Ramchandra Prabhakar Suryawanshi, Latur V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 729/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9410 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 20-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HITENDRA NINAWE
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC, PUNE , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM . / ITA NO. 729/PUN/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 12 RAMCHANDRA PRABHAKAR SURYAWANSHI, AUTI GALLI, AUSA, DIST. LATUR. / APPELLANT PAN : AWOPS4642N / V/S. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, LATUR. / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHARAD SHAH / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI HITENDRA NINAWE / DATE OF HEARING : 20 . 0 4 .201 7 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02 .0 6 .201 7 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA , JM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 2, AURANGABAD D ATED 19.02.2016 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING CONCISE GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 2 ITA NO.729/PUN/2016 RAMCHANDRA PRABHAKAR SURYAWANSHI 1) THE LD.AO ERRED (AND CIT(A) ERRE D IN CONFIRMING) THE ADDITION OF RS.28.88,125/ - WITHOUT FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2) THE LD.AO ERRED (AND CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING) THE ADDITION OF RS.28.88,125/ - AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 3) THE LD.AO ERRED (AND CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIR MING) THE ADDITION OF RS.28.88,125/ - ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES AND BY IGNORING THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD. 3. THE ISSUE WHICH ARISES IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.28,88,125/ - . 4. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE A SSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING A RESTAURANT AND BAR AND WAS ALSO TRADING IN PLOTS. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RE - OPENED UNDER SECTION 147 /148 OF THE ACT. THE REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN TH E CASE OF SHRI RAJANSINGH KUVARSINGH BAISTHKUR, AUSA RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 . THE SAID PERSON HAD FILED THE COPY OF KARARNAMA DATED 05.05.2010 , AS PER WHICH HE HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO SELL HIS LAND AT GAT NO.338, SITUATED AT MAUJE KARAJGAON, TAL AUSA, ADMEASURING 81R FOR RS.15,25,000/ - PER ACRE TO SHRI AYUB HAJI ABDUL RASHID QURESHI OF LATUR (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS SHRI AYUB) . THE SAID LAND WAS HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD TO THE ASSESSEE WITH THE CONSENT OF EARLIER PURCHASING PARTY WITH WHOM KARARNAMA TO S ELL LAND WAS MADE. THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE SAID LAND VIDE PURCHASE DEED DATED 14.07.2010 FROM SHRI RAJANSINGH KURARSINGH BAISTHKUR , (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS SHRI RAJANSINGH) , AS PER WHICH PURCHASE VALUE WAS SHOWN AT RS.2 LAKHS ONLY. HOWEVER, AS PER KARARNAMA, THE VALUE OF THE LAND WORKED OUT TO RS.30,88,125/ - FOR 81R OF LAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THA T PRIMA FACIE THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THE PURCHASE VALUE LESS BY RS.28,88,125/ - IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO RECEIVED THE INFORMATION OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI RAJANSINGH , WHEREIN HE HAD DEPOSITED CASH OF RS.15 LAKHS 3 ITA NO.729/PUN/2016 RAMCHANDRA PRABHAKAR SURYAWANSHI ON 15.07.2010 IN JANTA SAHAKARI BANK AND RS.7 LAKHS & RS.4,90,000/ - IN STATE BANK OF INDIA ON 15.07.2010 AND 10.05.2010. THE TOTAL CASH DEPOSITS WERE AT RS.26,90,000/ - . THE KARARNAMA WAS DATED 05.05.2010 AND THE SALE DEED WAS DATED 14.07.2010 AND THE CASH DEPOSITS WERE ON 15.07.2010 AND 10.05.2010 . THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN VIEW OF THE SAID EVENTS OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI RAJANSINGH , HELD THE SAME TO BE CIRCUMSTANTIAL AND CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO INFER THAT THE L AND WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RS.30,88,125/ - AND NOT FOR RS.2 LAKHS . THE REASONS WERE RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT ON THIS GROUND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED ANOTHER TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS NO T REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET DURING REOPENING PROCEEDINGS . THEREAFTER, VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROPERLY COMPLY WITH THE SAME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT WHERE THE EARLIER PURCHASER SHRI AYUB OF LATUR WAS READY TO PURCHASE THE LAND @ RS.15.50 LAKHS PER ACRE, THEN WHY WITHIN PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS ONLY, THE SELLER WOULD SELL THE SAME LAND AT RS.2 LAKHS ONLY. IN VIEW OF SUCH CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND FURTHER SINCE THE EARLIER PURCHASER SHRI AYUB WAS CONSENTING PARTY TO THE TRANSACTION , THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD PURCHASED THE SAID LAND FOR RS.2 LAKHS. ANOTHER EVIDENCE FOUND WAS THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI RAJANSINGH I.E. RS.4,90,000/ - ON 10.05.2010 IN STATE BANK OF INDIA, RS.7 LAKHS ON 15.07.2010 IN STATE BANK OF INDIA AND RS.15 LAKHS ON 15.07.2010 IN JANTA SAHAKARI BANK. WHILE EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS, SHRI RAJANSINGH VIDE LETTER DATED 26.06.2013 SUBM ITTED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, EXPLAINED THAT HE HAD SOLD THE AGRICULTURAL LAND @ RS.15,25,000/ - PER ACRE ON 14.07.2010, AGAINST WHICH THE REGISTRY WAS MADE FOR RS.2 LAKHS. HE EXPLAINED THE TRANSACTION WITH SHRI AYUB OF LATUR, WHO HAD GIVEN HIM RS.5 LAKHS AS TOKEN AMOUNT AND HE ALSO FILED COPY OF THARAV PATRA. HE CONFIRMED 4 ITA NO.729/PUN/2016 RAMCHANDRA PRABHAKAR SURYAWANSHI THAT THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE TO WHICH CONSENT WAS GIVEN BY SHRI AYUB AND THE BALANCE SUM OF RS.23,50,000/ - IN CASH AND RS.2 LAKHS BY CHE QUE WAS GIVEN AT THE TIME OF SALE DEED. THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN ITS CASE, WHO STRESSED THAT HE HAD PURCHASED THE SAID AGRICULTURAL LAND BY PAYING SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.2 LAKHS THROUGH CHEQUE. HE ACCEPTED THAT HE HAD GOT THE CO PIES OF KARARNAMA AND ALSO COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNT IN WHICH THE CASH WAS DEPOSITED BY SHRI RAJANSINGH. HE OPPOSED THE FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD AND STRESSED THAT HE HAD PURCHASED THE LAND FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS.2 LAKHS. IN SUPPORT OF WHICH, HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED. HE STRESSED THAT IN THE SAID STATEMENT, NO QUESTIONS WERE RAISED ABOUT CASH CONSIDERATION PAID TO SHRI RAJANSINGH. HE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD ANOTHER LAND PURCHASED BY HIM ON THE SAME DATE FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS.2 LAKHS. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE TITLE OF L AND WAS DEFECTIVE. HOWEVER, HE OPPOSED THE PROPOSITION OF ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SAID CASH DEPOSIT IN THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI RAJANSINGH HAD IN CORRELATION TO THE ASSESSEE. HE STRESSED THAT THE LAND WAS TOTALLY BARREN AND WAS NOT SUITABLE FOR ANY CULTIVA TION AND SINCE IT WAS ADJACENT TO HIS NEWLY STARTED STONE CRUSHER UNIT, THE SAID LAND WAS PURCHASED BY HIM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE EXPLANATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN VIEW OF VARIOUS EVIDENCES COLLECTED AND HELD THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS PURCHASED FOR RS. 30,88,125/ - AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD PURCHASED AT RS.2 LAKHS. 5. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE ADDITIONAL GROUND S OF APPEAL THAT HE WAS NOT GIVEN A CHANCE TO CROSS - EXAMINE SHRI AYUB AND SHRI RAJANSINGH . ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT(A) REMANDED THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS - EXAMINE THE SAID PERSONS AND SEND THE REPORT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO STRESSED THAT HE HAD NEITHER PAID ANY AMOUNT TO THE CONSENTING PARTY NOR ANY CASH TO S HRI RAJANSINGH AND FILED AN AFFIDAVIT IN THIS 5 ITA NO.729/PUN/2016 RAMCHANDRA PRABHAKAR SURYAWANSHI REGARD. THE SAID AFFIDAVIT WAS ALSO FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO IN TURN, HAS SENT HIS REMAND REPORT, TO WHICH, THE ASSESSEE FILED REJOINDER. THE ASSESSEE HAD CROSS - EXAMINED SHRI RAJANSINGH ON 30.1 1.2015 AND THE CIT(A) HAS REFERRED THE SAME IN PARA 9, WHEREIN HE ADMITTED IN THE CROSS - EXAMINATION THAT HE HAD RECEIVED RS.5 LAKHS AS ADVANCE ON 05.05.2010 AND THE BALANCE SUM OF RS.23,50,000/ - WAS RECEIVED IN CASH AND RS.2 LAKHS BY CHEQUE. THE CIT(A) FU RTHER NOTED ON THE SAID REPLY OF THE SELLER SHRI RAJANSINGH , THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS ANY OTHER QUESTION OR HAS EXAMINED HIM FURTHER ON THIS . THE NEXT QUESTION IN THE CROSS - EXAMINATION WAS VIS - - VIS KARA RNAMA, WHEREIN SHRI RAJANSINGH AGAIN ADMITTED THAT HE HAD ENTERED INTO THE SAID KARARNAMA AND HAD RECEIVED THE ADVANCE AND HE CONFIRMED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AWARE OF SUCH KARARNAMA MADE WITH SHRI AYUB AND THE SAID KARARNAMA WAS SHOWN TO HIM. THE C IT(A) VIDE PARA 11 NOTES THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS VERY AWARE OF KARARNAMA ENTERED INTO BETWEEN SHRI RAJANSINGH AND SHRI AYUB, THE EARLIER PURCHASER AND THE CONSENT OF SHRI AYUB WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND ON THIS ISSUE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CROSS - EXAMINE SHRI RAJANSINGH . V IDE PARA 12 THE CIT(A) NOTES BACKGROUND OF SHRI RAJANSINGH WHO WAS WORKING AS HEAD CLERK A N D RECEIVING MEAGER SALARY. FURTHER, THERE WERE NO CASH DEPOSITS DURING THE WHOLE YEAR EXCEPT FOR THE CASH DEPOSITS AS REFERRED ABOVE. IN THE CRO SS - EXAMINATION, SHRI RAJANSINGH CONFIRMED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AWARE OF KARARNAMA AND THAT WAS THE REASON WHY THE CONSENT OF SHRI AYUB WAS OBTAINED ON THE SALE DEED, OTHERWISE, THERE WAS NO NEED FOR SUCH CONSENT. FURTHER, QUESTIONS WERE ASKED IN THIS R EGARD AND THE CIT(A) HAS REFERRED TO THEM IN PARAS 13 TO 15. THE CIT(A) VIDE PARA 18 NOTES THAT SHRI RAJANSINGH HAD CLARIFIED IN THE CROSS - EXAMINATION THAT KARARNAMA WAS THE MAIN EVIDENCE AND HE HAD RECEIVED THE CHEQUE AND CASH FROM THE ASSESSEE. HE HAD ALSO GIVEN REASONS FOR ACCEPTING CASH AND THE DEPOSITING THE SAME IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CROSS - EXAMINED SHRI AYUB, WHO HAD ENTERED INTO 6 ITA NO.729/PUN/2016 RAMCHANDRA PRABHAKAR SURYAWANSHI KARARNAMA WITH SHRI RAJANSINGH, WHO IN TURN, ADMITTED TO HAVE MADE THE SAID KARARNAMA WITH SHRI RAJASINGH. HOWEVER, SINCE THERE WAS LITIGATION IN THE SAID BARREN LAND, HE CLAIMED TO HAVE CANCELLED KARARNAMA ON THE SAME DAY AND STATEMENT IN THIS REGARD WAS GIVEN IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER STATED THAT HE HAD NOT GIVEN ANY ADVANCE TO SHRI RAJANSINGH SIN CE ON THE MEASUREMENT OF LAND, HE CAME TO KNOW THAT THE LAND WAS IN LITIGATION, HENCE KARARNAMA WAS CANCELLED. THE CIT(A) VIDE PARA 21 OBSER VES THAT ALONG WITH KARARNAMA THE FACT OF PAYMENT OF RS.5 LAKHS IS MENTIONED AS ALSO THE FACT THAT A RECEIPT HA D BEEN RECEIVED BY THE SELLER, THERE IS A RECEIPT OF RS.5 LAKHS ALSO. THIS AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY SHRI RAJANSINGH FROM SHRI AYUB AND HE FURTHE R ADMITTED THAT THE CONSENT OF CONSENTING PARTY WAS OBTAINED AT THE BEHEST OF BROKER. THE ASSESSEE IN THE REJOINDER OBJECTED THAT THE ORIGINAL KARARNAMA WAS NOT PRODUCED. THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT HE WAS IN THE KNOWLEDGE THAT THE SAME WAS LYING WITH SHRI A YUB, THE ASSESSEE CHOSE TO IGNORE THIS ISSUE WHILE EXAMINING SHRI AYUB AND HE DID NOT EVEN ASK THEM TO PRODUCE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO AVAIL THE OPPORTUNITY PROVIDED TO HIM, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT NO FAULT COULD BE FOUND WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SELLER IN THIS REGARD. 6. THE SECOND ASPECT WAS THAT THE REGISTERED PRICE OF THE SAID LAND WAS RS.2 LAKHS BUT THE CIT(A) REFERRED TO VARIOUS DOCUMENTS AND THE DEPOSIT OF CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI RAJANSINGH AND REFERRED TO THE QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE CROSS - EXAMINATION AND HELD THAT IT WAS NOT OPEN TO ASSESSEE TO STATE THAT THE SAID KARARNAMA COULD NOT BE RELIED UPON. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AN EVIDENCE OF ANOTHER SALE DEED IN THE ADJACENT AREA WHERE THE RATE OF LAND WAS WORKED OUT TO RS.2 LAKHS. THE CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE RELIANCE ON THE SAID PIECE OF EVIDENCE WHICH WAS PRODUCED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE HIM AND IN VIEW OF THE LOCATION OF PLOTS. THE CIT(A) THEN, REJECTED THE NEXT SUBMISSION OF 7 ITA NO.729/PUN/2016 RAMCHANDRA PRABHAKAR SURYAWANSHI ASSESSEE THAT IN VIEW OF REGISTER ED DOCUMENT, THE PRESUMPTION WAS THAT CORRECT PRICE IS AS AGREED UPON BY THE PARTIES AS PER THE DEED . THIS PLEA OF ASSESSEE WAS ALSO REJECTED, IN VIEW OF KARARNAMA AND THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF CASH DEPOSIT. THE NEXT OBJECTION OF ASSESSEE WAS ON T HE FACT THAT SHRI AYUB HAD CANCELLED THE KARARNAMA AND RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT THAT THE PROPERTY IS FREE FROM ENCUMBRANCES. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE SAID TERMS WERE PHRASEOLOGY OF PURCHASE DEEDS OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND IF KA RARNAMA WAS ALREADY CANCELLED, THEN WHERE WAS THE NECESSITY OF TAKING CONSENT OF SHRI AYUB IN THE SALE DEED. THE CIT(A) THUS, HELD AS UNDER: - 44. THE WHOLE ISSUE BOILS DOWN TO ONE FACT, WHETHER THE CONTENTION OF THE SELLER HAS TO BE BELIEVED OR THE CONT ENTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE BELIEVED IN RESPECT OF THE PRICE PAID FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND. THOUGH THERE ARE NO OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF EITHER PARTIES, THE BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE LIES IN THE FAVOUR OF THE SELLER AND THEREFORE I HOLD THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY INFIRMITY AND THE ADDITION OF RS.28,88,125/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CORRECT AND HIS ORDER IS CONFIRMED. 7. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 8. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AFTER TAKING US THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE REFERRED TO THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND THE REPORT OF DVO THAT THE VALUATION OF SAID LAND WAS LOW , SO THE CAPITAL GAINS WERE ACCORDINGLY WORKED OUT. HE FURTHE R STRESSED THAT THE ENTIRE BURDEN WAS NOT ON ASSESSEE AGAINST THE CASH PAYMENTS. HE REFERRED TO THE REPORT OF DVO AND POINTED OUT THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS LOW AND ALSO OTHER EVIDENCE I.E. SALE TRANSACTION IN THE AREA, WHERE THE PROPERTIES HAVE BE EN SOLD AT THE RATES AT WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED. HE STRESSED THAT ALL THESE EVIDENCES HAVE NOT BEEN LOOKED INTO AND THE SAME MAY BE SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 9. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND, STRONGLY OBJECTED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED 8 ITA NO.729/PUN/2016 RAMCHANDRA PRABHAKAR SURYAWANSHI REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AND POINTED OUT THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, AMPLE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, WHEREIN THE STATEMENTS OF SELLER AND THE CONFIRMING PARTY W ERE RECORDED AND DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS, HE WAS ALLOWED OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS - EXAMINE THE SELLER , WHO HAS VEHEMENTLY ACCEPTED THE CASH RECEIPT OVER AND ABOVE THE SLATED SALE CONSID ERATION IN THE SALE DEED AND THE AMOUNT HAS ALSO BEEN DEPOSITED IN CASH IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT , WHICH IS OTHER EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 10. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A) AND AFTER GOING THROUGH THE PAPER BOOK FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ISSUE WHICH ARISES IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IN RELATION TO THE ADDITION OF RS.28,88,125/ - . THE BASIS FOR THE ADDITION IS SALE TRANSACTION BETWEEN SHRI RAJANSINGH SELLER AND THE ASSESSEE PURCHASER WITH CONFIRMING PARTY SHRI AYUB . THE PIECE OF LAND WHICH WAS SOLD WAS ADMEASURING 81R WHICH WAS OWNED BY SHRI RAJANSINGH. HE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO SELL THE SAME WITH SHRI AYUB FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS.15,25,000/ - PER ACRE AND THE VALUE OF LAND PROPOSED TO BE SOLD WORKED OUT TO RS.30,88,125/ - . THE LAND WAS SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD WITH THE CONSENT OF SHRI AYUB TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE SALE DEED DATED 14.07.2007 FOR TOTAL CONSIDER ATION OF RS.2 LAKHS ONLY. ON THE ENQUIRIES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT TRANSPIRED THAT THERE WERE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI RAJANSINGH, WHEREIN SUM OF RS.4,90,000/ - WAS DEPOSITED ON 10.05.2010 AND RS.15 LAKHS AND RS.7 LAKHS W AS DEPOSITED ON 15.07.2010 I.E. TOTAL CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.26,90,000/ - . ENQUIRIES ALSO REVEALED THAT THE SELLER SHRI RAJANSINGH WAS A SMALL TIME SALARIED EMPLOYEE AND HAD NO MEANS OF ACQUIRING SUCH HUGE FUNDS WHICH WERE DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT . THE S TATEMENT OF SHRI RAJANSINGH WAS RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHO IN TURN, ADMITTED THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WERE OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF RURAL AGRICULTURAL LAND. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE 9 ITA NO.729/PUN/2016 RAMCHANDRA PRABHAKAR SURYAWANSHI AS SESSEE HAD CROSS - EXAMINED SHRI RAJANSINGH, WHO KEPT TO HIS STAND OF HAVING RECEIVED CASH AGAINST THE SALE OF PROPERTY. HE ADMITTED THAT FIRST CASH ADVANCE OF RS.5 LAKHS WAS AS PER KARARNAMA RECEIVED FROM SHRI AYUB AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI AYUB IN HIS STATEMENT DID NOT ACCEPT THE TRANSACTION . HE WAS ASKED THAT IN CASE HE HAD NOT GIVEN ANY MONEY AND HE WAS NOT PARTY TO THE TRANSACTION, THEN WHY HE WAS THE CONSENTING PARTY. HE GAVE SOME STORY ABOUT THE PROPERTY DEAL ER ASKING HIM TO BE THE CONSENTING PARTY. HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND BOTH THE EXAMINATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CROSS - EXAM INATION OF SHRI RAJANSINGH UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE, WHEREIN HE ADMITTED TO THE CASH RECEIPTS ON THE SALE OF HIS AGRICULTURAL LAND, NO FURTHER QUERIES WERE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEN THE SAID KARARNAMA AND THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ESTABLISHES THE CASE OF REVENUE. THE AFFIDAVIT OF ASSESSEE AS TO NOT HAVING PAID ANY OTHER AMOUNT OTHER THAN RS.2 LAKHS MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED IS A SELF SERVING DOCUMENT AND CANNOT BE RELIED ON ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF STATEMENT OF PURCHASERS HAVING ACCEPTED CASH AGAINST THE SALE OF HIS LAND. 11. ANOTHER POINT WHICH NEEDS TO BE KEPT IN MIND IS TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF SALE . THE SAID LAND WAS ADMITTEDLY SOLD FOR RS.30 LAKHS AND NOW AFTER PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS, THE SAME CANNOT BE SOLD ONLY FOR RS.2 LAKHS IN THE AGREEMENT. THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. RELIANCE PLACED UPON THE OTHER SALE TRANSACTIONS IN THE AREA IS NOT CORRECT, ESPECIALLY WHERE THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS OF CASH PAYMENT OVER AND ABOVE THE PRICE DECLARED IN THE SALE DEED. THE CIT(A) HAS ELABORATELY REFERRED TO EACH OF THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAS ALSO MADE REFERENCE TO THE STATEMENTS IN THE CROSS - EXAMINATION OF VARI OUS PERSONS AND THE AFFIDAVIT OF 10 ITA NO.729/PUN/2016 RAMCHANDRA PRABHAKAR SURYAWANSHI ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALREADY REFERRED TO THE VARIOUS PARAS OF CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD. UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND ALSO REFERRING TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF CIT(A) FROM PARAS 8 ONWARDS , WHICH IS NOT REPRODUC ED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY, THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . ONE ASPECT WHICH NEEDS TO BE EMPHASIZED IS THE RECEIPT OF RS.5 LAKHS ALONG WITH KARARNAMA WHICH IS A DOCUMENT FOUND AND CONSIDERED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS AGAINST THE STATEMENT OF SHRI AYUB THAT HE DID NOT PAY ANYTHING. IN CASE, HE WAS NOT PARTY TO THE TRANSACTION, THEN THERE WAS NO NECESSITY FOR HIM TO BECOME CONSENTING PARTY TO THE SALE DEED BETWEEN SHRI RAJANSINGH AND THE ASSESSEE. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, ADDITION OF RS.28,88,125/ - IS UPHELD. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 2 ND DAY OF JUNE , 2017. SD/ - (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 2 ND JUNE , 2017 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 2 , AURANGABAD ; 4. / THE PR. CIT - 2 , AURANGABAD ; 5. 6. , , , - / DR SMC, ITAT, PUNE; / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, , / ITAT, PUNE