Income Tax Officer, Mandi Gobindgarh V. Sh.Parminder Singh Sandhu, Amloh

ITA 832/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6945 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 04-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Source of fund; Competent authority

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.832/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. SH.PARMINDER SINGH SANDHU, WARD-1, MANDI WARD NO.1, SANDHU HOUSE, MANDI GOBINDGARH. TIBBI ROAD, AMLOH. PAN: BNEPS4002C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT.CHANDER KANTA, DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 08.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.08.2017 O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M. : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(APPEALS), PATIALA DATED 4.4.2016 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER: 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,03,15,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH IN BANK. 2. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 3. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN DE LETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATING THE CASH 2 DEPOSITED IN THE BANK AMOUNTING TO RS.1,03,15,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED. 4. BRIEF FACTS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT DURIN G ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH IN HDFC BANK AMOUNT ING TO RS.41,42,000/- AND IN AXIS BANK AMOUNTING TO RS.61,43,000/-. ON BEING CONFRONTED WITH THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SOURCE OF THE SAID CASH DEPOSITED WAS OUT OF OLD SAVINGS, SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND ADVANCE RECEIVED ON ACCOUN T OF AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE A SSESSEE STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO SUBSTANTIAT E THE SAME WITH THE EVIDENCES. HE, THEREFORE, TREATED TH E ENTIRE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) WHERE THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILED SUBMISSIONS WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AT PARA 4.1 OF THE CIT(APPEALS)S ORDER. THE GIST OF THE SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION R EGARDING THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED SINCE NECESSARY EVIDEN CES TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME HAD BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSE E DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THA T IT WAS THE OWNER OF 12 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND ALON GWITH HIS MOTHER AND BROTHER OUT OF WHICH HE HAD ENTERED INTO AN 3 AGREEMENT TO SELL 56 KANAL AND 3 MARLA FOR RS.1 LAC PER BISWA ON 15.7.2009 AND HAD RECEIVED TOKEN/BIANA AMOUNTING IN ALL TO RS.25 LACS, BEING RS.2 LACS ON 11.7.2009 AND RS.23 LACS ON 15.7.2009. FURTHER IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.1 CRORE WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, BEING RS.75 LACS ON 22.7.2009 AND RS.25 L ACS ON 20.8.2009 FROM THE PURCHASER. THUS IT WAS SUBMITTE D THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.1.25 CRORES WAS RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF AGREEMENT TO SELL LAND ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH HIS MOTHER AND BROTHER. THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT THE COPY OF CONSOLIDATED RECEIPT OF PAYMENT DU LY SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF WITNESS WAS FILED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(APPEALS). FURTHER THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED TH AT AN AMOUNT OF RS.20,60,525/- WAS RECEIVED DURING THE YE AR BY SELLING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE GROWN BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE LAND OWNED AND CULTIVATED BY HIM ON 12 ACRES AND 30 ACRES OF LAND OF OTHERS CULTIVATED BY HIM. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS HAD BEEN BROUGHT ON R ECORD DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD BEEN POINTED OUT TO THE ASSES SING OFFICER THAT DUE TO FALL PRICE IN LAND, THE DEAL HA D NOT BEEN COMPLETED AND RELATION WITH THE PURCHASER WAS STRAI NED, BECAUSE OF WHICH THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT TO SELL, WH ICH WAS LYING WITH THE PURCHASERS COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEF ORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NOR COULD THE PURCHASERS BE PROD UCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDE D THAT ALL THE ADDRESS AND CONTACT NUMBERS OF THE PURCHASERS H AD BEEN SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO COULD H AVE 4 EXERCISED ITS AUTHORITY AND CONDUCTED NECESSARY ENQ UIRIES BY CALLING THE SAID PERSONS FOR CONFIRMING THE TRAN SACTION. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SENT TO THE ASS ESSING OFFICER FOR HIS COMMENTS WHO REITERATED THE CONTENT IONS MADE BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE WH O RESPONDED BY STATING THAT SINCE NO ENQUIRY HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ADDITION MADE BE EITHE R DELETED OR MAY BE REFERRED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 250 (4) FOR MAKING FURTHER ENQUIRY IN THE MATTER. THE LD.CIT(A PPEALS) REMANDED THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 25 0(4) OF THE ACT FOR FURTHER ENQUIRY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE HIS REPORT DATED 21.3.2016 SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE CO URSE OF ENQUIRY CONDUCTED, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ORIGINAL AGREEMENT TO SELL AND ALSO PROVIDED COMPLETE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF FIVE PERSONS WITH WHOM HE AND HIS MOTH ER HAD EXECUTED AGREEMENT TO SELL AS ALSO THE COMPLETE NAM ES AND ADDRESSES OF THE WITNESSES OF THE AGREEMENT. THE A SSESSING OFFICER FURTHER STATED THAT THE WITNESSES HAD BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE HIM BY THE ASSESSEE WHO HAD ACCEPTED BEFORE HIM THAT THE AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS SIGNED BETWEEN THE A SSESSEE AND HIS MOTHER AND FIVE PERSONS. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ALSO STATED THAT OUT OF FIVE PERSONS TWO PERSONS WERE PR ODUCED BEFORE HIM WHO ACCEPTED HAVING PAID RS.25 LACS EACH TO THE SELLERS OF THE LAND AS BIANA. ALSO THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED RECEIPT FROM ONE OF THE REMAINING THREE PERSONS WHO HAD AGREED TO PURCH ASE THE LAND AND THIS RECEIPT SHOWED THAT HE HAD RECEI VED BACK 5 THE MONEY WHICH HE HAD GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T BIANA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO STATED THAT A F OURTH PURCHASER HAD PRODUCED AN AGREEMENT OF CANCELLATIO N OF AGREEMENT TO SELL WHICH STATED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED BACK THE CONSIDERATION GIVEN BY HIM. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IN VERY MANY WORDS STATED THAT THE GENUINENESS OF AGRE EMENT TO SELL WAS DULY CONFIRMED BY FOUR PURCHASERS AND T WO WITNESSES OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL AND ALSO THE MOT HER OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE FA CT THAT THE AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS NOT REGISTERED AND ALSO B ECAUSE NO DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE MONEY RECEIVED AND THAT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK WAS DEMONSTRATED BY THE ASSES SEE AS MOST OF THE MONEY WAS DEPOSITED MUCH LATER IN TIME AFTER RECEIVING THE RELEVANT REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER REPRODUCED AT PARA 4.4 OF THE CIT(APPEALS)S ORDER IS AS UNDER: 4.4 THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND REMANDED U/S 250(4) OF IT. ACT , 1961 FOR NECESSARY ENQUIRY AND VERIFICATION OF THE FACTS V IDE THIS OFFICE LETTER NO. 1139 DATED 28.12.2015. THE AO FILED HI S REPORT VIDE LETTER NO. 1821 DATED 21.03.2016, WHICH I S REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 1. AS PER YOUR KIND DIRECTIONS, LETTER NO. ITO/W- L/MGG/2015-16/2 DATED 21.01.2016 WRITTEN TO THE ASSESEE TO PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL BIANAS REGARDING PURCHASE OF LAND AND GIVE COMPLETE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PERSONS WHO HAVE MADE BIANAS. 2. IN THIS REGARD, THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE T HAT RETURN IN THIS CASE WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 30.08.201 1. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDE R CASS ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION REGARDING CASH DEPOSITS IN BANKS. THEREAFTER, ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AT AN INCOME RS.1,04,49,000/- AFTER MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.1,03,15,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE 6 ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSITS AT RS.41,42,000/- IN HDFC BANK AND RS.61,72,000/- IN AXIS BANK TOTALLING TO RS.1,03,15,000/- ON VARIOUS DATES AS P ER DETAILS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 2. DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT TO SELL (BIANA) REGARDING SALE OF LAND AND ALSO GIVE COMPLETE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PERSONS WITH WHOM AGREEMENT TO SEL L HAS BEEN EXECUTED. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT TO SELL EXECUTED ON 15.7.2009 AND ALSO PROVIDED COMPLETE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE FIVE PERSONS WI TH WHOM HE AND HIS MOTHER EXECUTED AGREEMENT TO SELL. HE ALSO PROVIDES COMPLETE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE T WO WITNESSES OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL. THE ASSESSEE WA S ASKED TO PRODUCE THE ABOVE SAID SEVEN PERSONS. IN RESPONSE TO THIS THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED TWO WITNESSE S NAMELY CHAMKAUR SINGH AND SANDEP KUMAR ON 8.2.2016. THE BOTH THE WITNESSES RECORDED THEIR STATEMENTS AN D ACCEPTED THAT AN AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS SIGNED BETWE EN ASSESSEE AND HIS MOTHER AND FIVE PERSONS NAMELY HAR PAL SINGH, HARISH CHANDER, NAVEEN KUMAR, AVTAR SINGH AN D INDERJEET SINGH ON 15.7.2009. 4. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCE INDERJEET SINGH AND HA RPAL SINGH, THE TWO PUPRCHASERS OF LAND OUT OF FIVE PURC HASERS FOR RECORDING THEIR STATEMENT. BOTH THE PERSONS ACC EPTED THAT THEY HAVE PAID RS.25 LAKHS EACH TO THE SELLERS OF LAND AS A BIANA. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED ONE RECEIPT GIVEN BY NAVEEN KUMAR WHO IS ONE OF THE PERSON WHO AGREED TO PURCHASE THE ASSESSEES LAND. THE SAID RECEIPT IS DT.7.5.2015. THIS RECEIPTS SHOWS THAT HE HAS RECEIV ED BACK THE MONEY TO SELL AGREEMENT WHICH WAS GIVEN BY HIM AGAINST THE BIANA EXECUTED ON 15.7.2009 AND 4.11.2009. SIMILARLY, ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED ONE AGREEMENT OF CANCELLATION OF AGREEMENT TO SELL DT.13.11.2013. THIS AGREEMENT WAS GIVEN BY AVTAR SI NGH WHO IS ALSO ONE OF THE PURCHASERS OF THE LAND. AS P ER THIS AGREEMENT, THE DEAL HAS BEEN CANCELLED WITH MUTUAL CONSENT AND HE HAS RECEIVED BACK THE CONSIDERATION GIVEN BY HIM AGAINST THE BIANA SIGNED ON 15.7.2009 AND 4.11. 2009. ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ON OF THE PU RCHASER OF THE LAND NAMELY HARISH CHANDER.. HOWEVER GENUINENESS OF AGREEMENT TO SELL DULY CONFIRMED BY FOUR PURCHASERS AND TWO WITNESSES. 5. ASSESSEE'S MOTHER WHO IS ALSO OWNER OF THE LAND A ND ALSO THE HOLDER OF POWER OF ATTORNEY OF HIS OTHER SO N NAMELY JA TINDER SINGH. THE MOTHER CONFIRMED THAT TH E BIANA MONEY HAS BEEN KEPT BY HIS SON PARMINDER SING H WITH HER CONSENT. 6. ALTHOUGH, TWO PURCHASERS OF THE LAND NAMELY SH. HARPAL SINGH S/O SH. PAVITAR SINGH AND SH. INDERJIT SINGH S/O SH. NARANG SINGH ALONGWITH TWO WITNESSES SH.CHAMKAUR SINGH S/O SH. BHAG SINGH AND SH. SANDEEP KUMAR S/O SH. FAQUIR CHAND WHOSE 7 STATEMENT HAS BEEN RECORDED HAVE CONFIRMED THE BIANA. BUT THE SAID BIANA WAS NOT REGISTERED BEFORE THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND THUS IT HAS NO EVIDENTIAR Y VALUE. FURTHER AS PER PAYMENT RECEIPT SUBMITTED BY TH E ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED AMOUNT OF BIANA AMOUNTING TO RS. 1.25 CRORES AS PER FOLLOWING DETAILS: SR.NO. AMOUNT DATE 1 RS. 2,00,000 11.7.2009 2 RS. 23,00,000 15.7.2009 3 RS. 75,00,000 22.7.2009 4 RS. 25,00,000 20.8.2009 HOWEVER PERUSAL OF BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE DEPOSITS AMOUNTI NG TO RS. 27,00,000 APPROXIMATELY IN THE ABOVE SAID BANK ACCOU NTS DURING THE MONTH OF JULY & AUGUST, 2009. THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO GIVE SATISFACTORY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT MONEY D EPOSITED IN THE BANKS LATER PART OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR WAS TH E SAME THAT RECEIVED AGAINST THE AGREEMENT TO SELL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE REMAND REPORT A LONG WITH REQUISITE DOCUMENTS IS SUBMITTED AS DESIRED BY YOU.' 6. THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMIS SIONS MADE BEFORE HIM BOTH BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND T HE ASSESSEE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE HOLDING THAT BY VIRTUE OF ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE FAC T OF MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE AGREEMEN T TO SELL STANDS CONFIRMED AND ACCEPTED. LD.CIT(A) ALSO HELD THAT THE RECEIPT OF RS.20,60,525/-FROM SALE OF AGRICULT URAL PRODUCE STOOD SUBSTANTIATED BY THE J FORMS PRODUC ED BY THE ASSESSEE EVIDENCING THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PR ODUCE. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) AT PARA 4.6 OF HIS ORDER IS AS UNDER: 4.6 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE A.O. AND DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AS ALSO THE REPORT OF THE A.O. U/S 250(4) OF I.T. AC T RECEIVED ON 22.03.2016. AS REPORTED BY THE A.O. THE APPE LLANT HAD FURNISHED BEFORE HIM THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT TO S ELL BETWEEN HIM AND HIS MOTHER, AND THE FIVE PROSPECTIVE 8 PURCHASERS EXECUTED ON 15.07.2009 AND ALSO PROVIDED COMPLETE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THOSE PERSONS. THE APPELLANT ALSO PROVIDED COMPLETE NAMES AND ADDRESSES O F THE TWO WITNESSES TO THE SAID AGREEMENT TO SELL. BOTH THE WITNESSES NAMELY SH. CHAMKAUR SINGH AND SH. SANDEEP KUMAR WERE EXAMINED BY THE A.O. ON 08.02.2016. IN THEIR DEPOSITIONS BOTH ACCEPTED THAT AN AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS SIGNED ON 15.07.2009 BETWEEN THE APPELLANT, HIS MOTH ER AND FIVE PERSONS NAMELY SH. HARPAL SINGH, SH. HARISH CHANDER, SH. NAVEEN KUMAR, SH. AVTAR SINGH AND SH. INDE RJIT SINGH. THE A.O. FURTHER REPORTED THAT THE TWO PURCHASE RS NAMELY SH. INDERJIT SINGH AND SH. HARPAL SINGH PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT ACCEPTED THAT THEY HAD PAID RS. 25,00, 000/- EACH TO THE APPELLANT FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL L AND AS BIANA. BEFORE THE A.O. THE APPELLANT ALSO PRODUCED A RE CEIPT DATED 07.05.2015 ISSUED BY SH. NAVEEN KUMAR ONE OF TH E PERSONS WHO HAD AGREED TO PURCHASE THE APPELLANT'S LAND. THIS RECEIPT EVIDENCES THAT SH. NAVEEN KUMAR HAS RECEIVED BACK THE MONEY WHICH WAS GIVEN BY HIM AS BIANA AGAINST THE AGREEMENT TO SELL EXECUTED ON 15.07.2009 AND 04.11.2 009. AT THE SAME TIME THE APPELLANT ALSO PRODUCED AN AGRE EMENT OF CANCELLATION OF AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 13.11.2013 SI GNED BY ONE OF THE PURCHASERS SH. AVTAR SINGH. AS PER THIS CANCELLATION AGREEMENT, THE ENTIRE DEAL STOOD CANCEL LED WITH MUTUAL CONSENT AND ALSO THAT HE HAD RECEIVED BACK THE CONSIDERATION GIVEN BY HIM AGAINST THE AGREEMENT T O SELL SIGNED ON 15.07.2009 AND 04.11.2009. SH. HARISH CHANDER, A PURCHASER, WAS NOT PRODUCED BY THE APPEL LANT. THE A.O. FURTHER STATED THAT THE GENUINENESS OF AGRE EMENT TO SELL IS DULY CONFIRMED BY FOUR PURCHASERS AND TWO WITNESSES. THE A.O. FURTHER REPORT THAT THE MOTHER OF THE APPELLANT WHO IS ALSO THE OWNER OF THE LAND AND ALS O HOLDER OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY WITH HER ANOTHER SON NAMEL Y SH.JATINDER SINGH HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THAT THE BIANA MONEY WAS KEPT BY HER SON SH.PARMINDER SINGH, THE APPELLANT , WITH HER CONSENT. IN HIS CONCLUDING REMARKS THE. A.O., HOWE VER HOLDS THAT ALTHOUGH TWO PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS OF TH E LAND ALONG WITH TWO WITNESSES HAVE CONFIRMED THE AGREEMEN T TO SELL BUT THE SAME HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE AS IT WAS NO T REGISTERED BEFORE ANY COMPETENT AUTHORITY. THE A.O. FURTHER FINDS FAULTS WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE B Y POINTING OUT THAT AS PER HIS VERSION THE APPELLANT HAD RECEI VED BIANA AMOUNTING TO RS. 1.25 CRORES ON DIFFERENT DATES BETWE EN 11.07.2009 AND 20.08.2009 WHEREAS HE HAD MADE DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS. 27,00,000/- APPROXIMATELY IN HIS BANK ACCOUNTS DURING THE MONTH OF JULY AND AUGUST 2009. THAT THERE WAS NO SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT M ONEY DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS IN LATER PART OF THE F.Y. WAS THE SAME AS RECEIVED AGAINST THE AGREEMENT TO THE SELL. IN NUT SHELL, THE FACT OF THE MONEY BEING RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AGAINST THE AGREEMENT TO SELL AGRICULT URAL LAND HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. AS A RESULT OF ENQUIR Y U/S 250(4) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS H ELD TO 9 BE OF NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE IN THE ABSENCE OF ITS REG ISTRATION BEFORE ANY COMPETENT AUTHORITY. IT WAS AVERRED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THERE WAS NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT OF REG ISTRATION OF AGREEMENT TO SELL WHEN POSSESSION IS NOT DELIVERE D AT THE TIME OF ITS EXECUTION. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JU DGMENT OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SM T. JOGINDER KAUR AND OTHERS VS. AMRIK SINGH, 2009 (4) CI VIL COURT CASES 025 (P&H). I HAVE PERUSED THE ABOVE SAID JUDGMENT AND FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPEL LANT. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE POSSESSION OF LAND IN QUESTION W AS NEVER GIVEN TO THE PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS. THAT BEING THE CASE, THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE CITED JUDGEMENT IS CLEARLY APPLICAB LE. HENCE, THE EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE AGREEMENT TO SEL L CANNOT BE DOUBTED ONCE ITS EXISTENCE IS CONFIRMED BY THE PA RTIES CONCERNED AND THE WITNESSES. WITH REGARD TO THE ALL EGED DISCREPANCY IN THE DATES OF RECEIPT OF MONEY BY THE APPELLANT AND ITS DEPOSIT SUBSEQUENTLY BANK ACCOUNTS, THE A.O. HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY ADVERSE EVIDENCE EXCEPT ST ATING THAT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY SATISFACTORY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT THE SAME MONEY WAS DEPOSI TED IN THE LATER PART OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. BEFORE HOLD ING SO, THE AO HAS TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED INCO ME FROM A PARTICULAR SOURCE. THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO PROVE THE NEGATIVE. THUS, ON GIVEN FACTS APPARENTLY THE AO WAS IN ERROR IN REACHING HIS CONCLUSION. THE APPELLANT ALSO CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED RS.20,60,525/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PR ODUCE DURING THE YEAR WHICH WAS ALSO DEPOSITED IN THE AFOR ESAID BANK ACCOUNTS. IN SUPPORT, HE HAD ALSO STATED THAT COP Y OF J FORMS EVIDENCING THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WAS DULY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O. IN HIS REPORTS, THE A.O. HAS N OT OFFERED ANY COMMENTS ON THIS ISSUE. THEREFORE, THE EV IDENCE ADDUCED BY THE APPELLANT IS TAKEN TO BE CORRECT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, ESTABLISHED AS A RESULT OF ENQUIRY MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 250(4) OF THE ACT, IT IS HELD THAT THE A.O. WAS NOT JUS TIFIED IN REJECTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT WITH REGA RD TO THE IMPUGNED DEPOSITS OF RS. 1,03,15,000/- IN HIS BANK ACCO UNTS. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE, HOLDING THE SAME TO BE THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT, IS ORDERED TO B E DELETED. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME THE REVENUE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(APPEAL S) AND LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. 10 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. WE FIND NO INFIR MITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(APPEALS). THE ADDITION IN T HE PRESENT CASE PERTAINS TO CASH FOUND DEPOSITED IN BA NK AMOUNTING IN ALL TO RS.1,03,15,000/- WHICH WAS HELD TO BE UNEXPLAINED. THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE SAME AS UNDER: SOURCE AMOUNT AMOUNT RECEIVED AS AN ADVANCE ON ACCOUNT OF AGREEMENT TO SELL OF RURAL AGRICULTURAL LAND MEASURING 56 KANALS 3 MARLAS (11.7.2009 TO 20.8.2009) RS.1,25,00,000 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE SOLD DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION RS.20,60,525 TOTAL RS.1,45,60,525/- 10. THE LD CIT(A) DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ,EXE RCISING HIS POWERS U/S 250(4), ASKED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE INQUIRIES WITH RESPECT TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE SA ID CLAIM. IN PURSUANCE TO THE SAME NECESSARY INQUIRES WERE CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY CALLING FOR T HE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT TO SELL AND EXAMINING THE WITNES SES TO THE AGREEMENT AND THE PURCHASERS OF THE LAND AND AL SO THE MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT WAS PRODUCED, THE WITNESSES, TWO PURCHASERS AND THE MOT HER OF THE ASSESSEE CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTION WHILE TWO OF THE PURCHASERS CONFIRMED RECEIVING BACK THE AMOUNT PAID TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF CANCELLATION OF THE AGREEMEN T, COPY OF WHICH WAS ALSO PRODUCED. BASED ON THIS INQUIRY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFTER HIMSELF STATED IN HIS REMAND REPORT THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE AGREEMENT TO SEL L THE 11 LAND STOOD CONFIRMED. LD.DR HAS NOT CONTROVERTED A NY OF THE AFORESAID FACTS BEFORE US. WE THEREFORE HOLD TH AT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY HOLDING THAT THE FACT OF MONEY BEING RECEIVED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE AGREEMENT TO SELL AGRICULTURAL LAND HAS IN NUTSHELL BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 11. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE GENUINEN ESS OF THE AGREEMENT WAS DOUBTFUL SINCE IT WAS NOT REGISTE RED AND THUS HAD NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE, HAS BEEN RIGHTLY REJ ECTED BY THE LD.CIT(A) BY HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL REQ UIREMENT OF REGISTRATION OF AGREEMENT TO SELL WHEN POSSESSIO N IS NOT DELIVERED AT THE TIME OF ITS EXECUTION, RELYING UPO N THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF SMT.JOGINDER KAUR AND OTHERS VS. AMRIK SINGH 2009 ( 4) CIVIL COURT CASES 025 (P&H).THE LD DR HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT ANY INFIRMITY IN THIS FINDING OF THE LD.C IT(A). 12. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RIGHT LY HELD THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.1.25 CR ORES WAS RECEIVED BETWEEN 11.07.09 AND 20.08.09 WHILE ON LY 27 LACS WAS DEPOSITED IN THIS PERIOD AND NO EVIDENCE W AS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE LINKING THE DEPOSITS IN TH E LATER PART OF THE YEAR WITH THE SAID RECEIPTS , NO DOUBTS COULD BE CAST ON THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. LD.CIT(A) ,WE HOLD HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT IN THE BACKDROP OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD PROVED THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS TO THE TUNE OF RS.1.25 CRORE, IT WAS FOR THE AO TO DISLODGE 12 THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE BY PROVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OTHER SOURCES OF INCOME ALSO. 13. MOREOVER, THE AMOUNT RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF SAL E OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AMOUNTING TO RS.20,60,525/- ST ANDS CONFIRMED AND SUBSTANTIATED FROM THE COPY OF J FO RM EVIDENCING THE SAID SALE WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CONTRO VERTED BY THE REVENUE OFFICERS. 14. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE HOLD THAT THE LD.CIT(AP PEALS) IS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE SOURCE OF CASH DEP OSITED IN THE BANK STANDS DULY EXPLAINED AND ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO AND FOR THE SAME THERE IS NO REASON FOR UPHOLDING THE SAID ADDITION. GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 STAND DISMISSED. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 18 TH AUGUST, 2017 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH