TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd substance of the impugned order. The addition for ₹ 49 lacs, therefore, as in the case of the assessee’s sister needs to be deleted. With the sum of ₹ 1 lac deposited cash in the assessee’s HDFC Bank account, which does not appear to be a joint account. The source thereof is explained to be the income of the assessee’s husband, Sh. Jagwinder Singh, stated to be an agriculturist. No evidence toward the same, however, has been brought on record by the assessee at any stage. We observe that though the assessee raised this issue as well before the CIT(A), he has not adjudicated thereon. The same, therefore, cannot form the subject matter of the Revenue’s appeal before us. Not surprisingly, no arguments in its respect were urged before us - I.T.A. No. 613/Asr/2015, Cross Objection No. 15/Asr/2017 - - - Dated:- 29-6-2018 - SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant by : Sh. S. S. Negi (D.R.) Respondent by : Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.) ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Revenue and Cross Objection (CO) by the assessee arising out of the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bath ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of ₹ 34.53 lacs per acre, i.e., as against the agreed sale rate (as per ATS) of ₹ 40.50 lac per acre, receiving six demand drafts of ₹ 28.50 lacs each from each of the six persons to whom the land was sold, and the balance ₹ 92,86,562/- received in cash (para 9 of the impugned order). The transaction stood completed thus. As regards the difference in the sale price, i.e., between that specified in the ATS (Rs.40.50 lacs per acre) and the sale deed (Rs.34.53 lacs per acre), the same was considered by the ld. CIT(A) as of no consequence as it was a matter of common practice to under-report sale so as to reduce the incidence of stamp duty. And, therefore, would not be determinative of the actual sale price, so as to bring the excess amount to tax as undisclosed income, unless, of course, there is evidence to show that the sale deed reflected the actual sale consideration, i.e., the amount that changed hands, even as held in CIT v. Intezar Ali [2015] 372 ITR 651 (All). There was in fact a case for examining the transaction from the purchase side in-as-much as it was apparent that the purchase price/consideration had been suppressed. The overwhelming evidence, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... substantial delay. The same is therefore not maintainable. The ld. AR, the assessee s counsel, Sh. P. N. Arora, Advocate, when questioned on this, would state that he did not wish to press the same, making an endorsement to that effect on the CO itself. 3.2 The Revenue s case before us was that it was wrong to state (on the part of the ld. CIT(A)) that the AO had not offered any comments per his remand report dated 18.02.2015 (at PB pgs. 55-56), the relevant part of which, read out during hearing, reads as under: Evidence: Copies of Title Deed of Land AO s Comments: These are two registered sale deeds of land one is for ₹ 24,62,500/- executed on 16.4.2009. In this sale deed only ₹ 2,50,000/- is stated to be received before the Sub-Registrar and rest of the amount of ₹ 22,12,500/- is received through Bank Drafts. The second sale deed is for ₹ 9,90,000/- executed on 16.04.2009. In this sale deed ₹ 6,00,000/- is stated to be received before the Sub-Registrar and an amount of ₹ 3,30,000/- is received through Bank Draft and nothing has been mentioned about balance of ₹ 60,000/-. Both these sale deeds have been executed by the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich in fact is the forwarding letter by the Jt. CIT, Range 3, Ferozepur, to the remand report dated 18.02.2015 by the AO. This is precisely what the Revenue s seeks to emphasize per its Ground 4. The matter, perhaps, needs to travel to the file of the ld. CIT(A), who was apparently given a set of documents by the assessee different from that to the AO. The question, however, as we see it, is not the amount at which the land was actually sold, which is in the following year, but whether the cash deposit of ₹ 49 lacs could be said to form part of the transaction of sale of land by the assessee s father. Sh. Arora, on being required by the Bench to reconcile the sale deed/s, i.e., as adduced before the AO in the remand proceedings, on the basis of which therefore he has made his comments, and that produced before the ld. CIT(A), and which therefore forms the basis of his order, would, after seeking time to produce the sale deed/s, show that the land particulars referred to in the ATS were the same as that mentioned in two sale deeds dated 16.04.2009 (PB pgs. 75-83), - which are in agreement with that mentioned by the AO in his remand report, seeking to under-score that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt time and again (refer: Chuharmal v. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 250 (SC)). In the present case, no other credit, apart from ₹ 49 lac deposited cash on 22.10.2008, has been attributed to the assessee. Further, of the said ₹ 49 lacs, ₹ 41 lacs stands distributed/gifted by the assessee s father equally (almost) among his six daughters. Only a father would do so and, impliedly, qua his own property. The unmistakable inference that arises is that the said amount belonged to Sh. Sadhu Singh, the assessee s father. As such, irrespective of whether the source thereof has been satisfactorily explained by the assessee or not, and which we categorically find as not, the same cannot be deemed as the assessee s income; the assessee having led sufficient evidence to show that the same did not belong to her, but, in all probability, to her father, with she being, in fact, one of the beneficiaries of the said sum, i.e., along with her other siblings. This, we may add, is also the sum and substance of the impugned order. The addition for ₹ 49 lacs, therefore, as in the case of the assessee s sister, Kulwinder Kaur, needs to be deleted. We direct accordingly. 3.4 This leaves u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
