9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not wish to press the said ground. Addressing the issue agitated in ground No. 2, it was submitted that the assessee is a simple agriculturist who has withdrawn specific amounts of Rs. 10,70,000/- and Rs. 17,80,000/- from his Saving Bank Account No. 196010100079347 and 196010100079339 maintained with Axis Bank on 04.08.2008 and after a gap of about four months on 21.11.2008 he has deposited back Rs. 8 lacs in the said accounts. These redeposits of Rs. 8 lacs each have been doubted and the explanation offered has been considered to be a contrived story. It was his submission that the fact that the assessee is an agriculturist is an accepted fact and is not disputed. Accordingly, it was his submission that the re-deposits are explainable from the very same accounts and thus the addition made, it was his prayer, may be deleted. 3. The ld. Sr.DR inviting attention to the assessment order submitted that the assessee though an agriculturist is definitely not a simple agriculturist as even to get notice served upon the assessee, the AO needed to send an Inspector to his residence, get information about his whereabouts from his neighbours etc. It was submitted the efforts of the depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on that presumption of a written Agreement to Sell is an unnecessary insistence, there is no bar for an assessee to enter into an oral agreement to purchase some land. For the sake of an argument it was his submission that if the assessee names a person, will the tax department accept the statement. Going by his experience, it was submitted, the Revenue would insist on the fact being proved. How is the assessee expected to prove it. The department needs to trust that there was an oral agreement which did not result in a sale. The fact is supported by the conduct of withdrawal of amounts from the two accounts and re-deposit partially in the two accounts. It was his submission that an assessee can well argue that he was convinced that on the offer of a specific amount, a particular investment could be made, how is the assessee supposed to prove these facts. The fact is that since the investment contemplated did not fructify part of the amounts were re-deposited back in the very same two accounts. How he spent or retained part of the amounts, it was submitted was not relevant nor questioned nor it could be questioned in a free country. Forcing the assessee to name the person with whom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith regard to the account statement of the account where Rs. 26 lakhs cash was deposited during the year under consideration, it came to light that the appellant had another savings bank account in the same branch in which there were deposits of Rs. 20 lakhs cash in aggregate during the year. While making the assessment of taxable income, the AO accepted the opening cash balances in both the accounts at the beginning of the year. Besides, the AO also accepted the averment of the appellant that sits of cash were sourced out of withdrawals of cash from the same account wherever the deposits were within the acceptable time-frame of few days. However, the deposit of Rs. 8 lakhs on 21/11/2008 in SB A/C No. 196010100079347 stated to have been sourced from cash withdrawal of Rs. 10,70,000/- on 04/08/2008 i.e. after a gap of nearly 4 months was considered to be improbable by the AO. Similarly, the deposit of Rs. 8 lakhs on 21/11/20UB in SB A/C No. 196010100079338 stated to have been sourced from cash withdrawal of Rs. 17,80,000/- on 04/08/2008 was also not accepted by the AO on the ground of considerable time lag. The aforesaid apprehension of the AO cannot be considered to be misplaced or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed accordingly." 5.1 On a consideration thereof, I find that in the facts of the present case, the availability of funds for re-depositing in the said bank accounts has been consistently well addressed. No evidence rebutting the claim is available on record. I find myself in agreement with the submissions advanced by the ld. AR that how would naming a property identified for a purported purchase or a person with whom there was an oral Agreement, make the claim more plausible. The law permits oral agreements and the tax authorities insistence in the circumstances to produce a written Agreement to Sell admittedly is arbitrary perverse and unreasonable. The fact that the contemplated transaction did not materialize is self evident. Had there been any evidence that the amounts had been utilized elsewhere, then the position would have varied as was the position in the case of Smt. Kavita Chandra Vs CIT cited supra, the decision cited by the department. However, the facts relatable thereto shall be referred to subsequently. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is seen that there is no such instance, reference, argument or evidence to suggest that the funds were not available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
