SHRI JAGDEV SINGH,SIRSA V. ITO WARD-3, SIRSA

ITA 87/CHANDI/2020

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Jagdev Singh, an agriculturist, who appealed against the assessment order for the Assessment Year 2015-16, which included an addition of Rs. 29.20 Lacs to his income. This amount was claimed to be an advance for the sale of agricultural land received from Shri Maninder Singh. The Assessing Officer (AO) initially accepted the agricultural income declared by the assessee but added the amount received as advance to the income, questioning its source and the lack of a registered sale deed. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this addition, leading to the current appeal. The Tribunal, after considering the confirmations and the nature of the transaction, ruled in favor of the assessee, highlighting that the unregistered agreement and the cash transaction were adequately substantiated.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472012 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK VARDHAN LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: SUDHIR SEHGAL . LD
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं. / ITA No.87/CHANDI/2024 (िनधाŊरणवषŊ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Jagdev Singh S/o Sh. Karnail Singh Village Haboli, Rania District Sirsa. 125055. बनाम/ Vs. ITO Ward No.3 Sirsa ̾थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. BWBPS-1275-H (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) : (ŮȑथŎ / Respondent) अपीलाथŎकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Adv.). – Ld. AR ŮȑथŎकीओरसे/Respondent by : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 26-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 01-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana [CIT(A)] dated 24-09-2019 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 06-12-2017. Having heard rival submissions, the appeal is disposed-off as under. The registry has noted delay of 55 days in the appeal which stand condoned. 2 2. It emerges that the assessee declared income of Rs.3.01 Lacs and agricultural income of Rs.2.72 Lacs. It transpired that the assessee deposited cash in its two bank accounts which were stated to be sourced out of earlier withdrawals, sale of agricultural produce and sale of agricultural land. Another advance of Rs.29.20 Lacs was stated to be received from Shri Maninder Singh as advance for sale of agricultural land. The same was confirmed by Shri Maninder Singh but still, Ld. AO added an amount of Rs.29.20 Lacs to the income of the assessee. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), after having considered assessee’s submissions, did not admit the appeal on delay. On merits also, it was observed that Shri Maninder Singh was having dairy income and agricultural income though he was not filing tax return. The payment was stated to be made out of agricultural income. However, the sale deed was not registered. On these facts, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. From the facts, it emerges that the assessee is an agriculturist and it earns agricultural income which has also been accepted by Ld. AO. The assessee is having sufficient landholding for which he has entered into agreement for sale with Sh. Maninder Singh and received advance of Rs.29.20 Lacs. The same has duly been confirmed by Sh. Maninder Singh. The advances have exchanged in cash as confirmed by the payer. The payer is also an agriculturist. In our considered opinion, the mere fact that the sale deed was not registered subsequently cannot vitiate the claim of the assessee since the assessee has duly discharged the onus of establishing the fact that the 3 sum of Rs.29.20 Lacs was received as advance under an agreement to sell which is not in doubt. On these facts, we would hold that the impugned addition is not sustainable. We order so. 5. The appeal stand allowed. Order pronounced on 01-04-2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद˟ /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 01-04-2025. आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुƅ/CIT 4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊफाईल/GF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT CHANDIGARH "