SHREE RAM SHARMA, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 775/JPR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9549 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 20-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJENDRA SINGH JCIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: F REHMAN; ROHIT TIWARI ADVS
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Set aside
• Section: 205; 131

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES A, JAIPUR JH JES'K LH 'KEKZ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA -@ ITA NO. 775/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI SHRIRAM SHARMA, NEAR ROAD NO. 17, VKI AREA, 2734, RAKDA WAA KUWA, BHADARNA, JAIPUR-302032 CUKE VS. I.T.O., WARD 7(3), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA -@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: CASPS 3642 C VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI F. REHMAN & SHRI ROHIT TIWARI (ADVS) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 24/05/2019 MN?KKS 'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01/07/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31/10/2014 OF LD. CIT(A)-III, JAIPUR FOR THE A.Y. 2011-12. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 78,11,225/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT CONSIDERING THE SAME AS UNDECLARED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ADDITION SO MADE AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BEING TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE, KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. ITA 775/JP/2014_ SHRI SHRIRAM SHARMA VS. ITO 2 2. THE APPELLATE PRAYS YOUR HONOUR INDULGENCES TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER OF OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DERIVING INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AND SELLING OF MILK. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 09/3/2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,51,710/-. DURING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, THE A.O. NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH OF RS. 78,11,225/- IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, VKI AREA, JAIPUR. THE A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CASH WAS RECEIVED FROM THE SOCIETY M/S VIJAYPURA GRAH NIRMAN SAMITI LTD., JAIPUR AGAINST THE SALE OF LAND VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 21/11/1998 AND THEREAFTER AGREEMENT DATED 22/12/2010. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED DETAILS OF RECEIPT OF CASH FROM THE SAID SOCIETY WHICH IS REPRODUCED BY THE A.O. AT PAGE NO. 2 AS UNDER: FIN.YR 1998-99 1999-2000 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 TOTAL (RS.) 72,00,000 5,00,000 80,000 5,20,000 6,00,000 6,00,000 95,00,000 THUS, THE MAJOR AMOUNT OF RS. 72.00 LACS WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN THE F.Y. 1998-99. THE A.O. HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE SAID AMOUNT WAS KEPT BY THE ASSESSEE FOR 11 YEARS AND FINALLY DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE A.O. MADE THE ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT ITA 775/JP/2014_ SHRI SHRIRAM SHARMA VS. ITO 3 OF RS. 78,11,225/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT TREATED THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 3. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE A.O. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM M/S VIJAYPURA GRAH NIRMAN SAMITI LTD., JAIPUR AGAINST THE SALE OF LAND. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR DELAY IN MATERIALIZING THE DEAL OF SALE DUE TO DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND FURTHER SOME PART OF THE LAND WAS ALSO ACQUIRED BY THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY DURING THIS PERIOD. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT IMPRESSED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. 4. BEFORE US, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN THE SHAPE OF AFFIDAVITS OF THE SISTER OF THE ASSESSEE SMT. MEERA DEVI, MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE SMT. MANGLI DEVI, A CERTIFICATE FROM SHRI RAKESH ROSHAN MEHTA, MEMBER OF PANCHAYAT SAMITI AND A CERTIFICATE FROM SHRI SUNIL SAINI, PARSHAD OF NAGAR NIGAM, JAIPUR. THE LD AR HAS ALSO EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR NOT FURNISHING THE REASONS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE ASSESSEE IS VERY POORLY LITERATE PERSON BELONG TO A FARMER FAMILY WITH RURAL BACKGROUND. THEREFORE, HE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND MUCH ABOUT THE TAX MATTERS, ACCOUNTING OR OTHER RELATED ISSUES. ONLY ON THE ADVICE OF THE COUNSEL, THE ITA 775/JP/2014_ SHRI SHRIRAM SHARMA VS. ITO 4 ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THESE EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM BUYER SOCIETY NAMELY M/S VIJAYPURA GRAH NIRMAN SAMITI LTD., JAIPUR AGAINST THE SALE OF LAND. HE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE A.O. ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO REASON TO KEEP THE MONEY FOR SUCH A LONG PERIOD AND FINALLY DEPOSITING THE SAME IN THE BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE LD AR HAS THUS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR DELAY AS SOME DISPUTED WERE GOING ON BETWEEN THE PARTIES DUE TO WHICH THE DETAIL COULD NOT BE FINALIZED AND THE TITLED DOCUMENT WAS NOT REGISTERED. ONCE THE SOCIETY HAS ACCEPTED THE FACT OF PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND THEN THE SOURCE OF MONEY WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS ALSO REFERRED TO THE DOCUMENT WHICH INCLUDES RELEASE DEED DATED 16/09/2010 BY SMT. MEERA DEVI, SISTER OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT ONLY AFTER THE SAID RELEASE DEED, THE ASSESSEE COULD TRANSFER THE TITLE OF THE LAND IN FAVOUR OF THE SOCIETY. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1. CIT VS. P.V. BHOOPATHY (2006) 205 CTR 495 (MAD) 2. CIT VS. KULWANT RAI (2007) 210 CTR 380 (DELHI) 3. ANAND PRAKASH SONI VS. DCIT (2006) 101 TTJ 97 (JD) 4. ITO VS SHRI VIRENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL VIDE ORDER DATED 30/09/2015 IN ITA NO. 937/JP/2012. ITA 775/JP/2014_ SHRI SHRIRAM SHARMA VS. ITO 5 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD DR HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH OF RS. 78,11,225/- DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON AN AGREEMENT DATED 21/11/1998 UNDER WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED RS. 95.00 LACS FROM THE SAID SOCIETY, HOWEVER, SINCE THE SAID AGREEMENT WAS NOT REGISTERED AND THERE IS NO SUBSEQUENT SALE DEED, THEREFORE, THE SAID DOCUMENT CANNOT BE VERIFIED FROM INDEPENDENT SOURCES. HE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE REASON FOR KEEPING SUCH HUGE AMOUNT FOR A LONG PERIOD OF 11 YEARS AND THEN FINALLY DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THUS, MAKING BELIEF STORY HAS BEEN PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT HAVING ANY IOTA OF TRUTH WHICH CAN BE ESTABLISHED FROM ANY EVIDENCE OR INDEPENDENT SOURCE. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH OF RS. 78,11,225/- DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE A.O. RECORDED STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 131 OF THE ACT. IN THE SAID STATEMENT, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF CASH AS AN AMOUNT OF RS. 95.00 LACS RECEIVED AGAINST SALE OF LAND FROM M/S VIJAYPURA GRAH NIRMAN SAMITI LTD., JAIPUR. THE SAID EXPLANATION WAS NOT FOUND TO BE CONVINCING ITA 775/JP/2014_ SHRI SHRIRAM SHARMA VS. ITO 6 BY THE A.O. AS WELL AS BY THE LD. CIT(A) DUE TO A LONG GAP BETWEEN THE ALLEGED RECEIPT OF THE AMOUNT UNDER AGREEMENT DATED 21/11/1998 AND DEPOSIT OF THE SAME IN THE BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THUS, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CONSIDERED TO BE SATISFACTORY DUE TO TIME GAP BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT AND THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF CASH AS SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FROM M/S VIJAYPURA GRAH NIRMAN SAMITI LTD., JAIPUR AGAINST THE SALE OF LAND VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 21/11/1998. THIS FACT COULD HAVE BEEN VERIFIED BY THE A.O. BY EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE SAID SOCIETY AS WELL AS EXAMINATION OF THE CONCERNED PERSON MANAGING THE AFFAIRS OF THE SAID SOCIETY. IF THE SAID SOCIETY HAS RECORDED THESE TRANSACTIONS IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, WHICH CAN BE VERIFIED AND IF THE SAID SOCIETY HAS ALSO FILED RETURN OF INCOME AND SHOWING THE SAID TRANSACTION IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THEN THE CASH RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SAID SOCIETY CANNOT BE DOUBTED. EVEN OTHERWISE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN THE SHAPE OF AFFIDAVITS OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE MEMBER OF THE SAID SOCIETY. ALL THESE DOCUMENTS AND THESE PERSONS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, ACCORDINGLY HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THIS MATTER REQUIRES A PROPER VERIFICATION ITA 775/JP/2014_ SHRI SHRIRAM SHARMA VS. ITO 7 AND ENQUIRY OF THESE FACTS AS WELL AS DOCUMENTS INCLUDING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE SAID SOCIETY. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE RECORD OF THE A.O. FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH AFTER CONDUCTING A PROPER ENQUIRY OF THE RECORD AS WELL AS WITNESSES REGARDING WHICH THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN APPROPRIATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BEFORE PASSING THE FRESH ORDER. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01 ST JULY, 2019. SD/- SD/- JES'K LH 'KEKZ FOT; IKY JKO (RAMESH C SHARMA) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKA D@ DATED:- 01 ST JULY, 2019 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI SHRIRAM SHARMA, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE I.T.O., WARD 7(3), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 775/JP/2014) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR