Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Barnala V. ITO, Barnala

ITA 930/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0352 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 03-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Capital asset; Gift; Valuation report; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 131; 68; 69; 132; 92; 133(6); 195; 113; 13

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,च डीगढ़ यायपीठ “बी” , च डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH ी एन.के .सैनी, उपा य! एवं ी स ु धांश ु ीवा&तव, या(यक सद&य BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 930/Chd/2018 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Sukhwinder Singh, Manna Pindi, Dhannaula, Distt. Barnala बनाम The ITO Barnala थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: DCJPS5756P अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent नधा रती क! ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate राज व क! ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Akashdeep, JCIT, Sr. DR स ु नवाई क! तार&ख/Date of Hearing : 20/07/2022 उदघोषणा क! तार&ख/Date of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022 आदेश/Order PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dt. 14/02/2018 by the Ld. CIT(A), Patiala. 2. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal. 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the addition of Rs.132,90,000/- made on account for cash deposits in Bank account in utter disregard of the explanations rendered which is arbitrary and unjustified. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in upholding an addition of Rs. 22,50,000/- made on account of cash deposits in bank account in utter disregard of the explanations rendered which is arbitrary and unjustified. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in not adjudicating the ground wherein the assessing officer had arbitrarily made an addition of Rs. 1,70,000/- being agricultural income for rate purposes which is arbitrary and unjustified. 4. That the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed to law and facts of the case and is, thus, untenable. 3. Ground No. 4 is general in nature, and Ground No. 3 was not pressed therefore these grounds do not require any comment on our part. 2 4. Vide Ground No. 1 & 2 the grievance of the assessee relates to the sustenance of addition of Rs. 1,32,90,000/- and Rs. 22,50,000/- on account of cash deposited in bank account. 5. Facts of the case in brief are that the assesse filed his return of income declaring an income of Rs. 1,42,300/- on 08/08/2011 which was processed at the returned income on 10/02/2012. Later on the case was selected for scrutiny. 5.1 During the course of assessment proceedings the AO noticed that the assessee had deposited an amount of Rs. 5,92,00,000/- in his saving bank account with State Bank of Patiala, Patran, Dist. Patiala and Rs. 58,00,000/- in State Bank of India, Dhanaula on different dates as per following details: SBI Dhanaula Sr. No. Date Amount 1 30/04/2010 Rs. 38,00,000/ (Rs. 34,00,000/- + Rs. 4,00,000/-) 2 03/01/2011 Rs. 20,00,000/- Total Rs. 58,00,000/- SBOP, Patran 1 04/01/2011 Rs. 2,05,50,000/- 2 12/01/2011 Rs. 1,89,00,000/- 3 12/01/2011 Rs. 11,50,000/- 4 13/01/2011 Rs. 1,00,000/- 5 03/02/2011 Rs. 10,00,000/- 6 07/02/2011 Rs. 1,75,00,000/- Total Rs. 5,92,00,000/- 5.2 The AO asked the assessee to explain the source of cash deposited in the saving bank account alongwith documentary evidence. in response the assessee submitted as under: SBI, Dhanaula Sr. No. Date Amount Source 1 30.04.2010 Rs.38,00,000/- (Rs.34,00,000/-+ Rs.4,00,000/-) Out of execution of agreement with Sh. Jaggar Singh and others to sell agriculture land situated near village Manna Pindi on 30.04.2010. 2 03.01.2011 Rs.20,00,000/- Out of sale proceeds of agriculture land situated near village Manna Pindi from sale deed registered with Tehsildar Dhanaula on 03.01.2011. Total Rs.58,00,000/- SBOP, Patran 1 04.01.2011 Rs.2,05,50,000/- Out of sale proceeds of agriculture land situated near village Manna 3 Pindi from sale deed registered with Tehsildar Dhanaula on 03.01.2011. 2 12.01.2011 Rs. 1,89,00,000/- Out of withdrawals on the same date, the cash was deposited on the same day due to non maturity of any agreement for purchase of agricultural land. 3 12.01.2011 Rs.l 1,50,000/- 4 13.01.2011 Rs. 1,00,000/- 5 03.02.2011 Rs. 10,00,000/- . 6 07.02.2011 Rs.l,75,00,000/- Out of withdrawals on the same date, the cash was deposited on the same day due to non maturity of any agreement for purchase of agricultural land. Total Rs.5,92,00,000/- 5.3 The AO also recorded the statement of the assessee on oath in the presence of Shri Balwinder Singh S/o Shri Harbhajan Singh, his cousin on 02/01/2014. The assessee submitted a photocopy of the agreement dt. 30/04/2010 to sell the agricultural land to Shri Jaggar Singh and others. The agreement executed by Shri Sukhwinder Singh, his brotehr Shri Jaswinder Singh and their father Shri Balkar Singh S/o Shri Roop Singh for 12 acres @ Rs. 21 Lacs per acre, Rs. 40 lacs was received in cash as advance and promised to get sale deed registered before 05/01/2011. The AO asked the assessee to submit copy of original agreement as the copy of the agreement submitted was not registered with Revenue Department and even back of the stamp papers did not bear date of issue, name of vendor and its registered serial number. In response the assessee stated that the original agreement was torn out at the time of maturity of deal and that he was not having photocopy of the back of the stamp paper showing name of vendor, signature of the person who purchased the stamp paper and serial number of register of vendor. It was also admitted that the agreement was not registered with the Revenue department. However the assessee stated that the amount was received @ Rs. 21 lacs per acre for 12 acres in cash and out of this deal i.e; agreement dt. 30/04/2010 and the sale deed dt. 03/01/2011 the cash was deposited in his bank account. 5.4 The AO asked the assessee to submit a copy of sale deed registered with the State Revenue Department in context of agreement executed on 30/04/2010 and as per this agreement the sale deed was required to be executed before 05/01/2011. The 4 assessee was also asked to produce witnesses to prove the actual amount paid by the purchaser of the land and it was specifically asked as to why whole cash was deposited in his bank account while the ownership of land in question was related to three persons and it was sold by all three persons. In response the assessee submitted that the land in question was belonging to the family and whole cash was deposited into his bank account and that they had purchased land in Tehsil Patran in the name of their mother Smt. Charanjit Kaur after withdrawal of the cash from the banks. The AO thereafter issued the notice under section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) to the purchaser of the land Shri Jaggar Singh S/o Shri Jang Singh R/o Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Barnala. In response to the same the purchaser appeared before the AO on 08/01/2011, his statement on oath was recorded, he admitted that payment of Rs. 40 lacs on 30/04/2010 was made on account of execution of agreement for purchase of land. He also admitted payment of Rs. 1,12,60,000/- on 03/01/2011 to Shri Sukhwinder Singh (the assessee) on account of sale of agricultural land situated at Village Manna Pindi and sale deed was registered with Sub Reigstrar, Dhanaula. It was stated that the stamp papers worth Rs. 5,63,000/- were purchased by Shri Balkar Singh father of the assessee who was having 1/3 rd share of the total agricultural land and the value of stamp paper was for sale agreement of Rs. 1,12,60,000/- . The purchaser Shri Jaggar Singh admitted the execution of agreement dt. 30/04/2010 but he denied of making payment of Rs. 2,52,00,000/- on account of purchase of agricultural land @ 21 lacs per acre on 03/01/2011. It was stated that due to recession, the rate of land was down and it was actually purchased at Rs. 1,12,60,000/- instead of Rs. 2,52,00,000/- and that the father of the assessee Shri Balkar Singh himself purchased the stamp papers of Rs. 5,63,000/- for executing sale deed at Rs. 1,12,60,000/-. The photocopy of the sale deed, receipt issued by SBI for Rs. 5,63,000/- on 03/01/2011 for purchase of stamp paper alongwith photocopy of challan having thumb impression of Shri Balkar Singh S/o Shri Roor Singh with signature of Naib Tehsildar, Dhanaula was also filed. Shri Jaggar Singh also submitted the copy of sale deed of the agriculture land from where payment was made to Shri Sukhwinder Singh in lieu of purchase of land. The source of payment of Rs. 40,00,000/- made on account of agreement executed with the assesse was also submitted alongwith the relevant documents. 5 The assessee produced one of the witness of the agreement dt. 30/04/20410, Shri Bhola Singh S/o Shri Karnail Singh Village Pharwahi, distt. Barnala on 09/01/2014. His statement was recorded in which he admitted the execution of agreement to sell agricultural land @ Rs. 21 lacs per acre for about 12 acres of land. He also admitted that the advance money of Rs. 40 lacs was paid in cash by Shri jaggar Singh S/o Shri Jang Singh to the assessee in his presence on 30/04/2010. He admitted that he put his thumb impression on the sale agreement. When the AO had shown photocopy of the agreement to sell Shri Bhola Singh stated that he being an illiterate was not able to tell whether this agreement to sell was the same or not. He was also asked to explain whether remaining payment of Rs. 2,12,00,000/- was made in his presence and he was present at the time of registration of the sale deed of the agricultural land in question. In response he stated that he was not available at that place on the day of registration of the sale deed and he was unable to tell how the remaining payment was made to the assessee. 5.5 The AO obtained the information in respect of ownership of property under section 133(6) of the Act from Sub Registrar as well as Sub Registrar, Dhanaula. The AO asked the assessee vide letter dt. 27/01/2014 to submit requisite information which read as under: “ In continuation of assessment proceedings and questionnaire dated 04-02-2013 and 24-12-2013, to facilitate the completion of scrutiny assessment pending in your case for the assessment year 2011-12, you are further requested, to produce the information/ documents mentioned below:- 1- Your statement was recorded on oath on 02-01-2014 in which you stated that you had sold agriculture land @ 21 lac per acre measuring about 12 acres to Sh. Jaggar Smgh S/o'$h. Jang Singh S/o Sh. Mastan Singh R/o Bamala by executing agreement to sell agriculture land situated at Vill. Manna Pindi Dhanaula dated 30-04-2010 and sale deed was registered with Tehsildar, Dhanaula on 03-01-2014. The amount qf Rs. 40,00,000/- was received in cash as advance on 30-04-2010 and remaining amount was received in cash on 03-01-2011 i.e. date of registration of sale deed before Tehsildar, Dhanaula. Out of these sale proceeds, you have stated that the cash of Rs. 2,05,50,000/- was deposited on 04-01-2011 in SBOP, Patron in saving account No. 65103525780 out of sale proceeds of agriculture land on 03-01-2011. You have also stated that Rs. 34,00,000/- and Rs. 4,00,000/- was deposited in SBI, Dhanaula on 30-04-2010 out of advance payment received Rs. 40,00,000/-from execution of agreement to sell agriculture land situated at Vill.Manna Pindi. 2- Sh. Jaggar Singh S/o Sh. Jang Singh S/o Sh. Mastan Singh R/o Barnala (purchaser of land) was called by issuing notice dated 03-01-2014 u/s 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Sh. Jaggar Singh purchaser of land appeared before undersigned on 08-01-2014. His statement on oath was recorded in which he has denied of payment of Rs. 2,52,00,000/- in lieu of purchase of agriculture land situated at Vill. Manna Pindi on 03-01-2011 to you and your family members. He has admitted that he has paid Rs. 40,00,000/- in cash on 30-04- 2010 and Rs. 72,60,000/- on 03-01-2011. Hence, total payment has been made only Rs. 1,12,60,000/- instead of Rs. 2,52,00,000/- consequent upon title deed dated 03-01-2011. A copy of statement is enclosed herewith for necessary action at your end. The land in 6 question has been purchased by Sh. Jaggar Singh alongwith his family members Sh. Jasbir Singh, Sh. Jagroop Singh S/o Sh. Jaggar Singh and Sh. Mahinder Singh S/o Sh. Jang Singh R/o Barnala. Hence, the source of investment explained by you with regard to cash deposited on 04-01-2011 in SBOP, Patron at Rs. 2,05,50,000/- cannot be accepted for the following reasons:- i) The purchaser of land Sh. Jaggar Singh has admitted in his statement payment of cash Rs. 72,60,000/- only on 03-01-2011 instead of Rs.2,05,50,000/-. ii) One of the witness of the agreement to sell agriculture land dated 30-04- 2010, Sh. Bhola Singh S/o Sh. Karnail Singh R/o Vill. Pharwahi has admitted in his statement dated 09- 01-2014 that the payment ofRs. 40,00,000/- was made in his presence and denied to admit remaining payment in his presence. He was also cross examined by you. iii) Sh. Bhola Singh could not identify the copy of sale agreement dated 30-04-2010 bearing his thumb impression when it was shown to him in your presence. iv) The copy of agreement submitted *o the undersigned is not registered document with the S*ate Revenue Authority. v) The original agreement dated 30-04-2010 has not been produced during assessment proceedings and denied of having possession of original document. vi) The photocopy of the agreement dated 30-04-2010 submitted in this office do not bear name & address of the stamp vendor, serial no. of the register of issuing authority etc. vii) The photocopy of unregistered agreement dated 30-04-2010 which do not bear name & address of the issuing authonty has no value in the eye of law. viii) The sale deed dated 03-01-2011 is registered before State Revenue Authority which becomes final and copy of agreement dated 30-04-2010 cannot be relied upon. 3. Keeping in view above mentioned facts, you have failed to explain the source of cash deposited into bank account at Rs. 2,05,50,000/- on 04-01-2011. You have explained the source of cash deposited into bank at Rs. 72,60,000/- instead of Rs. 2,05,50,000/-. Hence, the difference of Rs. 1,32,90,000/- (2,05,50,000 - 72,60,000) has been deposited into bank account from the sources not disclosed to the department. Hence, you have concealedthe income and furnished inaccurate particulars of your income. 4. Further, you have failed to explain source of cash deposited in the bank account at Rs. 11,50,000/- on 12-01-2011, Rs. 1,00,000/- on 13-01-2011 and Rs. 10,00,000/- on 03-02- 2011. Hence, the total cash has been deposited at Rs. 22,50,000/- from 12-01-2011 to 03-02- 2011 in the bank account. The source of cash deposit in the bank account has not been explained with documentary evidence. 5. Hence, an addition of Rs. 1,55,40,000/- (Rs. 1,32,90,000/- + Rs. 22,50,000/-) for the A.Y. 2011-12 is proposed to be made u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of explained investment by treating it concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of the income. 6. In the interest of natural justice once again an opportunity of being heard is afforded to you to submit your reply/explanation alongwith documentary evidence on the fixed dole failing which the case will be decided on merits. Please note that this is time barring assessment, no further adjournment/opportunity will be granted." 5.6 The AO also issued notice under section 131 of the Act to the remaining co- owners of the agricultural land and their statements were recorded on oath on 7 18/02/2014 which had been reproduced at page no. 12 to 16 of the assessment order, for the cost of repetition the same is not reproduced herein. 5.7 The AO observed that the father of the assessee Shri Balkar Singh and his brother Shri Jaswinder Singh admitted that the land in question was owned by all the three persons and the sale proceeds were deposited in the bank account of Shri Sukhwinder singh and that out of the sale proceeds, the land was purchased in the name of Smt. Charanjit Kaur who is mother of the assessee. The AO also recorded the statement of Smt. Charanjit Kaur W/o Shri Balkar Singh which had been reproduced in para 3.12 at page no. 18 to 21 of the assessment orders for the cost of repetition the same is not reproduced herein. 5.8 The AO observed that Smt. Charanjit kaur admitted in her statement that the registration of title deed on 09/02/2011 with Tehsildar Patran was for Rs. 74,73,000/- but she had no source of income and amount in lieu of purchase of land at village Dutal had been paid by Shri Sukhwinder Singh who obtained the same on account of sale of land on 03/01/2011 at village Manna Pindi by her husband Shri Balkar Singh and two sons Shri Jaswinder Singh and Shri Sukhwinder Singh(the assessee) and that the property was purchased in her name only to save stamp duty which was at low rates for females. 5.9 The AO observed that pay-in-slips, withdrawal slips were obtained from SBOP which revealed that the cash was deposited by the assessee himself and the withdrawal had also been made by him. The AO also recorded the statement of the assessee on 19/03/2014 which had been reproduced in para 3.14 at page no. 21 to 24 of the assessment order, for the cost of repetition the same is not reproduced herein. 5.10 The AO specifically asked the assessee to explain source of cash deposited, means of transport used for carriage of cash from Dhanaula to Patran etc. The AO did not accept the explanation of the assessee in respect of cash deposited in the bank account for the following reasons: i) The purchaser of land Sh. Jaggar Singh has admitted in his statement payment of cash Rs. 72,60,000/- only on 03-01-2011 instead of Rs.2,05,50,000/-. ii) One of the witness of the agreement to sell agriculture land dated 30-04- 2010, Sh. Bhola Singh S/o Sh. Karnail Singh R/o Vill. Pharwahi has admitted in his 8 statement dated 09-01-2014 that the payment of Rs.40,00,000/- was made in his presence and denied of any payment in his presence. He was also cross examined by the assessee. iii) Sh. Bhola Singh (witness of agreement to sell) could not identify the copy of agreement dated 30-04-2010 bearing his thumb impression when it was shown to him in the presence of assessee. iv) The copy of agreement submitted to the undersigned is not registered document with the State Revenue Authority or statutory body. v) The original agreement dated 30-04-2010 was not produced during entire assessment proceedings and he denied of having possession of original document. vi) The photocopy of the agreement dated 30-04-2010 submitted in this office do not bear name & address of the stamp vendor, serial no. of the register of issuing authority etc. From where genuineness of the document , may be verified. vii) The photocopy of unregistered agreement dated 30-04-2010 which do not bear name & address of the issuing authority has no value in the eye of law. viii) The sale deed dated 03-01-2011 is registered before State Revenue Authority which becomes final and copy of agreement dated 30-04-2010 cannot be relied upon in the absence of any legal documentary evidence. ix) As per statement of the assessee dated 19-03-2014, he has admitted that cash was carried out by himself through Car of a relative from Dhanaula to Patran and deposited himself in SBOP, Patran which is also evident from the signatures on pay-in-slips. Photocopy of pay-in-slips obtained from the bank have been placed on record. He could not submit any documentary evidence to prove the source of excess cash deposited in the bank account. x) He also could not submit any documentary evidence of investment from the withdrawals made by him at Rs. 1,76,00,000/- on 09/02/2011, Rs. 4,00,000/- on 04/02/2011, Rs. 15,00,000/- on 23/02/2011 and Rs. 17,50,000/- on 28/02/2011 except land purchase at Rs. 74,73,000/- and stamp duty paid at Rs. 2,24,200/- in the name of his mother Smt. Charanjit kaur on 09/02/2011. He simply stated that remaining amount was used for personal purpose and it is still has been kept with them which shows that he is having cash about Rs. One crore with him even after lapse of three years which is not believable. He must have invested some where but not disclosed to the department. xi) As per return of income filed by the assessee, has shown income from business of running of workshop and it shows that it is indulged in some business activities. Even, he could not justify the cash withdrawn from bank about Rs. One crore in February, 2011 which shows that he might have been indulged in real estate business or other business activities which have not been declared to the department. 5.11 The AO observed that the assessee could explain the source of cash deposited into bank only for Rs. 72,60,000/- instead of Rs. 2,05,50,000/-. He therefore held that the difference of Rs. 1,32,90,000/-(Rs. 2,05,50,000/- minus Rs. 72,60,000/-) had been deposited into bank account from the sources not disclosed to the department. The AO further observed that the assessee failed to explain cash deposited in the bank account at Rs. 11,50,000/- on 12/01/2011, Rs. 1,00,000/- on 13/01/2011 and Rs. 10,00,000/- on 03/02/2011 totaling to Rs. 22,50,000/- in the bank account. He therefore 9 held that the assessee had deposited cash in bank account to the tune of Rs. 1,55,40,000/- (Rs. 1,32,90,000/- + Rs. 22,50,000/-) from the sources not disclosed to the department. Accordingly the same was added under section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: • Manoj Aggarwal Vs. DCIT 113 ITD 377 (ITAT, SB-Del) • CIT Vs. Chinnathamban 292 ITR 682 (SC) • Parkash Tiwari Vs. CIT 148 ITR 474 (MP) • Bela Juneja Vs. CIT 339 ITR 144 (Del) 6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted in annotated form as under: 10 11 12 6.1 The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that there was an agreement for sale of rural agricultural land of 12 Acres for an agreed consideration of Rs. 2,52,00,000/- against which an advance of Rs. 40 lakhs was received by the assessee from the buyer to that extent there was a consensus ad idem between the assessee as seller and buyer Shri Jaggar Singh. However, when the sale deed was registered, the sale price depicted in the sale deed appears to have been customarily depressed to correspond with the circle rate for the singular purpose of reducing the liability of stamp duty, which by praxis was borne by the purchaser of the immovable property. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that the sale price as per the registered deed was much less than the agreed price and yet it was accepted by the assessee in as much as stamp papers of the value commensurate with the sale price of Rs. 1,12,60,000/- only was purchased by the assessee’s father as co-owner of the land in question which clearly pointed towards the agreement and connivance between both the parties i.e; the seller and buyer to defraud the rightful dues of the Government in terms of stamp duty or purchase tax and that it was a clear pointer to the fact that payment must have been made of the agreed amount to the assessee by the buyer, without which the assessee would not agreed to the execution of sale deed and could have simply refused to append his signature as transferor, should the purchaser had reneged on the agreed price. The Ld.CIT(A) referred to the decision of ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Shri Mohinder Singh and Shri Malkiat Singh in ITA Nos 665 & 474 and reproduced the extract from the aforesaid order of the Tribunal in para 12 of the impugned order which read as under: 13 As discussed above, the provisions of sections 91, 92 and 115 of the Evidence Act are based on the principles of public policy, morality and ethics. Sections 91 and 92 are based on the "Best Evidence Rule" preventing the admission of inferior evidence when the superior evidence is available so as to prevent the fraud, future controversy, bad faith or treacherous memory. Similarly section 115 of the Evidence Act enshrines in it the principle of "estoppel" which is again based on public policy, equity, justice, morality and faith. Hence the principles laid down in sections 91, 92 & 115 of the Evidence Act, in our view, can be well applied to the case in hand." "18. Even the contention of the seller that it is a general practice to register the sale deeds at a lesser consideration cannot be accepted in the light of recognised principles of law as discussed above and even such a contention being opposed to public policy. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Coimbatore Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd.[1974] 95 TTR 375 has observed that the Tribunal is not expected to take judicial notice of such substandard morality on the part of the assessee so as to enable them to go back on their own sworn statements. In the case in hand, once both the parties to the transaction i.e. the seller and the purchaser made an averment before the public authority that the sale of land between them was settled at a particular consideration, subsequently they are estopped from their act and conduct to plead that the actual consideration was at variance of the earlier representation. The plea on behalf of the seller that he had agreed to get the sale deed registered at a lower rate at the instance of the purchaser is of no help to him. He has been a party to the conspiracy resulting into revenue loss to the State Exchequer. Even, it cannot be said that he had not got any benefit by falsely representing about the sale consideration. If, the purchaser had to pay higher stamp duty, then it accordingly will go on to reduce the sale consideration/amount payable to the seller as the purchaser takes into consideration the total amount which he would have to shell out of his pocket i.e. the sale consideration as well as the stamp duty and other charges." “19. Now, once it is held that the sale consideration is to be taken as per the registered document, what will be the nature of the extra amount received? As discussed above, the same cannot be said to be the amount received towards sale consideration of the land, rather, the same will constitute the extra money paid as consideration for the execution of the registered deed of sale of land and not for the sale of land itself. The same under the circumstances has to be taxed as income from other sources. Such an amount received over and above the sale consideration mentioned in the registered document, partakes the character of taxable gift. Our above view also find support from the following para of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofK.P. Varghese reported in[1981j 7 taxman 13 (SC): "This construction which we are placing on subsection (2) also marches in step with the Gift Tax Act, 1958. If a capital asset is transferred for a consideration below its market value, the difference between the market value and the full value of the consideration received in respect of the transfer would amount to a gift liable to tax under the Gift Tax Act, 1958, but if the construction of sub- section (2) contended for on behalf of the Revenue were accepted, such difference would also be liable to be added as part of capital gains taxable under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This would be an anomalous result which could never have been contemplated by the Legislature, since the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Gift Tax Act, 1958 are parts of an 14 integrated scheme of taxation and the same amount which is chargeable as gift could not be intended to be charged also as capital gains." "20. Though section 52 of the Income Tax Act referred to by the Hon'ble Supreme Court stood omitted and even the Gift Tax Act also stood repealed, but the above proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court can be well applied in the facts and circumstances of this case." "21. So far as the reliance of the learned counsel for the assessee, Sh. Mohinder Singh on the decision dated 26.07.2013 of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT V. Intezar Ali (ITA No. 162 of 2013) is concerned, in that case the seller had taken a like stand that the amount found deposited in his bank account was out of the money provided to him as sale consideration. Apart from that, he not only made a complaint to the registering authority that the sale deed has been registered at a value much below the amount, which he actually received, he deposited the entire amount in the bank and voluntarily filed return. The Tribunal under the circumstances held that the seller had explained the source of deposits which was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court. In the case in hand also, as observed above, the assessee has been able to prove the source of the amount found in his possession. However, the other facts like that the assessee in the instant case as an honest citizen had made a complaint to the registering authority to register the sale deed at actual price and deposited the entire amount in the bank, are missing. In the case in hand, the amount was recovered from the possession of Sh. Mohinder Singh, assessee, by the Police Authorities. The assessee has been a partner in the conspiracy to falsely represent about the sale consideration to the registration authorities and thereby resulting into payment of lesser stamp duty, of which the assessee, as discussed above, has also reaped the consequential benefits. Moreover, the question as to the nature of receipt and its taxability has not been gone into by the Hon 'ble Allahabad High Court. Moreover, with all the due respect, decision of the jurisdictional Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Paramjit Singh (supra) holding the inadmissibility of oral evidence in the presence of registered deed is binding on this Tribunal. Under the circumstances and in the light of the above referred to statutory provisions and case laws, the nature of receipt of the income over and above the registered sale consideration in the hands of the seller Sh. Mohinder Singh is ordered to be assessed as 'income from other sources'. In view of the discussion made above, the amount received by Sh. Mohinder Singh, over and above the sale consideration mentioned in the registered document, is ordered to be assessed as income from other sources. The order of the CU (A), in the case of Sh. Mohinder Singh is hereby set aside. The Appeal of the revenue is accordingly treated as allowed. 6.2 The Ld. CIT(A) by following the aforesaid referred to order observed that even when there was an overwhelming preponderance of probability that the amount represented by cash deposited in the assessee’s bank account were sourced from sale consideration received in cash by the purchaser, the assessee could not be allowed to take advantage of an unregistered documents in the face of the registered sale deed which evidenced the receipt of sale consideration to the extent of only Rs. 1,12,60,000/- instead of Rs. 2,52,00,000/-. 15 He also observed that the assessee had not been able to prove the sources of deposits of cash of Rs. 22,50,000/-, he therefore confirmed the addition made by the AO. 7. Now the assessee is in appeal. 8. Ld. Counsel for the asasessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and further submitted that the assessee alongwith co-owner sold 96 Kanal i.e; 12 Acres of land @ Rs. 21,00,000/- per acre and entered into an agreement with the purchaser. The said agreement was found which had been mentioned in para 3.5 of the assessment order and the purchaser Shri Jaggar Singh admitted the execution of agreement dt. 30/04/2010 but denied of making the payment of Rs. 2,52,00,000/- on account of purchase of agricultural land @ Rs. 21,00,000/- per acre. 8.1 It was further submitted that the purchaser Shri Jaggar Singh admitted in his statement that he had paid Rs. 40,00,000/- in cash on 30/04/2010 and Rs. 72,60,000/- on 03/01/2011 totaling to Rs. 1,12,60,000/- which was in accordance with the agreement to sell. However he denied the payment of Rs. 2,52,00,000/- which was mentioned in the agreement to sell. It was further submitted that the AO recorded the statement of Father as well as the Brother of the assessee. The statements of the co-owners were recorded by the AO on oath on 18/02/2014 and the same had been incorporated in assessment order. In his statement the Father of the assessee namely Shr Balkar Singh admitted that the sale consideration of land was Rs. 2,52,00,000/- instead of Rs. 1,12,60,000/- as per agreement dt. 30/04/2010, reference was made to page no. 13 of the assessment order wherein Shri Balkar Singh in response to Question no. 7 stated the aforesaid version. The similar statement of Shri Jaswinder Singh brother of the assessee was recorded, he also in response to the Question no. 7 stated that the actual sale consideration of total land was Rs. 2,52,00,000/- instead of Rs. 1,12,60,000/-, as per agreement dt. 30/04/2010. 8.2 It was submitted that the cash of Rs. 2,05,50,000/- was deposited out of sale proceed of agricultural land in the saving bank account maintained with State Bank of Patiala. It was stated that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition when in the agreement to sell, the rate of the land was clearly mentioned and the purchaser insisted to get the registration done on circle rate to save the stamp duty. It was contended that the assessee sold the agricultural land measuring 12 acres @ Rs. 16 21,00,000/- per acre for a consideration of Rs. 2,52,00,000/- out of which advance of Rs. 40,00,000/- was received on the day of agreement and the balance amount was received on the day of registration of the sale deed i.e; 03/01/2011 and the amount was deposited in the bank out of the proceeds received from the sale of land. It was also submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition on relying the decision of the ITAT in the case of Shri Mohinder singh but the facts of the said case are different from the facts of the assesee’s case because in the said case no agreement to sell was found, the amount was recovered by the police and the deposit was made after 90 days while in the case of the assessee the amount was deposited on the next day of receipt and there was also an agreement to sell, therefore the decision relied by the Ld. CIT(A) is distinguishable on facts. 8.3 It was accordingly submitted that the assessee was having the source for making the deposit in the bank account, therefore, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified. The reliance was placed on the following case laws : • ACIT Vs. Shri Mohinder Singh in ITA Nos. 665 & 666/Chandi/2016 vide order dt. 16/01/2018 • Shashi Kiran Vs. CIT [2010] 195 Taxman 332 (P&H) • Shri Mangat Singh Vs. The ITO in ITA No. 246/Chd/2018 vide order dt. 15/01/2019 • Smt. Joginder Kaur and Ors S. Amritk Singh in RSA No. 2061 of 2007 (P&H) • Javvadi Koteshwara Rao Vs. Sonti Sambasiva Rao 2004 (1) ALD 629, 2004 (4) ALT 614 • CIT Vs. Medical Trust Hospital 220 CTR 199 (Kerla) • Ram Kishan and another vs. Bijender Mann alias Vijender Mann and others RSA No. 4946 of 2011 • M/s Om Plantation Vs. ITO in ITA No. 1047/JP/2017 vide order dt. 09/10/2018 (Jaipur Trib) 9. In his rival submissions the Ld. DR reiterated the observations made by the authorities below in their respective orders and strongly supported the orders passed by them. It was further submitted that the purchaser Shri Jaggar Singh categorically stated that only amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- was given at the time of agreement to sell and the remaining amount of Rs. 72,60,000/- was paid at the time of registration. It was also submitted that the assessee did not produce original copy of the agreement either before the AO or the Ld. CIT(A) and there was nothing in possession of the assessee to 17 substantiate that the sale consideration was at Rs. 2,52,00,000/- and not Rs.1,12,60,000/-. The Ld. DR reiterated the observations made by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 13 of the impugned order. 10. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case it is not in dispute that the assessee sold agricultural land admeasuring 12 Acres and as per the agreement to sell dt. 30/04/2010 the land was sold @ Rs. 21,00,000/- per acre in other words total sale consideration was at Rs. 2,52,00,000/- for 12 Acres land @ Rs. 21,00,000/- per acre. However the registration of sale deed was done at Rs. 1,12,60,000/- out of which Rs. 40,00,000/- was paid on 30/04/2010 i.e; at the time of entering into agreement to sell. The payment of the said amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- was not disputed either by the AO or by the purchaser of the land. The only dispute related to the total consideration which according to the sellers i.e; the assessee his brother and father was Rs. 2,52,00,000/- where as the purchaser Shri Jaggar Singh claimed that the total consideration for the land was only Rs. 1,12,60,000/- and stamp duty of Rs. 5,63,000/- was paid for the said amount and that the stamp papers were purchased by the assessee’s father being the co-owner of the agricultural land. In the instant case the AO as well as the purchaser admitted that the advance of Rs. 40,00,000/- was paid as mentioned in the agreement to sell but did not agree to the payment of the total amount mentioned as a sale consideration of Rs. 2,52,00,000/- . In our opinion when the AO accepted that the amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- was paid to the seller, the purchaser also accepted that he had paid the sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- as an advance money for purchase of the agricultural land measuring 12 acres as mentioned in the agreement to sell dt. 30/04/2010, the cost of the said land as per the agreement to sell was @ Rs. 21,00,000/- per acre which is evident from page no. 1 of the assessee’s compilation which is the copy of Ikrarnama i.e; agreement to sell. In the said agreement at page no. 2, it is mentioned that advance of Rs. 40,00,000/- was paid. In our opinion when the AO accepted the contents of the sale agreement wherein payment of Rs. 40,00,000/- as an advance money was mentioned there was no occasion to doubt the other amount mentioned as sale consideration at Rs. 2,52,00,000/- i.e; Rs. 21,00,000/- per acre. As the assessee sold 12 acres of land, he received the total amount of Rs. 2,52,00,000/- out of which the cash amounting to Rs. 2,05,50,000/- was deposited on 04/01/2011 as the assessee had already received Rs. 40,00,000/- on 30/04/2010 at the time of entering into 18 agreement to sell, the amount left was Rs. 2,12,00,000/- so there was no reason to doubt the deposit of Rs. 2,05,50,000/- out of the said amount of Rs. 2,12,00,000/- but the AO considered only Rs. 72,60,000/- [Rs. 1,12,60,000/- sale consideration (-) Rs. 40,00,000/- received as advance] and remaining amount of Rs. 1,32,90,000/- [ Rs. 2,05,50,000/- (-) Rs. 72,60,000/-] was added to the income of the assessee. In our opinion when the assessee received the amount of Rs. 2,12,00,000/- [ Rs. 2,52,00,0000/- (-) Rs. 40,00,000/-] on account of sale consideration as mentioned in the sale of agreement dated 30/04/2010. The said agreement was accepted by the AO as well as the purchaser so far as the advance money of Rs. 40,00,000/- mentioned in that agreement to sale bearing the signatures of the purchasers, sellers and the witnesses was concerned, then the addition made by the AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified by ignoring the remaining amount mentioned in the said agreement i.e; Rs. 2,12,00,000/- ( Rs. 2,52,00,000/- (-) Rs. 40,00,000/-) 10.1 On a similar issue their Lordship of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT, Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Medical Trust Hospital [2008] 173 Taxman 384 (Kerala) held as under: 2. We have heard senior standing counsel Sri. P.K.R. Menon appearing for the appellant, and senior counsel Sri. N. Sukumaran, appearing for the respondent-assessee. While departmental counsel contended that CIT (Appeals) and tribunal have committed serious error in relying on the statement in the cross-examination by Sri. Satyabalan, counsel appearing for the assessee submitted tha/t statement given by Sri. Satyabalan before the department in the course of search under Section 132(4) cannot be relied upon against the respondent- assessee. Besides hearing counsel on both sides, we have also gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We are unable to uphold the order of the Tribunal for the reason that it is just based on a retracted statement given by the purchaser, namely, Sri. Satyabalan in cross-examination. It is the admitted position that besides giving statement under Section 132(4) before the Inspecting Officers, the purchaser, namely, Sri. Satyabalan, returned Rs. 41 lakhs being the differential price which according to him was paid to the respondent- assessee for purchase of land and building over the value declared in the sale document and paid tax thereon. Unfortunately the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal failed to take note of this very important aspect, that is, returning of Rs. 41 lakhs and payment of tax thereon by the purchaser consistent with the statement given by him to the department under Section 132(4) of the Act. We do not think the subsequent statement given by the purchaser, namely, Satyabalan in cross- examination, contrary to his earlier statement to the department under Section 132(4) and follow up action by him, can save the respondent-assessee. In fact, the statement given under Section 132 (4) stands reconfirmed when the declarant offers very same income and pays tax thereon. In fact the incidence of tax on the undisclosed sale consideration is much higher on the purchaser than on the respondent- assessee because respondent is called upon to pay tax only on capital gains whereas the purchaser pays tax at normal rates. When the purchaser acts upon his statement given under Section 132(4) in the course of search, his going back from his earlier statement in cross- examination in the assessment proceedings against the respondent cannot be taken on it's face value. We are of the view that the assessing officer rightly rejected the evidence of the purchaser given in cross-examination only as last effort to save the respondent-assessee. In fact, 19 purchaser's statement given under Section 132(4) is not only supported and strengthened by subsequent offer and payment of tax on the additional income, but is also proved by the valuation report obtained by the department from the approved valuer who has valued the property at above Rs. 1.68 crores. Besides this, the purchaser himself got the property valued after purchase for availing bank loan wherein the valuation of the property is at Rs. 71 lakhs, which is the actual sale price at which the property was purchased by the purchaser, according to the statement given by him in the course of search under Section 132 (4) of the Act. Even though senior counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee relied on a valuation report modified by the CIT (Appeals) in the Wealth Tax assessment, wherein the valuation shown is only Rs. 20 lakhs, we are unable to accept this as correct valuation report because it is not contemporaneous with the sale and the valuation took place four years prior to the same. Moreover in the valuation report obtained by the department later, the valuer has stated about five storied building with a lift constructed by the respondent during 1989. We are of the view that the first statement given by the purchaser under Section 132(4) in the course of search gets strengthened and stands proved by the subsequent conduct in declaring additional income for assessment and in paying tax thereon. Even though senior counsel for the respondent- assessee argued that the amount declared by the purchaser may represent either investment or expenditure, we find from the records that he has clearly stated that Rs. 41 lakhs offered by him is additional consideration paid by him for the property purchased from respondent-assessee over the value shown in the sale deed. It is a notorious fact that on account of high stamp duty prevalent in the State undervaluation is a normal course adopted by the parties to avoid stamp duty and huge expenditure on transfer of property. We are of the view that the Tribunal and the first appellate authority went wrong in just relying on the statement in cross- examination and in accepting the case of the respondent that the hospital building and large extent of over 1 acre of land was sold for the price declared in the document. We therefore reverse the order of the Tribunal and that of the first appellate authority on this issue and hold that capital gains has to be computed on the sale price at Rs. 71 lakhs. However, since the other issues, namely, base- year market value of the land for determining long term capital gains and the contest against quantum assessment, were not gone into by the first appellate authority, we set aside the order of the Tribunal and that of the first appellate authority and remand the matter to Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) for rehearing and for decision afresh on other issues in the appeal. We make it clear that the assessee will be entitled to apply for waiver of interest under Sections 234B, 234C, etc. 10.2 Similarly the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT Jaipur Benches, Jaipur in the case of M/s Om Plantation Vs. ITO, Jaipu in ITA No. 1047/JP/2017 held at page no. 8 to 11 as under: 6. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. The assessee purchased the land situated at Bhankrota, Jaipur vide two sale deeds both dated 11/8/2005 for a total consideration mentioned in the sale deeds at Rs. 1,76,34,000/-. However, the Assessing Officer received the report of the DDIT(Inv) alongwith the details of the cash deposits in the bank accounts of the sellers and their relatives and further an agreement to sell dated 11/5/2005 wherein the consideration @ Rs. 28,25,000/- per bigha was agreed upon between the parties and part consideration was stated to have been paid at the time of agreement in cash as well as in cheque. The Assessing Officer has computed the total purchase consideration by adopting the rate of Rs. 28,25,000/- per bigha as stated in the agreement to sell dated 11/5/2005. Though the said agreement is not signed by both the parties and it was signed only by the seller, however, we find that the details given in the agreement regarding the agricultural lands, its khasaras numbers as well as the part consideration of Rs. 15,50,000/- through a cheque No. 582863/- dated 10/6/2005 is not in dispute. The details of the said cheque also find place in the registered sale deed dated 11/8/2005. Thus, the contents of the agreement to the extent of part payment of consideration has been established by the sale deed dated 11/8/2005. Therefore, even if the said agreement is not enforceable in law due to the non-bearing of the signature of the assessee and further due to non-registration, the contents of the said 20 agreement which has been proved and corroborated by the sale deed go to establish the existence of the agreement between the parties. Further the details of the cash deposited in the bank account of the sellers and their relatives has been reproduced by the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings at page No. 4 and 5 of the assessment order as under: The dates of deposit of cash as well as cheques in the bank accounts of the sellers, their sons, grandsons and wife are clearly matching to the dates of agreement to sell and sale deed i.e. 11/5/2005 and 11/8/2005. All the deposits of cash in the bank accounts of these persons were made on the very next day of execution of agreement and sale deed respectively. In absence of any other source of income of the sellers, the only inference which can be drawn from the details of the bank accounts and particularly the deposits made on the particular dates which is just one day after the execution of the agreement to sell and sale deeds that the cash deposits in the bank accounts of the sellers and their relatives is only from the sale consideration received against the sale of agricultural lands in question. There is no other transaction either on those dates or in around those dates of deposits in the bank accounts other than the present transaction of sale of lands by the sellers. Further the Assessing Officer has reproduced the statements of the branch manager wherein the amounts were deposited as well as the relatives of the sellers who have confirmed the receipt of cash and deposit of the same in the bank account. Thus, we find that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer is not solely based on the statements recorded by the Investigation Wing but there was tangible material in the shape of the bank accounts statements, agreement to sell and sale deeds which are of course not in dispute. The only dispute raised by the assessee is regarding the photo copy of the agreement and its evidentiary value, however, it is not the issue of legal enforceability of the said agreement and the claim under the agreement but the contents 21 of the agreement which are to the extent corroborated by the independent evidence being sale deeds and further the bank statements of the sellers cannot be denied on the technical ground of admissibility. Therefore, once the payment of cash is reflected from all these documents as well as statements of the parties then the technical objection raised by the assessee will not help the case of the assessee. 10.3 While confirming the view of the Ld. CIT(A) it has further been held in para 6.2 of the order dt. 09/10/2018 by the ITAT Jaipur Bench in the aforesaid referred to case is as under: 6.2 The addition made by the Assessing Officer in the hand of seller U/s 68 instead of capital gain would not affect the merits of the addition made in the hand of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has considered the objections raised by the assessee on this issue in para 4.3 as under: “4.3 I have gone through the assessment order, statement of facts, grounds of appeal, written submission, remand report and rejoinder carefully. It is seen that the AO has made the addition in respect of the unaccounted cash of Rs. Rs. 2,23,10,000/- paid by the appellant towards purchase of land situated at Bhankrota, Jaipur. The cash paid by the appellant over and above the sales consideration recorded in the sale deed was deposited by the sellers in their bank account. The bank manager in his statement recorded by the DDIT, Jaipur has confirmed that it was explained by the depositors that the cash being deposited by them was received by them on sale of the land (Page No. 2 & 3 of the assessment order). The statements of the sellers of property were also recorded u/s 131 and they also confirmed that the cash deposited by them in the bank accounts was received by them from M/s Om Plantation on sale of their land to M/s Om Plantation (Page No. 5 to 9 of the assessment order). The ITO, Ward - 7(2) was in possession of the copy of agreement to sale made by the assessee with the seller Shri Bhagwat Meena on 11.05.2005. In the agreement, there is mention of cash payment as well as payment by cheque. The payments by cheque recorded in the agreement is also found recorded in the bank statement of the seller. Thus, the genuineness of the agreement cannot be doubted. During the course of appellate proceedings, the AO was directed to allow the appellant, the opportunity to cross examine the sellers. The AO in the remand report dated 19.09.2017 has mentioned that the appellant instead of cross examining the sellers took adjournment on one pretext or another and it chose not to cross examine any of the seller. Hence, in view of the facts discussed by the AO in the assessment order, specifically at para 5.4 and 5.5 (page no. 13 to 16) of the assessment order, I am of the considered view that the appellant did make payment of Rs. 2,23,10,000/- in cash over and above the sales consideration recorded in the sales deeds, source of which remained unexplained. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 2,23,10,000/- made by the AO u/s 69 is hereby confirmed.” Having analysed the entire facts, the relevant record including the evidence brought on record by the Assessing Officer, we do not find any error or illegality in the orders of the authorities below, hence uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) qua this issue. 10.4 In the present case also the assessee i.e; the seller as well as the purchaser acted in accordance with the contents mentioned in the agreement to sell dt. 30/04/2010 and the assessee received the amount on behalf of the co-owners and himself, out of the said amount, cash was deposited in the bank on the next day of getting the sale deed registered. The contents mentioned in the agreement to sell i.e; the payment of advance money of Rs. 40,00,000/- for sale of 12 Acres agricultural land, were accepted by the seller as well as the AO as genuine then there was no reason to doubt the genuineness of other part of the agreement to sell i.e; the 12 Acres of land was sold @ 21,00,000/- per Acre for a 22 sum of Rs. 2,52,00,000/- which was sufficient to explain the deposit of Rs. 2,05,50,000/- on 04/01/2011 i.e; the next day of registration of sale deed. We therefore considering the totality of the facts as discussed hereinabove deem it appropriate to delete the impugned addition of Rs. 1,32,90,000/- made by the AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). 11. The next issue vide Ground No. 2 relates to the sustenance of addition of Rs. 22,50,000/- made by the AO on account of cash deposited in bank account. 12. The facts related to this issue in brief are that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee had deposited Rs. 11,50,000/- on 12/01/2011, Rs. 1,00,000/- on 13/01/2011 and Rs. 10,00,000/- on 03/02/2011, hence total cash deposited in the bank account was Rs. 22,50,000/-. He further observed that the assessee could not explain the source of cash deposited in the bank account with documentary evidences, accordingly the said amount was added to the income of the assessee. 13. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) who sustained the addition made by the AO. 14. Now the assessee is in appeal. 15. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and drew our attention towards page no. 79 of the assessee’s paper book which is the copy of the cash flow statement and claimed that it was furnished before the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the amount in question was deposited out of the cash withdrawal which was available with the assessee as per the cash flow statement however neither the AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) appreciated the facts under consideration in right perspective and neither the AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) commented upon the cash flow statement furnished by the assessee. He requested to restore this issue back to the file of the AO to be adjudicated afresh after considering the cash flow statement of the assessee. 23 16. In his rival submissions the Ld. DR strongly supported the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and reiterated the observations made by the AO in para 3.17 of the assessment order. 17. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case it appears that the cash flow statement claimed to be furnished by the assessee was not considered either by the AO or by the Ld. CIT(A) as there was no discussion either in assessment order or in the impugned order about the cash flow statement furnished by the assessee. We, therefore by considering the totality of the facts as discussed hereinabove, deem it appropriate to remand this limited issue relating to the deposit of Rs. 22,50,000/- to the file of the AO to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the asessee. 18. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 05/08/2022 ) Sd/- Sd/- स ु धांश ु ीवा&तव एन.के .सैनी, (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) ( N.K. SAINI) या(यक सद&य/ JUDICIAL MEMBER उपा य! / VICE PRESIDENT AG Date: 05/08/2022 आदेश क! त,ल-प अ.े-षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent 3. आयकर आय ु /त/ CIT 4. आयकर आय ु /त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. -वभागीय त न4ध, आयकर अपील&य आ4धकरण, च7डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड फाईल/ Guard File