NOT CO-RELATED WITH THE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED, THEREFO RE, THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IN THE HA NDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. CIT(A) RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE S AME. 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE PR ESENT CASE, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE AO MADE THE ADDITION BY PRESUMING THAT THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE O.B.C, CHARKHI DADRI, ON 17.02.20 11 BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE. ON THE CONTRARY, THE EXPLANATION OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE SAID CASH WAS BROUGHT TO THE BANK BY SHRI KULWANT SINGH AND IT BELONGED TO SIX DIFFERENT PERSONS WHO SOLD T HEIR ANCESTRAL AGRICULTURAL LAND. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AO RECO RDED THE STATEMENT OF SHRI KULWANT SINGH (COPY OF WHICH IS P LACED AT PAGE NO. 71 TO 74 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK), IN THE SAID STATEMENT RECORDED ON 27.01.2014, SHRI KULWANT SINGH CATEGORI CALLY STATED THAT HE WANT TO THE ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, CHAR KHI DADRI BRANCH AFTER THE BANKING HOURS ON 16.02.2018 TO DEP OSIT A SUM OF RS. 1,62,50,000/- WHICH BELONGED TO SHRI BHUPENDER SINGH, SHRI BALJEET SINGH, SHER SINGH, SHRI SUNIL KUMAR, (THE A SSESSED) AND SMT. PREM WHO SOLD 7.5 ACRES OF LAND AND GAVE THE MONEY TO HIM FOR DEPOSITING THE SAME. HE ALSO STATED THAT HE IS A SON OF THE UNCLE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO STATED THAT HE WENT TO BAN K ON 17.02.2011 AND REQUESTED THE MANAGER TO OPEN THE ACCOUNTS OF S MT. SUSHILA WIFE OF SHRI BALJEET SINGH, MS. ANNU DAUGHTER OF SH RI BALJEET ITA NO. 6746/DEL/2014 SUNIL KUMAR 25 SINGH, SH. SUNNY SON OF BHUPINDER SINGH, SMT. YASHW ANTI, WIFE OF SH. BHUPENDER SINGH, SUNIL KUMAR, SON OF SHRI DARYA O SINGH, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM PAGE NO. 72 AND 73 OF THE ASS ESSEES PAPER BOOK. SHRI KULWANT SINGH ALSO STATED THAT A SUM OF RS. 1,42,25,000/- WAS DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE F OLLOWING PERSONS :- 1. SH. SUNIL KUMAR S/O. SH. DARYAO SINGH RS. 5,0 0,000/- 2. SMT. YASHWANTI W/O. SH. BHUPENDER SINGH RS. 50 ,00,000/- 3. SH. SUNNY S/O. SH. SH. BHUPENDER SINGH RS. 20,00,000/- 4. SMT. VEENA RANI W/O. SH. SUNIL KUMAR RS. 17,25,000/- 5. ANNU D/O. SH. BALJEET SINGH RS. 20,00, 000/- 6. SMT. SUSHILA W/O. SH. BALJEET SINGH RS. 25,00,000/- 1,37,25,000/- THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 20,25,000/- WAS GIVEN T O SHRI SHER SINGH, SON OF SHRI LAXMI NARAIN, SUB-INSPECTOR IN T HE S.P.OFFICE AND THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS GIVEN TO HIM AS WAS TO LD BY SHRI BHUPENDER SINGH. THEREFORE, IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THA T THE ASSESSEE SHRI SUNIL KUMER DID NOT BRING THE AMOUNT IN THE BA NK AS ALLEGED BY THE A.O., MOREOVER NO BANK DEPOSIT SLIP WAS BROU GHT ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS DEP OSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BANK. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AO ALSO RECORDED THE STATEMENTS OF ALL THE AFORESAID PERSONS (COPIES OF WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAGE NO. 79 TO 89 OF THE ASSESSEES COMPILATION) , IN THEIR STATEMENTS, ALL THE PERSONS CONFIRMED THAT THE ABOV E SAID AMOUNT BELONGED THEM WHICH WAS RECEIVED ON THE SALE OF ANC ESTRAL PROPERTY. IT IS ALSO NOTICED FROM THE CONVEYANCE DE EDS (COPIES OF ITA NO. 6746/DEL/2014 SUNIL KUMAR 26 WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAGE NO. 56 TO 66 OF THE ASSESS EES PAPER BOOK) THAT THE STAMP PAPERS WERE PURCHASED ON 15.02.2011 AND THE AMOUNT WAS GIVEN TO THE SELLERS AT THEIR RESIDENCES. IT HA S ALSO BEEN MENTIONED IN THOSE CONVEYANCE DEED REGISTERED ON 21 .03.2011 THAT THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND WAS GIVEN PRIOR TO THE R EGISTRATION DONE ON 21.03.2011 ON THE SAID DATE, NOTHING WAS DUE BEC AUSE THE AMOUNT WAS ALREADY PAID SO IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS THE RECEIPT FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE AGRICULTURE LAND. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AO ALSO RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF THE BANK MANAGERS (COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE NO. 52 TO 54 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK), IN THE SAID STATEMENT, BANK MANGER SH. VED PRAKASH STATED THAT HE WENT TO INCOME TAX OFFICE WI TH RECORD ON 31.12.2013 IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMON DATED 23.12.20 13 AND THAT THE AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI SUN IL KUMAR ON 17.02.2011 BUT LATER ON, IN THE EVENING THE ENTRY W AS REVERSED AND THE AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE FOLLOWING ACCOUNTS :- (I) ANNU, D/O. SH. BALJEET SINGH 012221911021044 20,00,000/- (II) SH. SUNIL KUMAR PHOGAT 01222191021520 5,00,000/- S/O. SH. DARIYAO SINGH (III) SMT. SUSHILA 01222191021568 2 5,00,000/- W/O. SH. BALJEET (IV) SUNNY 012221 91021551 20,00,000/- S/O. BHUPENDER SINGH (V) YASHWANTI 01222191021575 50,00, 000/- W/O. SH. BHUPENDER SINGH (VI) VEENA RANI 01222191021650 17, 25,000/- W/O. SH. SUNIL PHOGAT ITA NO. 6746/DEL/2014 SUNIL KUMAR 27 18. IN THE INSTANT CASE, NOTHING IS BROUGHT ON REC ORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED BY SHRI SUNIL KUMAR, (THE ASSESSEE) AND IT WAS WITHDRAWN BY HIM FROM HIS ACCOUNT BECAUSE NO DEPOSIT SLIP FILLED BY THE ASSESSEE. SH. SUNIL KUMAR OR WITHDRAWAL FORM WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO RATHER I T WAS STATED THAT NO RECORD WAS AVAILABLE WITH HIM WHICH CLEARLY PROVES THAT THE AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED BY SH. KULWANT SINGH AND NOT B Y THE ASSESSEE AND WHEN THE BANK REALISED ITS MISTAKE THE ENTRY WAS REVERSED AND THE AMOUNT WAS THE DEPOSITED IN THE AC COUNT OF THE SIX PERSONS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, NOTHING IS BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THE SALE PROCEEDS FROM THE FAMILY LAND CLAIMED TO BE RE CEIVED ON 15.02.2011 OR 16.02.2011 WAS UTILIZED ELSEWHERE AND NOT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF AFORESAID SIX PERSONS. THER EFORE, BY CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS, WE ARE OF TH E VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT WAS WRONGLY ADDED IN THE HANDS OF T HE ASSESSEE, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE SAME AMOUNT WAS CREDITED IN T HE NAMES OF 6 PERSONS. THE SAID AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE SALE PRO CEEDS OF THE LAND CAN NOT BE STATED TO BE RELATED TO THE ASSESSE E AS WELL AS THE OTHER SIX PERSONS AT A SAME TIME. IF IT WAS TO BE P RESUMED THAT SAID AMOUNT BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE THEN THERE SHOULD H AVE BEEN ANOTHER AMOUNT WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACC OUNT OF THE SIX PERSONS. HOWEVER, NOTHING IS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO S UBSTANTIATE THAT THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASS ESSEE BY MISTAKE, WAS DIFFERENT FROM THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE SIX PERSONS OUT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE T OTALITY OF THE FACTS ITA NO. 6746/DEL/2014 SUNIL KUMAR 28 ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. IN T HAT VIEW OF THE MATTER THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS DELETED. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 27/08/2018) SD/- SD/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER DATED: 27/08/2018 *SUBODH/BINITA* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 21.08.2018 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 21.08.2018 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. 11. DATE OF UPLOADING