ROHTASH,NARNAUL V. ITO,WARD-2, NARNAUL

ITA 6086/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Rohtash, against the order of the NFAC, Delhi, which confirmed the addition of Rs. 18,67,000 to the assessee's income for the assessment year 2012-13. The addition was made on the grounds that the source of investment in immovable property was unexplained. The assessee argued that the investment was from a loan taken from Smt. Krishna Devi, supported by affidavits and a sales deed. However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, noting discrepancies between the sales deed and the affidavit, and lack of documentary evidence supporting the loan claim. The Tribunal, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records, decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the investment source.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 112041 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY KUMAR
• Section: 20

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT ITA No. 6086/Del/2024 Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Rohtash, vs. ITO, Ward 2, S/o Ramdhan, Narnaul, Haryana H.No. 544, Ghatasher, PO Chhilro, Narnaul, Haryana-123001 (PAN: BGFPR2643E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 15.04.2025 ORDER This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the NFAC, Delhi for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite issue of notice for hearing, hence, I am proceeding exparte qua the assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records. 3. Brief facts of the case are that no return of income was filed by the assessee. AO noted that assessee had purchased immovable property for Rs. 56,00,000/- on 11.01.2012 registered with sub-registrar, Mahendergarh. The purchase being unexplained, the case was reopened u/s. 148. The assessee’ share in agricultural land was 1/3rd, at Rs. 18,67,000/- AO held the source of investment to be unexplained since no documentary evidence regarding source of investment for 2 | P a g e purchase of property was submitted despite adequate opportunity, hence, he made the addition of Rs. 18,67,000/- by completing the assessment at Rs. 19,63,000/-. Against the aforesaid, assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. I have heard the Ld. DR and perused the records. Upon careful it is noted that it was the contention of the assessee in the grounds of appeal that Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case by wrong confirming the addition made by the AO by observing that the registered sales deed contains the right hand thumb impression of Smt. Krishna Devi but the affidavit contains signature of Smt. Krishna Devi and also noted that there is no evidence to support the loan taken from Smt. Krishna Devi. It was the further contention that Ld. CIT(A) totally ignored the fact that sales deeds are registered before the Registrar and the Registrars exclusively prefers thumb impression of all the parties, whereas an affidavit does not have that compulsion since it is not registered before any registration authority. Regarding the submission of bank statement, the assessee has repeatedly submitted that the loan has been taken in Cash and where both Smt. Krishna Devi and Rohtash have filed their respective affidavits regarding the giving and taking of the Rs. 20 lacs loan in cash only, the bank statement will not act as any proof of this transaction. Also sales deed of Smt. Krishna Devi from where she received the money to be furnished as loan to the assessee was also furnished. Therefore, it was the contention of the assessee where the assessee has made an investment out of loan proceeds and the where the source of such loan is justified, the same cannot be construed to be an income of the assessee. 6. Per contra, Ld. DR drew my attention towards the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) given at last page of his order wherein, Ld. CIT(A) by considering the submissions of the assessee noted that the copy of the sale deed of Smt. Krishna Devi and the affidavit submitted purportedly by Smt. Krisna Devi have been compared. The 3 | P a g e sale deed contains the right thumb impression of Smt. Krishna Devi which clearly indicates that Smt. Krishna Devi is illiterate but the purported affidavit contains a purported signature of Smt. Krishna Devi. No credence can be placed on such self serving document. Further, there is no evidence in support of such a purported loan as is claimed by assessee. Inter-alia, no copy of bank statement of the assessee or Smt. Krishna Devi for the period from 1.4.2011 to 31.3.2012 has been furnished by the assessee either in assessment (as noted by the AO in the assessment order) or in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, Ld. CIT(A) rightly held that there is no reason to interfere with the order of the AO. 7. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix and in the interest of justice, I deem it fit and proper to remit back the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer subject to verification to prove the source of investment for the sale deed, and if the source of investment for the sale deed is proved, the same should be considered and accordingly, issue in dispute may be decided in favour of the assesssee, in accordance with law, for which Ld. DR has no objection. 8. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the Open Court on 15.04.2025. Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT SRBhatnagar Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. DIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order, Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Bench "