TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the ld AR in order to controvert or rebut the factual findings recorded by the ld. CIT(A), therefore, we see no reason to interfere into or deviate from the findings so recorded by the ld. CIT(A) and we uphold the same. - Decided against assessee. Addition u/s 68B - whether there are well explained sources of investigation made by the assessee - HELD THAT:- No details regarding earlier payments given to M/s Narsing Construction was provided either during assessment proceeding or appellate proceedings. The nature and source of earlier payment to M/s Narsingh Constructions remained unexplained. In the assessment order, the AO has specifically pointed out that an agreement was executed between the parties under the name 'agreement for receiving payment in lieu of cheque', which indicates that cash was received by Shri Banna Ram, the seller of the property, when the cheque issued was dishonored. As per this agreement, cash was paid to the seller by the assessee on 11.12.2013. Thus, there is no doubt that the payment in lieu of dishonored cheque was made in cash by the assessee on 12.11.2013. The claim of the assessee regarding payment through M/s Narsingh Construction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 79/- ignoring the facts of litigation on the property matter and restriction by the Highway Authority of India on any construction, merely by accepting DLC rate provided the Registrar. 3. The ld. AO made addition U/s 68B of ₹ 46,00,000/- ignoring the fact and by ignoring the well explained sources of investigation made by the assessee. 4. The ld AO made addition U/s 69C ₹ 13,74,865/- ignoring the fact and adopting own assumption. 2. The hearing of the appeal was concluded through video conference in view of the prevailing situation of Covid-19 Pandemic. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the return of income was e-filed on 30/07/2014 declaring total income of ₹ 1,96,320/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Necessary notices were issued and served upon the assessee. The A.O. held in the assessment order that the assessee received commission income from property dealing amounting to ₹ 2,38,458/- and also received pension of ₹ 38,067/-. Income from bank interest was also declared at ₹ 44,792/-. Returned income of ₹ 1,96,320/- was declared by the assessee. During the course of assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Paget and order of the Learned CIT (Appeals) First, Jaipur, Page 10 [Paper Book Page and four purchase deed pages 44 to 120 respectively]' Detail of Purchased Agricultural lands is as follows: S. No. Date Details of the property purchased Consideration Paid (Rs.) Stamp Duty Value (Rs.) 1 24.05.2013 Land in Khasra number 950/2 953, totalling 2 bigha from Sh. Ram Singh S/o Sh. Kanha Ram 11,00,000/- 27,83,000/- 2 10.05.2013 Land in Khasra number 950/2 953, totalling 2 bigha from Sh. Nand Singh S/o Sh. Kanha Ram 4,00,000/- 27,83,000/- 3 24.05.2013 Land in Khasra number 950/2 953, totalling 2 bigha from Sh. Gopal Singh S/o Sh. Kanha Ram 4,00,000/- 27,83,000/- 4 15.07.2013 Land in Khasra number 64 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty matter and restriction imposed by the Highway authority of India on any construction, merely by accepting circle rate Provided by the Registrar. (A) Property is in litigation: The Land purchased by the Assessee is in litigation for its legal title and valid fair Possession in hand. A suit has been filed against the Assessee in session's court, Sambhar, Jaipur. That suit is pending so far- undecided. By that reason no proper value of property can be availed. Instead of so negative affected, the cost of land, to take at higher value is against the act as well also against the law of social justice. Relevant Paper proving litigation etc., are submitted enclosed here with. (Pages 121 to 138) (B) Restrictions for construction due to Property situated at highway: Location of the property is at Mega Highway Mauzmabad, District, Jaipur. Highway authorities of India has imposed restrictions to make construction on this land. Prohibition of any construction is imposed by the highway authority of India. Copy of Papers exhibiting such restrictions are submitted enclosed here with. Due to these reasons, No DLC rate can be availed and there is considerab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24.05.2013 Land in khasra lumber 950/2 953, totaling 2 bigha from Sh. Gopal Singh S/o Sh. Kanha Ram ₹ 4,00,000/- ₹ 27,83,000/- 4. 15.07.2013 Land in khasra number 6447,6448, 6449, 6467, 6469,7602, 7603, 7604 totaling 2.4016 hectare from Sh. Banna Ram S/o Sh. Dev Karan Gurjar ₹ 45,00,000/- ₹ 1,41,95,679/- Total ₹ 64,00,000/- ₹ 2,25,44,679/- 2.1 In this regard, the provisions of sec. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the IT. Act, 1961 applicable from A.Y. 2014-15 are as under.- Sec. 56(1) (2)In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head Income from Other Sources namely- (i) . (vii) Where an individual or a Hindu Undivided Family receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons on or after the first day of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the plea of the assessee cannot be accepted. Accordingly, addition of ₹ 1,61,44,6791- is made under the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the IT. Act, 1961 as Income from Other Sources in the hands of the assessee. (ii) During the appellate proceedings, it was submitted that the properties were purchased below the fair market value as litigation was pending regarding legal title in Session's Court, Sambhar, Jaipur. It was also mentioned that as the properties were situated at highway, there was restriction regarding construction on the plots. The appellant also raised an additional ground that the provisions for adopting value as per DLC rate is applicable to seller only and not to the purchaser. (iii) I have duly considered the submissions of the appellant, assessment order and the material placed on record. The AO has discussed the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act in the order itself. The plain reading the section clearly shows that the provision is applicable on purchase of immovable property, if the consideration is less than the stamp duty value of the property by an amount exceeding ₹ 50,000/-. It is also mentioned that in su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. 24.05.2013 Land in khasra lumber 950/2 953, totaling 2 bigha from Sh. Gopal Singh S/o Sh. Kanha Ram 4,00,000/- 27,83,000/- 27,48,220/- 4. 15.07.2013 Land in khasra number 6447,6448, 6449, 6467, 6469,7602, 7603, 7604 totaling 2.4016 hectare from Sh. Banna Ram S/o Sh. Dev Karan Gurjar 45,00,000/- 1,41,95,679/- 1,27,30,000/- Total 64,00,000/- 2,25,44,679/- 2,09,74,660/- (v) Regarding land at Sr. No. 4, the DVO has mentioned as under: Note: The land is inspected by the team of Valuation Office along with the Assessee on 18.03.2018. During the inspection, it was observed that the land is not located on NH-8 but it is located on SH-02. The land in question is very near to the city and is having a higher potential than it is categorized. It is having a very wide frontage on the road. In view of the abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of the assessee. 10. We further observed that the DVO has given due consideration for the location of the property and other relevant evidences produced before him by the assessee. The DVO is expert in valuation of the property and as the valuation is based on scientific method, the same cannot be doubted. No new facts or circumstances have been brought before us by the ld AR in order to controvert or rebut the factual findings recorded by the ld. CIT(A), therefore, we see no reason to interfere into or deviate from the findings so recorded by the ld. CIT(A) and we uphold the same. 11. Ground No. 3 of the appeal raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of ₹ 46,00,000/- U/s 69B of the Act. In this regard, the submission made qua the issue under consideration are as under: (A) The Learned Assessing officer made addition U/s 69B of ₹ 46,00,000/-ignoring the Fact and by ignoring the well explained sources of investment made by the Assessee. Sources of investment were well explained during the proceedings U/s 143(2) performed by the learned Assessing officer. The Assessee had submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cept the payments made as per notarized Regd. two Agreement dated 06-04-1995 furnished by the Assessee. Only by saying that agreements were not in the name of Shri Vishnu Kumar Joshi, the plea of Assessee cannot be denied when:- (A) Deal is relevant to all those khasara of land which were under consideration, more over (B) Agreement were executed with BABA R.N. Gor GRAH NIRMAN SAHKAR SAMITI LTD; Jaipur only through Shri Vishnu Kumar Joshi by caste Brahman R/o Jaipur The Chairman as well as Authorized Representative of Samiti. All proceedings were handled by the Assessee and for those same property, should not be denied merely by raising Technical question and avoiding the factual Assessee's true explanation. In fact agreements were executed between seller party and the Assessee. Total Payment of ₹ 19,00,000 should be accepted instead to consider only ₹ 3,00,000 paid by cheque from Axis Bank on 03.06.2013. Valid payment of ₹ 16,00,000 ( ₹ 8,00,000, ₹ 4,00,000 and 4,00,000) as per agreement dated 06.04.95 should also be accepted and same should not be treated as unexplained. The copies of both the agreements are the perfect evidence to establi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2 953, totaling 2 bigha from Sh. Ram Singh S/o Sh. Kanha Rain ₹ 11,00,000/- i. ₹ 8,00,000 paid in cash on 06.04.95 ii. ₹ 3,00,000/- paid by cheque from Axix Bank joint account on 3.06.13 2. 10.05.13 Land in khasra number 950/2 953, totaling 2 bigha from Sh. Nand Singh S/o Sh. Kanha Ram ₹ 4,00,000/- ₹ 4,00,000/- paid in cash on 06.04.95. 3. 24.05.13 Land in khasra number 950/2 953, totaling 2 bigha from Sh. Gopal Singh S/o Sh. Kanha Ram R. 4,00,000/- ₹ 4,00,000/- paid in cash on 06.04.95. 4. 15.07.13 Land in khasra number 6447, 6448, 6449, 467, 6469,7602, 7603, 7604 totaling 2.4016 hectare from Sh. Banna Ram Sh. Dev Karan Gurjar ₹ 45,00,000/- i. ₹ 20,00,000/- paid by cheque by Narsingh construction on behalf of Assessee on 05.06.13. ii. ₹ 9,00,000 pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d., Jaipur through assessee Shri Vishnu Kumar Joshi as President/Mantri/A/R of the Society. According to these agreements, the lands mentioned therein were sold by the sellers to M/s Baba R.N. Gaur Grih Ninnan Sahakari Samiti Ltd. and not to assessee Sh. Vishnu Kumar Joshi. Further, these agreements are unregistered and not signed by the assessee Sh. Vishnu Kumar Joshi. Therefore, there is no legal sanctity of these agreements. Moreover, these agreements do not prove in any way that these lands were purchased by assessee on 06.4.95 and cash payments of ₹ 8,00,000/-, ₹ 4,00,000/- and ₹ 4,00,000/- were made by the assessee on 06.04.95 to the seller of the land. Therefore, these agreements are of no help to the assessee. There is no evidence with the assessee that the payments of ₹ 16.00.000/-made for purchases of these lands were not made during the F. Y. 2013-14, when the sale deeds of these properties were executed and registered. Since, the assessee did not explain the source of cash payments totaling to ₹ 16,00,000/- made during the year 2013-14, the same is treated as unexplained investment in the property and is added to the income of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egarding payment of ₹ 15,00,000/- by making cash withdrawal from the saving bank account is accepted and accordingly, out of total payment of ₹ 45,00,000/-. source of payment of ₹ 15,00,000/- is found explained and balance payment of ₹ 30,00,000/- is treated as unexplained investment in the property and added to the income of the assessee u/s. 698 of I. T. Act, 1961. (ii) During the appellate proceedings, the appellant again reiterated the same argument that in respect of property No. 1, 2 and 3, cash of ₹ 16,00,000/- was paid much before the actual registry of the above properties. It was claimed that ₹ 16,00,000/- was paid on 06.04.1995 to the seller in cash while the registry of the above property was done during FY 2013-14. The AO has examined the above contention of the appellant in detail and no new fact/ evidence has been brought on record. Therefore, no interference is called for in the order of the AO as far as addition to the extent of ₹ 16,00,000/- in respect of first three properties. (iii) As far as property No. 4 is concerned, it was submitted that the cheque issued for ₹ 45,00,000/- was dishonored and lat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istry of the property was done during FY 2013-14. ) As far as property No. 4 is concerned, it was submitted that the cheque issued for ₹ 45,00,000/- was dishonored and later on, cheques were issued from the bank account of M/s Narsingh Construction amounting to ₹ 20,00,000/- on 05.06.2013 and ₹ 9,00,000/- on 10.06.2013. It was also contended before the AO and during appellate proceedings that the above amount was given by the assessee to M/s Narsingh Construction on earlier dates. However, no details regarding earlier payments given to M/s Narsing Construction was provided either during assessment proceeding or appellate proceedings. The nature and source of earlier payment to M/s Narsingh Constructions remained unexplained. In the assessment order, the AO has specifically pointed out that an agreement was executed between the parties under the name 'agreement for receiving payment in lieu of cheque', which indicates that cash was received by Shri Banna Ram, the seller of the property, when the cheque issued was dishonored. As per this agreement, cash of ₹ 45,00,000/- was paid to the seller by the assessee on 11.12.2013. Thus, there is no doubt that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above expenditure and held that there is no explained source for the above expenditure. The relevant portion of the assessment order is reproduced as under: 4. Addition u/s. 69C of I. T. Act 1961:- The assessee made payment of registry charges of above properties amounting to ₹ 13,74,865/- in cash. The A/R submitted vide reply dated 23.12.16 that source of payment is ₹ 13,00,000/- received in cash from Shri PVJ Corporation on 06.12.2013. The reply of the AIR is considered but not found acceptable. It is observed rat registration of these properties was made on 10.05.2013, 24.05.2013 5 17.2013. It is apparent that payment of registration charges was made on before the date of registration but the A/R has claimed that payment was made out of ₹ 13,00,000/-received in cash from Shree PVJ Corporation on 06.12.2013. When the assessee made payment of registration charges on 10.05.13, 24.05.13 15.07.13 then how the source of same could be out of cash payment received from Shree PVJ Corporation on 06.12.2013. Thus, the claim of assessee is apparently wrong. Therefore, it is clear that the A/R has failed to explain the source of cash payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
