Satyaveer Singh V. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Moti Dungari Alwar, Rajasthan and The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur Rajasthan and The Income Tax Officer, Ward No.-1, Goverdhan Gate Near Head Post Office, Bharatpur, Rajasthan

ITA/40/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Satyaveer Singh, the appellant, who contested the income tax assessment regarding the sale of agricultural land. The Income Tax Department had noted cash deposits totaling Rs.19,00,500 in the appellant's account and reopened the assessment, adding Rs.12,22,000 to his income. The appellant argued that the actual sale consideration was Rs.20,80,000, as per the registered sale deed, contrary to the Rs.6.75 lacs recorded in the deed. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, supporting the lower authorities' findings based on the sale deed and other evidence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 797716 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ANUROOP SINGHI; N S BHATI
• Assessee Lawyers: NEHPAL YOGI
• Keywords: Assessment; Cash deposits; Condonation of delay; Income tax appeal; Reopening of assessment; Sale of agricultural land; Income Chargeable Tax
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"[2023/RJJP/008028] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 40/2022 Satyaveer Singh S/o Late Shri Roop Singh, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Village Barso District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. ----Appellant Versus 1. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Moti Dungari Alwar, Rajasthan. 2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur Rajasthan. 3. The Income Tax Officer, Ward No.-1, Goverdhan Gate Near Head Post Office , Bharatpur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nehpal Yogi, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi with Mr. N.S.Bhati, Adv. HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 25/04/2023 1. Heard on application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Taking into consideration the cause shown in the application, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 3. The delay is accordingly condoned. 4. Application No.869/2022 is allowed. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 40/2022:- 1. Heard. [2023/RJJP/008028] (2 of 4) [ITA-40/2022] 2. This appeal arises out of the order dated 13.10.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Benches “A”, Jaipur. 3. As per information available with the department, the assessee made cash deposits of Rs.19,00,500/- during the year under consideration in SBBJ Bank, Jaipur Branch. To verify the source of same, notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued. The proceedings eventually led to reopening of assessment. Rs. 12,22,000/- was added to the income and order was passed. On appeal preferred, the appeal was also dismissed. When the assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which was also dismissed holding that the evidence on record proved that the total amount of consideration out of the sale of agriculture land was only Rs.6.75 lacs and the appellant’s case that the sale consideration in Rs.20,80,000/- was rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the finding of the learned Tribunal is perverse and opposed to law. His submission is that in support of its case of sale consideration of Rs.20,80,000/-, the appellant relied upon the registered sale deed which exhibited market value and payment of stamp duties therein which is proportionate to the income as claimed by the appellant. He would next submit that the assessee had led oral evidence also of other shareholders/owners to say that the actual sale consideration was Rs.20,80,000/- and not Rs.6.75 lacs as recited in the registered sale deed. The seller’s statement were taken on record and believed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the appellant. As the sale consideration of registered [2023/RJJP/008028] (3 of 4) [ITA-40/2022] sale deed was limited to Rs.6.75 lacs, the remaining amount was treated as income chargeable tax and addition wrongly made. 5. We have gone through the order passed by the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties before. it. In order to record a finding of fact against the appellant and in faovur of the Revenue, the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the recital contained in the registered sale deed which clearly shows that the sale consideration was Rs.6.75 lacs. The aspect relating to valuation of the property for the purposes of stamp duty was also taken into consideration but the Assessing Authority, Appellate Authority and ITAT all recorded concurrent finding placing reliance mainly on the sale deed and recital contained therein. Moreover, it is not the case of the appellant-assessee that the entire sale consideration was transferred in the account of the assessee through cheque issued by the purchasers. It is a case of cash deposit. Therefore, the burden was on the assessee to prove that the consideration for sale was Rs. 20,80,000/- and not what was recited in the sale deed. 6. Be that as it may, we find that all the authorities have appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and recorded their findings of fact on the issue as to what actually was the sale consideration in the matter of transaction of sale of agricultural land. Even though the submission of learned counsel for the appellant would be that there was no proper appreciation of evidence, it is essentially a case of appreciation of evidence and not of substantial question of law. As the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law, we are not inclined to re- [2023/RJJP/008028] (4 of 4) [ITA-40/2022] appreciate and interfere with the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the all the authorities including the Tribunal. 7. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ N.Gandhi/28 "