Sh. Giani Ram, Haryana V. ACIT, Rewari

ITA 738/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6326 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 07-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRIT LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NAVEEN GUPTA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Recovery proceedings; Additional evidence
• Section: 142(1); 69; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU , JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 738 / DEL/ 2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 SH. GIANI RAM, VILL. - DEOKI, P.O. - BIKANER, DIST. - REWARI, HARYANA VS. ACIT, INCOME TAX OFFICER, REWARI PAN : BLQPR1171K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. NAVEEN GUPTA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SH. AMRIT LAL, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 07.03.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28.03.2017 ORDER PER O.P. KANT , A. M. : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIREC TED AGAINST ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ( APPEALS), ROHTAK , FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 , RISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS AGAINST LAW AND FACTS. II. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.53,37,000/ - MADE BY THE LEARNED AO BY TREATING THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED. III. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.53,37,000/ - ALTHOUGH ADMITTEDLY THE APPELLANT HAD NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME OTHER THAN AGRICULTURE. 2 ITA NO . 738/DEL/2015 IV. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. THE FA CTS IN BRIEF OF THE CASE ARE THAT ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION OF CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE , RECEIVED FROM ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN (AIR) FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR CONCERNED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED N OTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INC OME - TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT ) AFTER RECORDING REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THERE WAS NO COMPLIA NCE OF THE NOTICE. SUBSEQUENTLY , THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED VARIOUS NOTICES UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT AS U NDER WHICH ALSO REMAINED UN - COM PLIED WITH EXCEPT ON 18/01/2013 , WHEN THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH HIS SON ATTENDED AND SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT. S.NO. DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATE FIXED FOR HEARING STATUS OF COMPLIANCE 1. 26/10/2012 CALLING FOR RETURN OF INCOME NO COMPLIANCE 2. 23/11/2012 11/12/2012 NO COMPLIANCE 3. 08/01/2013 18/01/2013 ASSESSEE AND HIS SON ATTENDED. 4. ADJOINED TO 22/01/2013 NO COMPLIANCE 5. 08/02/2013 27/02/2013 NO COMPLIANCE 2.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A FINAL SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ON 12/03/2013 , FIXING THE CASE ON 18/03/2013, WHICH ALSO REMAINED UNCOMPLIED WITH. IN VIEW OF THE LIMITATION FOR COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AND HELD THE CASH OF RS.1,32,40,0 00 / - DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH BANK OF RAJASTHAN L IMITED, REWARI AS FOLLOWS ON VARIOUS DATES AS UNEXPLAINED : 3 ITA NO . 738/DEL/2015 ON 18/05/2006 RS.67,00, 000/ - ON 29/08/2006 RS.1, 40,000/ - ON 1/12 /2006 RS.64,00, 000 / - TOTAL RS.1,32,40, 000 / - 2.3 THE AS SESSING OFFICER A CCORDINGLY COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144/147 OF THE ACT ON 28/03/2013. 2.4 AGGRIEVED , THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) AND SUBMITTED THAT DEPOSIT OF RS. 1 ,40,000 / - AND RS. 64,00,000/ - WERE OUT OF THE CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM BANK . THE DEPOSIT OF RS.67,00,000 / - WAS EXPLAINED AS OUT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURE LANDS BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS SONS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ALONGWITH APPLICATION UNDER R ULE 4 6 A OF THE INCOME TAX R ULES, 1962, FOR ADMITTING THESE ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A): (I) COPY OF FOUR SALE DEEDS ( TWO OF T HE ASSESSEE AND TWO OF HIS SONS) (II) COPY OF BANK STATEMENT (III) COPY OF COMPLETE NARRATION OF EACH AND EVERY ENTRY OF BANK ACCOUNT (IV) AFFIDAVITS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS SONS (V) A CERTIFICATE REGARDING ACTUAL PRICE OF AGRICULTURE LAND IN THE VILLAGE YEAR 2006 CERTIFIED BY THE NUMBERDAR AND CHOWKIDAR OF THE VILLAGE 2.5 T HE LD. CIT - A FORWARDED THE SE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES TO THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND AFTER GETTING REMAND REPORT, HE ACCEPTED THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.1,40,000/ - & RS. 64,00,000 / - AS EXPLAINED. IN RESPECT OF RS. 67,00,000 / - THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF SALE OF AGRICULTURE LANDS BY 4 ITA NO . 738/DEL/2015 HIM AND HIS SONS, WAS EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND HE NOTED THAT IN RELEVANT SALE DEEDS, ONLY CASH AMOUNT OF RS.13, 63,000/ - WAS RECORDED AS SALE CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO SUMMONED THE PURCHASERS AND RECORDED THEIR STATEMENTS. THE PURCHASER S STATED THAT NO EXTRA OR ANY HIDDEN PAYMENT IN CASH WAS MADE EXCEPT THE SUM MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEEDS. IN VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES, THE LD. CIT(A) , SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.53, 37,000 / - AND DELETED THE BALANCE ADDITIONS. 2 .6 AGGRIEVED , THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL RAISING THE GROUNDS AS REPRODUCED ABOVE. 3. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FILED PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 40 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN ILLITERATE AGRICULTURIST AND HE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE AMOUNTS RECORDED IN SALE DEEDS AND HE DEPOSITED THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS INTO HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THE LEARNE D CO U NS E L REFERRED TO AFFIDAVITS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS SONS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK. HE ALSO REFERRED TO AFF IDAVIT OF THE VILLAGE NUMBERDAR , WHEREIN HE HAS CLAIMED THE PREVALENT MARKET RATE OF LAND IN THE VILLAGE AT RS. 20.00 LAKHS PER ACRE AND CERTIFIED THAT SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 80 L AKHS WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW O F THE AFF IDAVIT OF NUMBERDAR, THE LEARNED COUNSEL CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 80 LAKHS AS PER PR EVALENT MARKET RATE OF THE LAND , IRRESPECTIVE OF THE SALE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEEDS. THE LD. COUNSEL RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. P. K . NOORJAHAN 237 ITR 570 (S C ) SUBMITTED THAT ITO HAS DISCRETION IN THE MATTER OF TREATING THE UNEXPLAINED SOURCE OF INVESTMENT AS INCOME OF ASSESSEE AND HE IS NOT OBLIGED TO TREAT UNEXPLAINED SOURCE OF INVESTMENT AS INCOME UNDER S. 69 IN EVERY CASE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. I NTEZAR A LI , 372 ITR 5 ITA NO . 738/DEL/2015 651 (ALL). THE ASSESSEE ALSO REFERRED TO DECISION OF THE TRIBUNA L IN THE CASE OF DCIT, CENTRAL C IRCLE - 6, HYDERABAD VS. MPB KUTUMBA RAO REPORTED IN 43 TAXMANN.COM 205 (HYDERABAD - T RIB), AND DECISION OF TRIBUNAL AHMADABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF GOPALBHAI V BHOIWALA VERSUS ITO IN ITA NO. 3008/AHD/2009. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE FINDING OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT SONS OF TH E ASSESSEE ARE NOT ILLITERATE AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE SIGNATURE PUT UP ON THE AFFIDAVITS. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE SALE AMOUNT RECORDED IN THE SALE DEED WAS COMPLETELY WRONG BECAUSE IN THE SALE DEED S IT IS DULY MENTIONED THAT ALL THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT WERE READ BEFORE THE PURCHASER AND SELLER, WHO AFTER LISTENING AND UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY PUT UP THEIR SIGNATURE IN PRESENCE OF WITNESSES. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SALE DEEDS WERE EXECUTED BEF ORE T HE REGISTRATION AUTHORITY I.E. D EPUTY/ JOINT R EGISTRA R OFFICE , WHO HAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT MONEY WAS EXCHANGED A S RECORDED IN THE SALE DEED. THE LEARNED DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE INTENTIONALLY DID NOT COOPERATE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER SO THAT ANY ACTION IN THE HANDS OF PURCHASER S ON THE BASIS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE BARRED BY LIMITATION. HE CONTENDED THAT HAD THE AFFAIRS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE CLEAN, HE WOULD HAVE INFORMED THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITIES REGARDING THE SALE CON SIDERATION RECEIVED BY HIM MORE THAN THE SALE AMOUNT RECORDED IN SALE DEEDS, BUT HE DID NOT. HE FURTHER DISTINGUISHED THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT AFFIDAVITS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS SONS AS WELL AS AF FIDAVIT OF THE VILLAGE NUMBERDAR NEED NOT BE ACCEPTED AS CORRECT , EVEN IF NOT DENIED SPECIFICALLY BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ACCORDING TO HIM, IN VIEW OF STATE MENT OF THE PURCHASERS OF LAND , WHO HAVE COMPLETELY DENIED OF HAVING PAID ANY EXTRA OR HIDDEN AMO UNT OTHER 6 ITA NO . 738/DEL/2015 THAN WHAT WAS MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT WAS PART OF SALE CONSIDERATION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AND CONSIDERED AS SATISFACTORY TO EXPLAIN THE DEPOSITS OF RS.53,37, 000/ - , WHICH HAS BE EN SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT - A AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF RS.53, 37,000/ - O UT OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.67,00, 000/ - DEPOSIT ED IN THE RELEVANT BANK ACCOUNT ON 18/05/2006, IS OUT OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF LANDS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS SONS OR NOT. THE SALE DEEDS OF SAID LAND ARE AVAILABLE ON PAGE 4 TO 23 OF THE PAPER BOOK. DETAILS OF SALE TRANSACTIONS, STAMP DUTY, NAME OF PURCHASERS, ETC . MENTIONED IN THESE DEEDS, ARE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER: PAGE NO. OF PAPER BOOK NAME(S) OF SELLERS NAME(S) OF PURCHASERS SALE AMOUNT RECORDED IN THE DEED MODE OF RECEIPT OF SALE CONSIDERATION 4 TO 8 ASSESSEE NARINDER KUMAR HUF RS.6,81, 500/ - RECEIVED THROUGH DRAFT NO. 008430 DATED 17/05/2006 HDFC BANK REVARI 9 TO 12 ASSESSEE SMT KANCHAN DEVI RS. 6,81,500/ - RS. 6,50,000/ - RECEIVED THROUGH BANK DRAFT NO. 226513 DATED 17/05/2006 AND RUBY 31,500 IN CASH 13 TO 17 SONS OF ASSESSEE SMT HEMALATHA AGRAWAL RS. 6,81,500/ - IN CASH 18 TO 22 SONS OF ASSESSEE SATENDER KUMAR , HUF RS.6,81, 500/ - IN CASH 6. ON PERUSAL OF BACK SIDES OF PAGE NO. 4, 9, 13 AND 18 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WE FIND THAT THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITY HAS RECORDED THAT BOTH THE SELLER AND PURCHASER WERE PRESENT BEFORE HIM AND BOTH PARTIES ACCEPTED 7 ITA NO . 738/DEL/2015 THE FACTS OF THE DOCUMENT AFTER LISTENING AND UNDERSTANDING THE SAME AND ACCEPTED T HE FACT OF EXCHANGE OF THE SALE AMOUNT RECORDED IN THE SALE DEED. IN THE SALE DEEDS ALSO IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT BOTH PARTIES HAVE READ, LISTENED AND UNDERSTOOD THE CONTENTS OF THE DEED. 7. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CO - OPERATE WITH THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS AND ONLY BEFOR E THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY , THE ASSESSEE MADE A CLAIM THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS W AS OUT OF SALE OF LANDS . TH E MATTER WAS THE N REMANDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF THE PURCHASERS, WHEREIN THEY DENIED OF GIVING ANY EXTRA OR HIDDEN MONEY OTHER THAN WHAT WAS RECORDED IN THE SALE DEEDS. 8. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INFORMED TO THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITY ABOUT ANY SALE AMOUNT RECEIVED IN EXCESS OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECORDED IN THE SALE DEEDS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING SALE OF LAND AS AGRICULTURE INCOME. WE OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE RETURN OF INCOME OR DISCLOSED THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER EVEN SPECIFICALLY ASKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 AND 142 (1) OF THE ACT RESPECTIVELY . IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THOSE NOTICES WERE NOT SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AS ON ONE OCCASION THE ASSESSEE ALONGW ITH HIS SON ATTENDED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT BUT SUBSEQUENTLY DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 9. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES , THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ACTUAL AMOUNT TRANSACTED WAS MORE THAN THE AMO UNT RECORDED IN THE SALE DEED, CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. 10. T HE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS SONS AND AFF IDAVIT OF THE VILLAGE NUMBERDAR , REMAINED UNCONTROLLED AND , THEREFORE , THE SAME MUST BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE AND 8 ITA NO . 738/DEL/2015 RELIABLE. THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE OF THE HON BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF LRS. RAMRATAN O THERS VS. CIT , KANPUR AND OTHERS REPORTED IN 142 ITR 618 (ALL), WHE RE IN THE CASE OF A RECOVERY OF TAX, AFFIDAVITS FILED AFTER A GAP OF 15 YEARS ASSERTING THAT NOTICE OF DEMAND NOT SERVED, THE HON BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT IT IS NEITHER A RULE OF PRUDENCE NOR A RULE OF LAW THAT THE STATEMENTS MADE IN AN AFFIDAVIT, WHICH RE MAINS UNCONTROVERTED, MUST INVARIABLY BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE AND RELIABLE. 11. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. P K NOORJAHAN (SUPRA) CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF ASSESEE, THE ASSESSEE WAS OF VERY YOUNG AGE AND PURCHASED TWO PROPERTIES AND SOURCE OF WHICH WAS EXPLAINE D AS FINANCED FROM OUT OF THE SAVINGS FROM THE INCOME OF THE PROPERTIES WHICH WERE LEFT BY HER MOTHER S FIRST HUSBAND. THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND INVESTMENT WAS HELD AS UNEXPLAINED. THE HON BLE HIGH COURT OBSERVED THAT HAVING REGARD TO HER AGE AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH SHE WAS PLACED ,SHE COULD NOT BE CREDITED WITH HAVING MADE ANY INCOME OF HER OWN AND HELD THAT A DISCRETION HAS BEEN CONFERRED ON THE ITO UNDER S. 69 OF THE ACT TO TREAT THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IF THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT FOUND SATISFACTORY AND THE SAID DISCRETION HAS TO BE EXERCISED KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTICULAR CASE. 12. FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE PRESENT CASE ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE ABOVE CASE CITED BY THE ASSESSEE AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS OF MATURED AGE AND THE PURCHASERS OF LAND HAVE DENIED OF GIVING ANY EXTRA MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE. 13. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS I NTEZAR ALI (SUPRA), CASH OF RS. 77,80,000 / - WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD AS UNEXPLAINED . HOWEVER , THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF 9 ITA NO . 738/DEL/2015 MADE THE COMPLAINT TO THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITY THAT SALE DEED WAS REGISTE RED AT A VALUE BELO W THE AMOUNT , WHICH HE HAD ACTUALLY RECEIVED AND DEPOSITED ENTIRE AMOUNT OF BANK ACCOUNT AND FILED A VOLUNTARILY RETURN OF INCOME. THE HON BLE HIGH COURT UPHELD THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL AND DISMISSED APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. WHEREAS , IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE NEITHER INFORMED TO THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITY ABOUT ANY AMOUNT RECEIVED MORE THAN WHAT WAS RECORDED IN THE SALE DEED NOR FILED ANY VOLUNTARY RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING AGRICULTURE INCOME. THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE NOT ONLY AVOIDED FILI NG OF RETURN OF INCOME BUT ALSO NOT COMPLIED TO THE NOTICES ISSUED FOR FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME AS WELL FOR EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS. T HE FACT OF THE CASE CITED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE AND THUS THE RATIO OF THE SAID DECISION CAN NOT BE FOLLOWED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE . 14. IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. MPB KUTUMBA RAO (SUPRA), THE CIT - A SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS. 50, 30,000 / - SAID TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM TWO CONCERNS ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THIS AMOUNT AND DIRECTED TO ASSESS THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS AMOUNT WA S RECEIVED FROM SALE OF AGRICULTURE PROPERTY AND DUE CREDIT TO BE GIVEN FOR THE SAME. THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF INTEZAR ALI (SUPRA) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY FROM T HE SALE OF AGRICULTURE PROPERTY UNLESS ANY CONTRARY EVIDENCE IS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE DEPARTMENT. WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF INTEZAR ALI (SUPRA) AND DISTINGUISHED FROM THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE. FURTHER , IN THE INSTANT CASE , CONTRARY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF STATEMENT OF THE PURCHASERS, DENYING OF MAKING ANY EXTRA PAYMENT OTHER THAN WHAT WAS RECORDED IN THE SALE DEED, HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE DEPARTMENT. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANC ES, THE RATIO IN THE CASE OF MPB 10 ITA NO . 738/DEL/2015 KUTUMBA RAO ( SUPRA) CANNOT BE APPLIED OVER THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 15. FURTHER , IN THE CASE OF GOPALBHAI V BHOIWALA (SUPRA), THE ASSESSING OFFICER NO TED DISCREPANCY IN THE SALE OF CASTOR SEED OIL, PA DDY AND WHEAT AND ACCORDINGLY HELD THE AMOUNT OF RS.1, 50,000/ - AS INCOME FROM NON - AGRICULTURE SOURCE , OUT OF THE AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS.7,75,200/ - DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE INCOME FROM INTEREST ON FDR AND POSTAL MONTHLY INCOME FROM THE KNOWN SOURCES WAS SPECIFIC AND ASCERTAINED , THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE BEEN LEFT WITH AGRICULTURE INCOME WHICH IS EXEMPT. IN THE INSTANT CASE , FACTS ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THE ABOVE CITED CASE BY THE ASSESSEE. 16. IN VIEW OF OUR DISCUSSION ABOVE, WE ARE OF CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE S OURCE OF THE CASH AMOUNT OF RS.53, 37,000/ - DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND ACCORDINGLY , WE UPHOLD THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT - A ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE. THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 17. IN THE RES ULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THE DECISION IS PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 8 T H MARCH , 201 7 . S D / - S D / - ( H.S. SIDHU ) ( O.P. KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 8 T H MARCH , 201 7 . RK / - (D.T.D) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI