Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2745 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 1 month(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
25-02-2019
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
A
Assessment Year
2008-2009
Appeal Filed On
25-01-2018
Judgement Text
VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S,A JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA. NO. 89/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 THE ITO, WARD, BHIWADI. CUKE VS. SHRI SURESH KUMAR SWAMI S/O SHRI NAR SINGH SWAMI, SWAMIYO KI DHANI, WARD NO. 10, TAPUKARA, TEH-TIJARA, DISTT. ALWAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: BGJPK 6008 A VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI J.C.KULHARI (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 26/11/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :25/02/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), ALWAR DATED 22.11.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2008-09 WHEREIN THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL: ITA NO. 89/JP/2018 ITO VS. SHRI SURESH KUMAR SWAMI 2 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,66,0 0,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT U/ S 68 OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, W ITHOUT APPRECIATING THE MATERIAL FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER RECEIVED CERTAIN INFORMATION FROM THE DDIT(INV.), A LWAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO SELL THRE E BIGHAS OF HIS AGRICULTURAL LAND AT TAPUKARA FOR RS. 2.55 CRORES A ND HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED BEFORE THE ADIT(INV.) ALWAR. IT WAS FURTHE R NOTED BY THE AO THAT THE REGISTRY FOR THE SALE OF LAND WAS MADE FOR RS. 42,00,000/- AS AGAINST RS. 2,55 CRORES. THE AO FURTHER NOTED THAT THERE WERE DEPOSITS OF RS. 2,08,00,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASS ESSEE. CERTAIN PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY WAS CONDUCTED BY THE AO IN TERM S OF SEEKING INFORMATION FROM THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN THE LATTER SU BMITTED THAT HE HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 2.55 CRORES FROM SHRI RAMESH MUDGAL ON SALE OF LAND WHICH WAS REGISTERED FOR ONLY RS. 42,00,000/-. THE AO OBSERVED THAT OUT OF RS. 2.55 CRORES, RS. 2.08 CRORES WERE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHILE THE REST OF AMOUNT WAS INVESTED IN PU RCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE AND THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF RS. 1,66,00,000/-WAS TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE I.T. ACT WAS ISSUED TO T HE ASSESSEE. IN COMPLIANCE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HIS ORIGINA L RETURN OF INCOME BE TREATED AS RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS, A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED AS TO WHY A SUM OF RS. 1,66,00,000/- SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO HIS INCOME. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN HIS STATEM ENT RECORDED ON ITA NO. 89/JP/2018 ITO VS. SHRI SURESH KUMAR SWAMI 3 OATH BEFORE THE ADIT(INV.) ALWAR, HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS SOLD THE LAND SITUATED AT TAPUKARA MEASURING 3 BIGHAS @ RS. 85,00,000/- PER BIGHA, I.E. TOTAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED RS. 2. 55 CRORES AND IN SUPPORT, COPY OF REGISTER OF DEED WRITER WAS SUBMIT TED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE COLLECTOR (STAMP), ALWAR HAVE AL SO DETERMINED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS. 2.55 CRORES AND IN SU PPORT, A COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE COLLECTOR(STAMPS), ALWAR TO TH E PURCHASER MR. RAMESH MUDGAL WAS ENCLOSED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT SINCE THE ANCESTRAL AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS SOLD BY THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF LATE SH. NARSI RAM NAMELY THE ASSESSEE, HIS MOTHER AND HIS F OUR SISTERS WHO DO HAVE INDIVIDUAL BANK ACCOUNTS, THE WHOLE OF SALE CO NSIDERATION WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SUBMISSIONS SO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSIDERED BUT WAS NOT FOUND AC CEPTABLE TO THE ASSESSING AS THE REASONS FURNISHED BY HIM WERE NOT CORROBORATED WITH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO RECORDED HOWEVER, THE AO OBSERVED NO NEW FACTS OR DOCUMENTS WERE BROU GHT UP BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO HELD THAT IT WAS NOT PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS. 2.08 CROR ES AGAINST SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND NO OTHER SOURCE REGARDING CAS H DEPOSIT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE HENCE, THE ADDITION OF RS . 1,66,00,000/- WAS MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS GRANTED THE NECESSARY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IS REASONABLY EXPLAI NED. NOW, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID FINDINGS OF T HE LD CIT(A). ITA NO. 89/JP/2018 ITO VS. SHRI SURESH KUMAR SWAMI 4 4. THE LD DR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THE MATTER AND RELIE D ON THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND TAKEN US THRO UGH THE FINDINGS OF THE AO WHICH WE HAVE NOTED ABOVE AND ARE NOT REPEAT ED FOR SAKE OF BREVITY. 5. PER CONTRA, THE LD. AR REITERATED HIS SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE I S A POOR AGRICULTURIST AND NOT HAVING ANY OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME EXCEPT AG RICULTURAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAD INHERITED ANCESTRAL AGRICULTURAL L AND SITUATED AT VILLAGE TAPUKARA, TEHSI- TIJARA ALONG WITH HIS MOTHER AND F OUR SISTERS. THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS MOTHER AND SISTERS HAVE COL LECTIVELY ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO SELL WITH AMIT JHA, NEERAJ GOY AL & MR. WASIR ON 21.07.2007 TO SALE THEIR 3 BIGHAS OF AGRICULTURE LA ND AT TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 2.55 CRORES. THEREAFTER, REGIS TRY WAS EXECUTED FOR TRANSFER OF LAND BY ALL THE MEMBERS WITH THE PURCHA SER ON 23.10.2007 WHEREIN THE PURCHASER MENTIONED VALUE AT RS. 42 LAK H TO SAVE HIS STAMP DUTY THOUGH HE HAS PAID FULL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 2 .55 CRORES THROUGH CHEQUE/CASH. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE COLL ECTOR (STAMP), ALWAR HAS ALSO TAKEN SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 2.55 CRORE S AND COPY OF THE NOTICE HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE COLLECTOR (STAMP), ALWAR HAS ALSO PASSED AN ORDER ON 08.12.2016 TO CONFIRM THE TRANSACTION VALU E OF RS. 2.55 CRORES AND HAS IMPOSED DEFERENTIAL OF STAMP DUTY, INTEREST AND PENALTY OF RS. 44,00,995/- AND THE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER WAS SUBM ITTED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TH E AFFIDAVIT DULY SIGNED AND NOTARIZED BY THE MOTHER AND 4 SISTERS TO THE EF FECT THAT THE PAYMENT RECEIVED AS SALE CONSIDERATION FOR SALE OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND ITA NO. 89/JP/2018 ITO VS. SHRI SURESH KUMAR SWAMI 5 IS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WA S ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN SUPPORT, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS . P.K. NOORJEHAN 237 ITR 570, DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN CA SE OF DEEPAK SAREEN VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 619/JP/2009 DATED 08.04.2 011 AND DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN CASE OF SH. SUKHVEER YAD AV VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 739/JP/2017 DATED 21.05.2018. IN PARTICULAR, O UR REFERENCE WAS DRAWN TO DECISION IN CASE OF SH. SUKHVEER YADAV AND ITS FINDINGS CONTAINED AT PARA 4 WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 4. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE NOTE THAT THE ASSES SEE ALONG WITH HIS BROTHER ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT DATED 28.8.20 08 WITH SHRI SHABUDEEN, JAMSHED S/O JAGDEV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE M UNDANA MEO, TEHSIL- TIJARA, DISTRICT ALWAR (RAJASTHAN) FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 68,37, 600/-. THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING 50% SHARE IN THE SAID LAND AND A CCORDINGLY THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE COMES TO RS. 34,18,800/-. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THE AGREEMENT TO SALE WAS DULY SIGNED BY THE SELLER AS WELL AS BY THE PURCHASER AND WAS ALSO SIGNED BY THE ATTESTING WITNESSES AND NOTARY PUBLIC. THE ATTESTATION OF NOT ARY PUBLIC ALSO HAS GIVEN THE DETAILS OF THE SERIAL NUMBER, DATE AS PER ITS REGISTER MAINTAINED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ATTESTATION OF DOCUME NTS. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT THOUGH THE SAID AGREEMENT TO SALE IS NOT A REGISTERED DOCUMENT BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED THE TRANS FER OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND THROUGH THE SAID AGREEMENT TO SAL E BUT THE TRANSFER WAS FINALLY COMPLETED VIDE TWO SALE DEEDS DATED 15TH ITA NO. 89/JP/2018 ITO VS. SHRI SURESH KUMAR SWAMI 6 OCTOBER, 2008. THE ONLY DISPUTE IS THE SALE CONSIDE RATION WHICH IS SHOWN IN THE AGREEMENT TO SALE WHICH IS MUCH HIGHER THAN THE CONSIDERATION SHOWN IN THE SALE DEEDS. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION FOR THE AGRICULTURAL LAND IN QUESTION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS BROTHER AS PER THE AGREEMENT TO SALE. HOWEVER, THE CONSIDERATION SHOWN IN THE SALE DEED WAS PURPOSEFULLY SHOWN EQUIVALENT TO THE DLC R ATE SO THAT THE STAMP DUTY EXPENDITURE COULD HAVE BEEN KEPT MIN IMIZED BY THE PURCHASER. THOUGH THE LD. D/R HAS RAISED AN OBJ ECTION OF UNREGISTERED AGREEMENT TO SALE, HOWEVER, WE FIND TH AT THE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT TO SALE AND THE SIGNATURES O F THE PARTIES HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE AO AND EVEN IF THE AO WAS HAVING ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE AGREEMENT, T HEN IT COULD HAVE BEEN VERIFIED AND EXAMINED BY CALLING ALL THE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT. THE AO INSTEAD OF CONDUCTING ENQUIRY TO VERIFY THE AGREEMENT TO SALE, HAS PROCEEDED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE SALE DEED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF A GRICULTURAL LAND IN QUESTION. THE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THE LAND IN QU ESTION BEING AGRICULTURAL LAND AND NOT SUBJECTED TO CAPITAL GAIN S TAX AND, THEREFORE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS NOT HAVING ANY OTHE R SOURCE OF INCOME AND THE ONLY INCOME IS AGRICULTURAL INCOME, THEN THE SAID EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE REJECTED WITH OUT BRINGING ANY EVIDENCE TO CONTRADICT THE FACTS RECORDED IN TH E AGREEMENT TO SALE. ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN THE BANK AS SALE CONSIDERATION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND ALSO PRODUCED THE AGREEMENT TO SALE IN SUPPORT OF THE SA ID CLAIM, THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE VERIFIED THE GENUINENESS OF THE AG REEMENT TO ITA NO. 89/JP/2018 ITO VS. SHRI SURESH KUMAR SWAMI 7 SALE AND THE CONSIDERATION AS AGREED UPON BY THE PA RTIES AS PER THE AGREEMENT TO SALE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRA RY FACTS OR MATERIAL BROUGHT BY THE AO, THE REJECTION OF EVIDEN CE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY HAVIN G REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN BANK BY PROD UCING THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MA DE BY THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THE ADDITI ON MADE BY THE AO. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION RELATES TO SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT AND WHETHER THE EXPLANATION SO SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTABLE OR NOT. IT IS A TRITE LAW THAT WHERE CERTAIN AMOUNTS ARE FOUND DEPOSITED IN THE BA NK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE INITIAL ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO EX PLAIN AND CORROBORATE THE SOURCE OF SUCH DEPOSITS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THA T HE HAS NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME EXCEPT AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND DUR ING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, HE HAS SOLD HIS AGRICULTURAL LAND WH ICH IS OWNED JOINTLY WITH HIS MOTHER AND FOUR SISTERS AND THE SALE CONSI DERATION AMOUNTING TO RS 2.55 CRORES SO RECEIVED HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THE TRANSACTION OF SALE OF 3 BIGHAS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT THE RATE OF RS 85,00,000 LACS PER BIGHAS HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. WHAT HAS BEEN DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE IS THAT THE S ALE CONSIDERATION AS PER REGISTERED SALE DEED IS ONLY RS 42 LACS AND NOT RS 2.55 CRORES. THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION IN THIS REGARD IS THAT A GREEMENT FOR SELL WAS ITA NO. 89/JP/2018 ITO VS. SHRI SURESH KUMAR SWAMI 8 ENTERED INTO FOR RS 2.55 CRORES, HOWEVER, WHILE EXE CUTING THE SALE DEED, THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS STATED AS RS 42 LACS AT THE BEHEST OF THE PURCHASER IN ORDER TO SAVE THE STAMP DUTY. WE FIND THAT THE COLLECTOR (STAMPS) HAS EXAMINED THE SAID SALE TRANSACTION AND HAS FINALLY DETERMINED VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 8.12.2016 THE VALUE OF THE AGRICULTURE LAND SO SOLD AT RS 2.55 CRORES FOR THE PURPOSES OF LEVY OF STAMP DUTY. THEREFORE, THE EXPLANATION SO SUBMITTED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS CORROBORATED BY THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY AND THEREFORE, IT CANN OT BE DISPUTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS APPARENTLY NOT APPRECIATED TH E SAID FACT AND HAS REJECTED THE SAID EXPLANATION, HOWEVER, WE FIND THA T THE LD CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY APPRECIATED THE SAID EXPLANATION SO SUBMITT ED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS CORROBORATED BY THE ORDER OF THE COLLECTOR (STAMPS) THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS RS 2.55 CRORES AND NOT RS 42 LACS SO STATED IN THE SALE DEED. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE S EXPLANATION HAS BEEN CONSISTENT RIGHT FROM THE TIME WHEN HIS STATEM ENT WAS RECORDED BY THE ADIT(ALWAR) TO HIS STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, WHERE THE ASSESS EE HAS DISCHARGED THE INITIAL ONUS CAST ON HIM AND HAS FURNISHED THE NECESSARY EXPLANATION, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WISHES TO DISPROVE THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION, THE ONUS SHIFTS ON THE REVE NUE TO BRING EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO DISPROVE SUCH EXPLANATION. HO WEVER, WE FIND THAT THERE HAVE BEEN NO STEPS WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TERMS OF CALLING THE PURCHASER AND RECOR DING HIS STATEMENT OR BRINGING ANY OTHER CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE ON RECORD . IN LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE HEREBY AFFIRM THE FOLLOWING FINDING S OF THE LD CIT(A) WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: ITA NO. 89/JP/2018 ITO VS. SHRI SURESH KUMAR SWAMI 9 5.3.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS OF THE CASE. THE MOOT POINT IS THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS.2.08 CR FOUND DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT O F THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS NO OTHER SOURCE OF INC OME OTHER THAN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH HE HAS INHERITED F ROM HIS FATHER. THE APPELLANT CLAIMED THAT HE ALONG WITH OT HER CO- SHARERS I.E HIS MOTHER AND 4 SISTERS ENTERED INTO A N AGREEMENT WITH SH. AMIT JHA, SH. NEERA . GOYAL AND SH. ABDUL RASHID TO SELL THE 3 BIGHAS LAND AT THE RATE OF RS.85 LAKHS P ER BIGHA, WHICH COMES TO RS.2.55 CR. ALTHOUGH THE APPELLANT D OES NOT HAVE THE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BUT HE HAS SUBMITTED THE RELEVANT PAGE FROM THE REGISTER OF NOTARY INDICATIN G THAT AN AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS INDEED NOTARIZED ON 21/07/ 20 07 WITH REGARD TO AGREEMENT TO SELL OFF THE PROPERTY AT A C ONSIDERATION OF RS.85 LAKHS PER BIGHA. THE DOCUMENT ALSO SHOWS THA T HE HAS GOT AN ADVARCE OF RS. 25.51AKHS THAT INCLUDES RS.4 LAKH BY CHEQUE. I HAVE ALSO TAKEN NOTE OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE COLLECTOR STAMP DUTY, ALWAR ABOUT THE STAMP DUTY DE MAND CREATED - ON THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.2.55 CR AT THE RATE OF RS.85 LAKHS PER BIGHAS. ALTHOUGH, IT IS A FACT THAT THE REGISTERED SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED IN THE NAME OF SH. RAMESH MU DGAL AS PER THE SALE DEED EXECUTED ON 23/10/2007 FOR A CONS IDERATION OF RS. 42 LAKHS BUT I FIND OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES IN S UPPORT OF THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION BEING RS. 2.55 CR. EV EN THE DATE OF CASH DEPOSITS MATCHES WITH THE SALE DATE. THE NOTAR IZED AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 21.07.2007, NOTICE ISSUED F ROM THE OFFICE OF THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY AND THE DATE OF CASH DEPOSITS ITA NO. 89/JP/2018 ITO VS. SHRI SURESH KUMAR SWAMI 10 ALONG WITH THE SALE DEED, ALL THESE EVIDENCES POINT TOWARDS THE FACT THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE LAND WAS RS . 2.55 CR. AND NOT RS. 42 LAKHS. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE SALE CONS IDERATION WAS PURPOSELY PUT DOWN AT RS. 42 LAKHS TO SAVE STAMP DU TY AUTHORITY. THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY HAS ALSO DETERM INED THE VALUATION AT RS. 2.55 CR. AND ISSUED DEMAND NOTICE ON THE SAID AMOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION. IN VIEW OF THE FACTUA L MATRIX OF THE CASE AND EVIDENCES ON RECORD, IT IS MAY CONSIDE RED VIEW THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 2.08 CR. INCLUDING RS. 77 LAKHS RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUES, IS FROM THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. ACCORDINGLY, THE SOURCE OF THE C ASH DEPOSITS IS REASONABLY EXPLAINED. IF THE CASH SALE CONSIDERATIO N IS NOT EXPLAINED OR SUPPRESSED IN THE HAND OF THE PURCHASE R I.E SH. RAMESH MUDGAL THEN, HE IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED. THERE FORE, IN VIEW OF AVAILABLE FACTS/EVIDENCES AND PREPONDERANCE OF P ROBABILITY, AS ALSO THE DETERMINATION OF THE VALUE BY THE STAMP DU TY AUTHORITY, IT IS MAY CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 1.31 CR. AND CHEQUES DEPOSITS OF RS. 77 LAKHS TOTALING TO RS . 2.08 CRORES IS FROM THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. ALSO IT IS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THAT THE ANCESTRAL LAND IN HERITED BY THE APPELLANT HAS 5 OTHER CO-SHARES I.E HIS MOTHER AND 4 SISTERS AND THEY HAVE ALL GIVEN AFFIDAVIT THAT THEY HAD DEPOSIT ED THEIR SHARE OF SALE PROCEEDS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLA NT AS THEY DID NOT HAVE BANK ACCOUNTS IN THEIR NAMES. AS THE SOURC E IS EVIDENCE AND REASONABLY EXPLAINED THE ADDITION OF R S. 1.66 CRORES IS DELETED. APPELLANTS GROUND OF APPEAL ON THE ISSUE IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 89/JP/2018 ITO VS. SHRI SURESH KUMAR SWAMI 11 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25/02/2019. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 25/02/2019. *SANTOSH VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- ITO, WARD- BHIWADI. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- SHRI SURESH KUMAR SWAMI, ALWAR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE { ITA NO. 89/JP/2018} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR
