ITO, New Delhi V. Sh. Ankur Sachdeva, New Delhi

ITA 953/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9947 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-08-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 04-08-2009
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 16-03-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ISHTIAQ AHMAD
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Valuation report
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI AND SHRI K.D. RANJAN ITA NO.953/D/09 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1999-2000 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, VS. SHRI ANKUR SACHDEVA, WARD 14(4), 305, TAGORE PARK, MODEL NEW DELHI TOWN, NEW DELHI ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : ISHTIAQ AHMAD, SR. DR O R D E R PER C.L. SETHI, JM: THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28 .11.2008 PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE MATTER OF AN ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 143(3)/148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ( THE ACT ) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000. 2. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AS UNDE R:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND THE FACTS OF TH E CASE IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS.26,00,309/- ON ACCOUNT OF U NEXPLAINED CASH PAID TO THE SELLER OF LAND. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR. NONE FOR THE ASSE SSEE WAS PRESENT. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999- 2000 ON 30.03.2001 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.2,4 4,931/-. ON THE BASIS OF ITA NO.953/D/09 2 SPECIFIC INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM ADIT (INV.), FAR IDABAD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 TO THE ASSESSEE, AND AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ASSESSMENT BY MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.26,86,383/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH PA ID TO THE SELLER OF THE LAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT AS A R ESULT OF THE INVESTIGATION CARRIED OUT BY ADIT(INV.), FARIDABAD IT WAS REVEALE D THAT UNACCOUNTED CONSIDERATION IN CASH WAS RECEIVED OVER AND ABOVE T HE CONSIDERATION MENTIONED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED, BY THE SELLE R SHRI KEHAR SINGH S/O SHRI JUGLAL. ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER STATED THAT SHRI SUNER PAL, SHRI ANAND SINGH, SHRI JAGBIR SINGH AND SHRI BALWAN SINGH DAHI YA ALL SS/O LATE SHRI KEHAR SINGH, DEPOSITED SOME MONEY IN THEIR RESPECTI VE BANK ACCOUNT AND THE ACCOUNT OF THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS, AND THEY ADMITTED THAT THE MONEY WAS DEPOSITED OUT OF THE CASH RECEIVED AGAINST SALE OF LAND SOLD BY HIS FATHER. ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, HAD TAKEN A VIEW THAT THE PURCHASER HAD PAID CASH MONEY OVER AND ABOVE THE CONSIDERATION MENTION ED IN THE SALE DEED. ASSESSEES REPLY WAS AS UNDER: I HAD PURCHASED ON AGRICULTURE LAND MEASURING 17.1 1 KANAL AT VILLAGE BADKHALSA, DISTT. SONIPAT AT HARYANA OF RS.6,27,005/- AND NOT RS.30,00,000/- AS MENTIONED BY YOU IN THE C OPY OF REASON ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE I.T. ACT, TH EREFORE, THERE IS NO POINT OF ADDITION OF RS.19,03,120/- IN THE VA LUE OF LAND PURCHASED AT SONIPAT. ITA NO.953/D/09 3 3.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE ASSE SSEES EXPLANATION. ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT SELLER SHRI KEHAR SIN GH HAD EXPIRED ON 11.01.2004 AND THUS SUMMONS WERE ISSUED TO HIS SONS , AND STATEMENT OF HIS SON SHRI SUNDER PAL WAS RECORDED BY INVESTIGATION W ING WHERE SHRI SUNDER PAL STATED THAT HIS FATHER HAD FINALIZED THE DEED H IMSELF AND HE DID NOT INFORM TO THEM, THAT HE SOLD THE LAND. HOWEVER, HIS SON H AD GIVEN THE DETAILS OF THE CASE DEPOSITED IN THE NAMES OF HIMSELF AND HIS OTHE R FAMILY MEMBERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF STATE MENT OF SHRI SUNDER PAL, THE ELDEST SON OF THE SELLER, LATE SHRI KEHAR SINGH , HAS TAKEN A VIEW THAT THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION MONEY PAID BY VARIOUS PURCHASER S INCLUDING THE PRESENT ASSESSEE WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,69,02,000/-, A PRO PORTIONATE OF WHICH FALLING IN THE ASSESSEES SHARE WAS RS.32,34,823/-, WHICH H AS BEEN WORKED OUT IN PROPORTION TO THE AREA OF LAND PURCHASED BY THE ASS ESSEE. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RS.32,34,823/- AND RS.5,48,440/- (SHOWN IN THE SALE DEED) WAS THUS TREATED TO BE THE CASH PAID BY THE ASSESSEE OVER AN D ABOVE THE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS.26,86,383/- AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE SELLER TOWARDS PURCHASE OF LAND. 4. ON AN APPEAL, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY TAKING THE VALUE OF THE LAND PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.5,74,514/- BEING THE VALUE ADOPTED ITA NO.953/D/09 4 BY THE VALUATION OFFICER. THE CIT(A), THEREFORE, D IRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE ADDITION ONLY OF RS.86,074/- BEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VALUE OF THE LAND AND THE VALUE SHOWN BY THE ASSESS EE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR. NONE FOR THE ASSE SSEE WAS PRESENT. 6. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT LATE SHRI KEHAR SINGH SOLD CERTAIN PROPERTY JOINTLY TO (1) SMT. ASHIMA ARORA, (2) SHRI ASHISH K ISHORE (3) MRS. ALKA SOHNI (4) MRS. ANNU SABHARWAL & (5) THE PRESENT ASS ESSEE, SHRI ANKKUR SACHDEVA. THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IN THE CASE OF CO-PU RCHASER, NAMELY, SHRI ASHIMA ARORA HAD COME FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE ITAT , DELHI BENCH A NEW DELHI (TO WHICH ONE OF US) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) WA S A PARTY WHERE THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 15.05.2009 IN ITA NO.3840 /D/2007 HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE BY HOLDING AND OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 9. IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D PURCHASED THE LAND IN QUESTION FROM ONE SHRI KEHAR SINGH VIDE SALE DEED DATED 27.01.1999. THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION SHO WN IN THE SALE DEED IS AMOUNTING TO RS. 5,62,500/- WHICH WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF ADVANCE OF RS. 40,000/- DURING T HE PERIOD FROM JANUARY, 1997 TO 31.03.1998 AND THE BALANCE OF RS. 5,22,500/- BY BANK DRAFT DATED 03.11.1998 AS SO MEN TIONED IN THE SALE DEED ITSELF. THE A.O. HAS RELIED UPON THE STATEMENT OF SHRI SURENDER PAL SINGH STATED TO BE THE SON OF SEL LER I.E. LATE SHRI KEHAR SINGH. SOME AMOUNTS WERE FOUND DEPOSITE D IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI SURENDER PAL SINGH AND SOME OT HER FAMILY MEMBERS. SHRI SURENDER PAL SINGH GAVE A STATEMENT TO THE INVESTIGATION WING THAT THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK WAS MADE OUT OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF LAND SOLD BY HIS FATHER SHRI KEHAR SINGH. SHRI SURENDER PAL SINGH IN HIS CR OSS ITA NO.953/D/09 5 EXAMINATION IN THE CASE OF ANOTHER CO-PURCHASER SHR I ASHISH KISHORE HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT HE HAD NO DIR ECT KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRANSACTION MADE BETWEEN THE PURCH ASERS AND HIS FATHER. THEREFORE, THE STATEMENT OF SHRI SUREN DER PAL SINGH CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE CONCLUSIVE UNLESS SUPPOR TED BY ANY INDEPENDENT, POSITIVE AND ADEQUATE EVIDENCE. SHRI SURENDER PAL SINGH MIGHT HAVE TAKEN A STAND TO COVER UP ALL THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT BY WAY OF THE AMOUNT RECEI VED FROM HIS FATHER CLAIMING THE SAME TO BE OUT OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE LAND SOLD BY HIS FATHER TO THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER CO- PURCHASERS DURING 1998-99. FURTHER, THE A.O. HAD M ADE A REFERENCE TO THE DVO FOR DETERMINING THE MARKET VAL UE ON THE DATE OF THE PURCHASE, AND THE DVO DETERMINED THE MA RKET VALUE AT RS. 6,04,000/-. THE A.O. HAD REJECTED THE VALUA TION REPORT OF THE EXPERT DVO BY ASSUMPTION THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND WOULD BE HIGHER THAN ESTIMATED BY THE DVO. THE A.O . HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY INDEPENDENT SUPPORTING MATERIAL EXCEPT BY MAKING A GENERAL OBSERVATION THAT THE VALUATION MADE BY TH E DVO WAS NOT CORRECT. THE REFERENCE TO DETERMINE THE MARKET VALUE BY THE DVO WAS MADE BY THE A.O. HIMSELF, AND WE DO NOT FIN D ANY REASON TO IGNORE THE SAME UNLESS IT IS SHOWN BY THE A.O. THAT THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DVO WAS IN COLLUSION WITH T HE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THE LESSER MARKET VALUE THAN ACTUAL MARKET VALUE OF THE PLOT ON THE DATE OF PURCHASE. 10. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS JOINTLY PURCHASED BY FIVE PURCHASERS NAMELY SMT. ASHIMA ARO RA (THE PRESENT ASSESSEE), SHRI ASHISH KISHORE, MS. ALKA SA HANI, SHRI ANKUR SACHDEVA AND MRS. ANNU KISHORE. IT IS INTERE STING TO KNOW THAT THE A.O. OF SHRI ASHISH KISHORE AND SMT. ALKA SAHANI HAS ACCEPTED THE VALUATION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DVO AS WOULD BE EVIDENT FROM THE A.O.S ASSESSMENT ORDE R MADE U/S 147/143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 12.12.2006 AND 17.11.20 06 RESPECTIVELY. A COPY OF THESES ASSESSMENT ORDERS A RE PLACED AT PAGE 9 TO 11 AND 12 TO 13 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, DO FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO IGNORE THE VALUATION REPORT IN ASSESSEES CASE WHEN THE SAME W AS ACCEPTED IN OTHER COOWNERS CASE BY THEIR A.O. ITA NO.953/D/09 6 11. IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSIONS MADE ABOVE, WE DO NO T FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD . CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT U NEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND. THE ORDER OF LD. C IT(A) IS, THUS, UPHELD. 7. IN VIEW OF THE DECISION TAKEN IN THE CO-PURCHASE RS CASE REFERRED TO ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFER E WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND, TO THE EXTENT OF RS.26,00,309/-. THE ORDER O F CIT(A) IS THUS UPHELD. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. 9. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE HEARING WAS OVER ON 04-08-2009. SD/- SD/- ( K.D. RANJAN ) ( C.L. SETHI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 04-08-2009 NS : COPY FORWARDED TO : - 1. ITO, WARD 14(4), NEW DELHI. 2. SHRI ANKUR SACHDEVA, 305, TAGORE PARK, MODEL TOW N, NEW DELHI. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY DY. REGISTRAR, ITA NO.953/D/09 7