TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 1118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so canceled later on and the entire amount of advance of ₹ 85 lakh was also returned on the same date. The facts given in the affidavit and in the statement are, as such, contradictory. The facts stated in the affidavits, relied upon by the appellant are, as such, not in consonance with the agreement and hence are not reliable. In view of the fact discussed above, it is noted that the appellant failed to explain the source of deposit of cash in the saving bank accounts maintained with the Axis Bank and the SBI Bank and hence addition thereof made by the AO is hereby confirmed. Various ground of appeal taken by the appellant are, as such, rejected. - ITA No. 1063/Chd/2012 - - - Dated:- 2-5-2014 - SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant by: Shri Daljit Singh Respondent by: Shri J.S. Nagar O R D E R PER T.R. SOOD, A.M This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.8.2012 of the Ld CIT(A), Karnal. 2. In this appeal the assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1 The impugned order is against facts and law. 2. Worthy CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the facts of the case in c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of time of execution and in lieu of extension purchaser paid ₹ 15 lakhs out of balance and date of execution was fixed as 30.12.2009. (iv) That deponent receive the amount from father and unless as they were illiterate and have no bank account and deponent deposited the amount is his saving account No. 403010100027380 of Axis Bank, Kaithal. (v) That deponent paid this amount time to time to his father and unless as they have to purchase the agricultural land in district Kurukshetra. (vi) That the purchaser Baldev Singh executed the sale deed in the name of Shri Ajmer Nath s/o Shri Ram Kishan, Smt. Neelima w/o Shri Rohit Khurania s/o Surjeet Bahadur Khurania share and remaining share in the name of Smt. Navita Khurania w/o Rahul Khurania s/o Surjeet Bahadur Khurania residents of Kaithal vide Regd Sale Deed No. 4726/1 dated 30.12.2009. The assessee (being share) had made a deposit as per AIR information as under: SBI Bank account No. 303372865162 in the name of Teji Singh s/o Shi Solia Ram Total cash deposit during the Financial year 2008-09 Axis Bank account No. 403010100027380 in the name of Teji ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd. In any case Baldev Singh appeared as witness in the sale deed. Further Shri Solia Ram was produced before the Assessing officer and he clearly stated that he has received money on account of sale of land which has given to his son Teji Singh. Further affidavits of S/Shri Hawa Singh, Ram Dia and Ajmer Singh were also furnished and same should have been accepted. The LD. CIT(A) did not find any force in these submissions and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5 Before us. the Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed written submissions and submitted that the same may be considered. 6 On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue strongly supported the order of the Assessing officer and the Ld. CIT(A). 7 We have gone through the rival submissions carefully. In the written submissions the submissions made before the Assessing officer and the Ld. CIT(A) have been reiterated. It has been emphasized that father of the assessee Shri Solia Ram along with his brothers, S/Shri Ajmer Singh, Hawa Singh and Ram Dia agreed to sell their agricultural land measuring about 30 kanals to Baldev Singh and certain advances were received. Since the father of the assessee and his uncles were i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nk account maintained with the SBI Bank. 1.06 As far as the source of deposit of cash in the saving bank account maintained with the Axis Bank is concerned, it is submitted that his father alongwith his 3 uncles entered in an agreement for sale of agriculture land measuring 30 Kanals and advance of ₹ 60 lacs was received on the date of agreement, i.e., 02.08.2008. As per the agreement, the sale deed was to be got executed by 01.05.2009. It is submitted that on 30.04.2009 the purchaser further paid advance of ₹ 25 lac and requested to extend the date of execution of sale deed up to 30.06.2009. Again the purchaser claimed to have paid ₹ 15 lac and requested to extend the date of execution of sale by 30.12.2009. The appellant submitted that his father and uncles were illiterate and were having no bank account and hence the entire amount received by them was handed over to him for getting it deposited in his bank account which was to be paid as and when they asked for the same. 1.07 The appellant enclosed a copy each of the said agreement. The same are examined. At the, outset, it is noted that as per the first agreement dated 02.08.2008 the entire amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of ₹ 60 lac was returned on 30.04.2009 but there is no such withdrawal from the bank account. Rather there is no transaction in the bank account from 16.04.2009 to 30.04.2009. Similar is the position of 2nd agreement dated 30.04.2009 which was also cancelled on 25.06.2009 and the entire amount of advance of ₹ 85 lac was returned on 25.06.2009 but there was no such withdrawal of ₹ 85 lakh on 25/26.06.2009 from the bank. As discussed above that copy of the 3rd agreement per which further advance of ₹ 15 lac claimed to be received have not been filed. A copy of the bank statement of saving bank A/c maintained with Axis Bank, Kaithal, copy of agreement dt. 02.08.2008, dt. 30.04.2009 and of agreement of cancellation thereof dt. 26.06.2009 are made part of this order as Annexure A, A-l, A-2, A-3 respectively. 1.11 Further, it is noted that the said land was sold to the following persons :- Shri Amar Nath s/o Shri Ram Kishan share (i) Smt. Nilima w/o Shri Rohit Khurania s/o Shri Surjeet Bahadur Khurania (ii) Smt. Navita Khurania w/o Shri Rahul Khurania s/o Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on 30.04.2009 and further ₹ 15 lac on 25.06.2009 whereas, the first agreement dated 02.08.2008 was cancelled on 30.04.2009 and the entire amount of ₹ 60 lac was stated to be returned. Fresh agreement was carried out and advance of ₹ 85 lac was received, which was also canceled later on and the entire amount of advance of ₹ 85 lakh was also returned on the same date. The facts given in the affidavit and in the statement are, as such, contradictory. The facts stated in the affidavits, relied upon by the appellant are, as such, not in consonance with the agreement and hence are not reliable. 1.13 In view of the fact discussed above, it is noted that the appellant failed to explain the source of deposit of cash in the saving bank accounts maintained with the Axis Bank and the SBI Bank and hence addition thereof made by the AO is hereby confirmed. Various ground of appeal taken by the appellant are, as such, rejected. Above clearly show that the Ld. CIT(A) has already met with all the arguments of the assessee and we find nothing wrong with the same. The Ld. CIT(A) has noted many inconsistencies. For example the amount of ₹ 60 lakhs could have b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transaction afresh in the light of the observations made above. The assessment may be finalized accordingly. Therefore from above it becomes clear that normally there cannot be any rule that the amount received by the assessee is same as mentioned regarding stamp duty. In that case higher consideration was assessed because in the sale deed itself mentioned higher amount for the purpose of stamp duty. However, in case before us there is no such mention regarding higher consideration. 10 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee had also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of CIT Vs. Parineeta (supra). In that case the assessee had filed return declaring income of ₹ 87747/-. It was noticed by the Assessing officer that the assessee had deposited cash amounting to ₹ 10,97,300/- and ₹ 32,84,000/-. The assessee was asked to explain the sources of this cash. It was explained that these amounts were withdrawn from different bank accounts. It was further explained that she had sold her house for ₹ 2470000/- in which she had 50% share and balance 50% belonging to her husband. This reply was not found convincing and the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
