Sh. Ranjit Singh, Narwana V. ITO, Jind

ITA 98/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7996 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 17-12-2019
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDRA KANTA
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 43; 131; 69

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, B, CHANDIGARH , ! '# $ % & '# , () BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 98/CHD/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SHRI RANJIT SINGH, AKHE RAM NAGAR, HISSAR ROAD, NEAR GOEL FILLING STATION, NARWANA (JIND) VS. THE ITO, WARD-1, JIND (HARYANA) ./ PAN NO: AUAPR7963B / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ! /ASSESSEE BY : SH. VIBHOR GARG, CA ' ! / REVENUE BY : SMT.CHANDRAKANTA, SR.DR # $ % /DATE OF HEARING : 17.12.2019 &'() % / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.12.2019 (* / ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.12.2015 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS )- HISSAR [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)]. 2. EARLIER THIS APPEAL WAS DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUN AL FOR NON- PROSECUTION VIDE ORDER DATED 27.06.2016, HOWEVER, T HE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS RECALLED VIDE ORDER DATED 4.11.2016 P ASSED BY THE ITA NO. 98-CHD-2019 SHRI RANJIT SINGH, NARWANA (JIND) 2 TRIBUNAL IN M.A. NO. 58/CHD/2016. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS HEARD AFRESH ON MERITS. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. BECAUSE THE ACTION FOR UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 74,95,000/- IS BEING CHALLENGED ON FACTS AND LAW WHILE TREATING THE SAME AS INCOME BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. . 2. BECAUSE THE ORDER IS UNDER CHALLENGE FOR NOT HAVING CONSIDERED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULE IS TRUE & CORRECT HENCE AND ADDITIONALLY NEITHER RECORDING A FINDING ON THE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 4. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL REVEAL S THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ADDITION OF RS. 74,95,000/- MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 69 OF THE ACT. 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD RECEIVED CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 25,00,000/- ON 31.12.2010 AND RS. 49,95,000/- ON 09.02.2011 IN HIS BANK ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE EXPLA INED IT TO BE THE AMOUNT RECEIVED AS ADVANCE / EARNEST MONEY FOR SA LE OF HIS LAND WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK. HE SUBMITTED A COPY OF I KRARNAMA / AGREEMENT DATED 18.12.2010 IN RESPECT OF LAND AGREE D TO BE SOLD BY HIM. ITA NO. 98-CHD-2019 SHRI RANJIT SINGH, NARWANA (JIND) 3 LATER ON, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CANCEL LED THE AGREEMENT / TRANSACTION OF SALE OF LAND ON 21.02.2011 AND THE C ASH RECEIVED OF RS. 5,00,000/- WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK ON 07.02.201 1 AND THE REMAINING RS. 70,00,000/- WERE WITHDRAWN 21.02.2011 . THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSES SEE FOR THE CASH DEPOSITS AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY DOCU MENTARY EVIDENCE / RECEIPTS FOR THIS PURPOSE. HENCE ADDITION OF RS. 74 ,95,000/- WAS MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) , THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, ADDITIONAL EVIDENC E IN THE SHAPE OF BANK STATEMENT OF HDFC BANK AND COPY OF CANCELLATIO N AGREEMENT DATED 21.02.2011 WERE FURNISHED UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I. T. RULES, WHICH WERE SENT BY THE CIT(A) TO ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EX AMINATION. ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED HIS REMAND REPORT AND F OUND BANK STATEMENTS TO BE GENUINE. BUT COPY OF IKRARNAMA AND CANCELLATION DEED WERE NOT CONSIDERED AS GENUINE AS THESE WERE NOT RE GISTERED DOCUMENTS. FURTHER, ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE PURCHASERS F ROM WHOM ADVANCED MONEY AGAINST SALE OF LAND WAS CLAIMED TO HAD BEEN RECEIVED, BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THEM AND NOBODY ATTENDED THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPONSE TO SUMMONS ISSUED U/ S 131 OF L.T. ACT. ITA NO. 98-CHD-2019 SHRI RANJIT SINGH, NARWANA (JIND) 4 8. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVING AS U NDER:- 7. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY TH E APPELLANT. IT IS NOTICED THAT THERE ARE CASH CREDIT S OF RS. 74,95,000/- IN THE BANK STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS, HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS RECEIVED CASH OF RS. 74.95,000/- AS A RESULT OF SALE AGREEMENT ENTER ED BY HIM AND HIS COUSIN WITH FIVE CO-BUYERS FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. HE COULD NOT PRODUCE THESE CO-BU YERS NOR COULD HE GIVE THE CONFIRMATIONS FROM THESE BUYE RS FOR THIS SALE ARRANGEMENT OF HIS LAND. THIS IKRARNAMA PRODUCED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S IS AN INFORMAL AGREEMENT/DOCUMENT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED BY ANY SALE AGREEMENT. IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT THE TRANSACTION OF SUCH A HIGH AMOUNT HAS TAKE N PLACE WITHOUT ANY PROPER DOCUMENTATION. FURTHER, THE ASSE SSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS SALE AGREEMENT WAS CANCELLE D AFTER A GAP OF TWO MONTHS. THE CANCELLATION DEED IN THIS REGARD WAS NOT PRODUCED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS ARE MADE FR OM THIS CANCELLATION DEED. A) THE SIGNATURES ON CANCELLATION DEED ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE SALE DEED / IKRARNAMA. B) THERE IS NO CLEAR MENTION OF ADDRESSES OF THE CO- BUYERS AS WELL AS OF THE WITNESSES ON THIS CANCELLATION DEED. C) IT IS NOT REGISTERED DOCUMENT WHICH CAN BE RELIED UPON. D) THIS CANCELLATION DEED DOES NOT MENTION THE MODE AND TIME OF PAYMENT. IN THIS CASE, THERE ARE CASH CREDIT IN THE BANK STA TEMENT AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTI TY, CREDIT WORTHINESS AND CAPACITY OF CO-BUYERS FROM WHOM HE H AD ITA NO. 98-CHD-2019 SHRI RANJIT SINGH, NARWANA (JIND) 5 RECEIVED THIS CASH. THESE FIVE CO-BUYERS ARE FOUND TO BE NOT FILING ANY RETURN OF INCOME. THEIR BANK STATEME NTS AND CONFIRMATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN FILED TO PROVE THE CRED IT WORTHINESS OF THESE BUYERS. FURTHER, NOBODY HAS ATT ENDED BEFORE AO TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REG ARDING THESE CASH CREDITS. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY RECEIPT/PROOF OF HAVING REPAID THE AMOUNT OF RS . 75 LAKHS TO CO- BUYERS ON ACCOUNT OF CANCELLATION OF IKRARNA MA. THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED OF THE JUDGEMENT OF ITAT, D ELHI IN THE CASE OF 1TO WARD-25( 1), NEW DELHI VS UMRAV SIN GH HUF . THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE PRESE NT CASE IN THE FOLLOWING WAYS. (I) NO CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE BUYERS WERE SUBMITTED . II) NO BAYANA RECEIPTS WERE RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT. III) IDENTITY PROOFS OF BUYERS WERE NOT PROVIDED. IV) NOBODY ATTENDED IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMONS ISSUED BY THE AO. V) THE DOCUMENTS OF IKRARNAMA AND CANCELLATION DEED DO NOT BEAR THE SAME SIGNATURES OF BUYERS. VI) BANK STATEMENTS OF BUYERS HAVE NOT BEEN PRODUCED TO JUSTIFY THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS HELD THAT NO SUB STANTIAL PROOF HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSITS AS WELL AS CASH WITHDRAWAL FROM HIS B ANK ACCOUNTS. PRIMA FACIE ONUS IS ALWAYS ON THE ASSESSE E TO PROVE THE CASH CREDIT ENTRY FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. IN LAND MARK CASES LIKE KALE KHAN MOHAMMAD HANIF V C1T[1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC), ROSHAN DI HATTI V CIT [1977] 107 ITR (SC) IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE LAW IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE ONUS OF PROVING THE SO URCE OF A SUM OF MONEY FOUND TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY AN ASSE SSEE IS ON HIM. WHERE THE NATURE AND SOURCE THEREOF CANN OT BE EXPLAINED SATISFACTORILY, IT IS OPEN TO THE REVENUE TO HOLD ITA NO. 98-CHD-2019 SHRI RANJIT SINGH, NARWANA (JIND) 6 THAT IT IS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO FURTHE R BURDEN IS ON THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT THE INCOME IS FROM A NY PARTICULAR SOURCE. RELYING ON THESE JUDGEMENTS AND FACTS OF THE CASE, 1 UPHELD THE ADDITION OF 74,95,000/- M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS CASE . IN RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 8. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS COME IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS WERE MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. HE HAS FURT HER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE PAPER BOOK PAGE 53 WHICH IS A COPY OF THE AG REEMENT TO SELL (IKRARNAMA) DATED 18.12.2010 VIDE WHICH THE ASSES SEE ALLEGEDLY RECEIVED RS. 50 LACS AS EARNEST MONEY. THE LD. COUN SEL HAS FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE PAPER BOOK PAGE 42 WHICH ALL EGEDLY IS CANCELLATION DEED DATED 21.2.2011. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE PAPER BOOK PAGE 43 WHICH IS A COPY OF THE WRITING BEARING SIGNATURES OF CERTAIN PERSONS TITLED AS PA NCHAYATI RAJINAMA. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE BANK STATEMENT OF SHRI MANJIT SINGH TO SHOW THAT THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OF RS. 25 LACS IN CASH WAS DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 31.12.2010 IN CASH. FURTHER, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 49,95,000/- WAS CREDITED THROUGH BANK ING CHANNEL TRANSACTION ON 9.2.2011. FURTHER, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 5 LACS WAS WITHDRAWN ON 7.2.2011 AND FURTHER A SUM OF RS. 70 LACS WAS WI THDRAWN ON 21.2.2011. THE CASE OF THE COUNSEL OF ASSESSEE IN T HIS RESPECT IS THAT THE ITA NO. 98-CHD-2019 SHRI RANJIT SINGH, NARWANA (JIND) 7 EARNEST MONEY WAS RECEIVED IN LUMPSUM AND FURTHER T HE SAME WAS ALSO WITHDRAWN IN LUMPSUM. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS FURTHER S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME. T HAT THE AFORESAID AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED OUT OF EARNEST MONEY RECEIVED AND THEREAFTER DUE TO CANCELLATION OF THE AGREEMENT, THE AFORESAID AMO UNT WAS WITHDRAWN AND REFUNDED. 10. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS RELIED ON TH E FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT A S PER THE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT PLACED ON RECORD AT PAGE 53, THE SELLERS I.E. ASSESSEE AND OTHER CO-SHARERS OF LAND AND THE PURCHASERS NAMELY ZORA S INGH, DARVESH, LAKSHAN MIRDHA AND BARINDER BELONG TO THE SAME CITY I.E. NARWANA. AS PER THE SAID AGREEMENT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 50 LACS WA S RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER CO-SHARERS ON 18.12.2010 AND AN AMOUNT OF RS. 50 LACS WAS AGREED TO BE RECEIVED ON 15.1.2011 AND FUR THER AN AMOUNT OF RS. 50 LACS ON 15.2.2011. THE SALE DEED WAS TO BE E XECUTED ON 20.2.2012 ON WHICH DATE THE REMAINING SALE CONSIDERATION WAS TO BE PAID. FURTHER, A PERUSAL OF THE CANCELLATION DEED DATED 2 1.2.2011 REVEALS THAT THE SAID AGREEMENT WAS CANCELLED AND THAT THE PURCHASERS HAD RECEIVED BACK THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WHICH WAS PAID BY T HEM AS EARNEST MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE AND OTHERS. HOWEVER, SURPRIS INGLY, THE SAID ITA NO. 98-CHD-2019 SHRI RANJIT SINGH, NARWANA (JIND) 8 CANCELLATION DEED DOES NOT BEAR SIGNATURES OF THE A LLEGED PURCHASERS. A BARE PERUSAL OF THE SAME SHOWS THAT THE SAME IS A F ICTITIOUS DOCUMENT, WHEREUPON, THE SIGNATURES HAVE BEEN PUT ON OF CERT AIN PERSONS WHICH DO NOT MATCH AT ALL WITH THE SIGNATURES ON THE AGREEME NT TO SELL. EVEN IN THE ALLEGED PANCAYATI RAJINAMA THERE IS NO SIGNAT URE OF THE ALLEGED / CONCERNED PURCHASERS. THESE DOCUMENTS APPEARED TO H AVE BEEN PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR SELF-SERVING PURPOSES. SINCE T HE AFORESAID CANCELLATION DEED DOES NOT BEAR SIGNATURES OF THE A NY OF THE PURCHASERS, HENCE, NO RELIANCE CAN BE PLACED ON IT. FURTHER, D ESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ALLEGED PURCHASERS BELONGED TO THE SAME CITY I.E NARWANA, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY CONFIRMATION FROM THE BUYERS ABOUT THE ALLEGED TRANSACTIONS OF SALE OF LAND AND CANCELLATION DEED ETC. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IN FOLLOWING WAYS (I) NO CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE BUYERS WERE SUBMITTED; II) IDENTITY PROOF S OF BUYERS WERE NOT PROVIDED; III) NOBODY ATTENDED IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMONS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER; IV) THE DOCUMENTS OF IKRARN AMA AND CANCELLATION DEED DO NOT BEAR THE SAME SIGNATURES OF BUYERS; AND VI) BANK STATEMENTS OF BUYERS HAVE NOT BEEN PRODUCED TO JUSTIFY THE SOU RCE OF DEPOSITS. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO PROVE HIS CASE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY UPHELD. ITA NO. 98-CHD-2019 SHRI RANJIT SINGH, NARWANA (JIND) 9 THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.12.2019. SD/- SD/- ( $ % & '# / ANNAPURNA GUPTA) () / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( / SANJAY GARG) / JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 30.12.2019 .. '+ ,-.- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. # / / CIT 4. # / ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. -01 2 , %2 , 34516 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 157$ / GUARD FILE '+ # / BY ORDER, 8 ' / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR