TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Distt.- Bharatpur which is excluded from the purview of capital asset as per provisions of Section 2(14) of the Act and the said sale consideration received from the sale of the land was deposited in his bank account - As document of transfer is required by law to be reduced in writing and needs registration as has been done by executing sale deed which was got registered, therefore, the terms contained in the sale deed are to be believed which exclusively contains that a sum of ₹ 6.75 lacs were sale consideration of the entire land belonging to the assessee as well as his co-owners and thus when once an specific evidence by way of registered document has been placed on record, then in that eventuality as per Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, no contrary oral evidence is permissible. Thus, considering the totality of facts and circumstances more particularly when the registered sale deed has been executed between the parties which specifically contains that a sum of ₹ 6.75 lacs were paid by the purchasers to the assessee and his co-owners in lieu of purchase of the entire land in question and the said conveyance deed has also been corroborated by the stateme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e by the A.O. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the ITAT on the grounds mentioned hereinabove. 6. Grounds No. 1 and 2 of the appeal raised by the assessee are interrelated and interconnected and relate to challenging the notice issued U/s 147 of the Act by the A.O. and consequent assessment order dated 26/12/2017, therefore, we fit to decide these grounds through the present consolidated order. 7. The ld AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has reiterated the same arguments as were raised before the ld. CIT(A) and even the ld. AR relied upon the written submissions submitted before us and the same are reproduced below: That the re-assessment proceedings have been initiated in violation of the provisions of section 151 in as much as the Commissioner sanctioning the initiation has only stated 'yes' without assigning any reasons for approval and thus the sanction has been done without application of mind by the Commissioner which practice has been deprecated by the High Courts. 4. That the relevant extract which is at page number 3 of the paper book of is reproduced as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yes [In favour of assessee] 8. In the case of Asmarlal Bajaj v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle -19(1), Mumbai (2013) 37 taxmann.com 7 (Mumbai - Trib.) Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT has held as under:- 9. The observations of the Hon'ble High Court are very much relevant in the instant case as in the present case also the Commissioner has simply mentioned approved to the report submitted by the concerned AO. In the light of the ratios/observations of the Hon ble High. Court mentioned hereinabove, we have no hesitation to hold that the reopening proceedings vis-a-vis provisions of Sec. 151 are bad in law and the assessment has to be declared as void al) initio. Ground No. 1 of assessee's appeal is allowed. 9. That the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Synfonia Tradelinks (P) Ltd. vs. Income tax Officer (2021) 202 DTR 13 (Del) has held as under:- ... a bare perusal of the endorsement would show that there is no application of mind as to whether the information received by the AO had any nexus with the formation of the honest belief that the assessee's taxable income had escaped. 10. That thus the reasons recorded, re-opening ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 007), 295 ITR 403 (Raj) and submitted that due compliance of Section 151 of the Act was made by the CCIT and CIT has recorded his satisfaction and such satisfaction was on the basis of reasons recorded by the A.O. and not de hors it. It was further submitted that the satisfaction independent of reasons recorded by the A.O. is not envisaged as per provisions of Section 151 of the Act. Therefore, according to the ld. DR, the Revenue authorities if properly adhered to the principles of Section 151 of the Act, therefore, sanction granted by the competent authority is not illegal. 10. After having gone through the facts of the present case and after hearing the arguments of the respective parties, we found that reopening of the assessment in the present case is under the provisions of Section 147(1) of the Act and it was doing so, the A.O. was having an information that the assessee had made deposit of ₹ 19,00,500/- during the year under consideration in SBBJ Bank Branch, jaipur. Therefore, in order to verify the source of the same, reopening proceedings were initiated. The expression reason as the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Broker Pvt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the direct decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court on the issue in question. Therefore, while drawing strength from the decision of Hon ble Rajasthan High court in the case of CIT Vs Uttam Chand Nahar (supra), we are of the view that in the present case, the conditions U/s 151 of the Act for recording satisfaction by the Commissioner has been validly done as the said satisfaction was on the basis of reasons recorded by the A.O. and not de hors it and thus according to us, the satisfaction independent of reason recorded by the A.O. is not envisaged any way in Section 151 of the Act. Therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we dismiss this ground of appeal raised by the assessee. 11. The 3rd ground of appeal raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A) in upholding the addition of ₹ 12,22,000/- as unexplained income of the assessee. In this regard, the ld. AR of the assessee has reiterated the same arguments as were raised before the ld. CIT(A) and relied upon the written submissions filed before us the same is reproduced below: GROUND NO. 3:- 11. That the addition has been made under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000/- (paper book page no. 19 and 23) and therefore the value of the property should be taken to be ₹ 20,80,000/-. Even the certificate given in the sale deed page no. 23 states the property to be of value 20,80,000/-. Both the authorities below have not considered this fact. 17. That thus, considering all the evidences to-gather viz. statements and affidavits of the co-owners, DLC value of the property, the addition of ₹ 12,22,000/- by treating the cash deposited as unexplained investment deserves to be deleted in view of the decision of Pappu Ram Saran V ITO, Ward -2, Kishangarh (ITA No. 1303/JP/2018) (copy enclosed) 18. That this Tribunal in the case of Pappu Ram Saran V ITO, Ward -2, Kishangarh (ITA No. 1303/JP/2018) has held as under:- In view of the facts and circumstances of the case when the deposit of cash in the bank account is contemporaneous to the transaction of sale of land then in the absence of any contrary material the source explained by the assessee cannot be rejected. It is therefore prayed to allow the appeal of the assessee and delete the addition. The ld AR has also relied upon the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised sale deed was placed on record by the assessee at any stage and even there was no agreement to sell which reflects total sale consideration at ₹ 20.80 lacs. It was submitted by the ld. DR that a letter dated 14/12/2017 U/s 133(6) of the Act was issued to the purchases i.e. Smt. Nutan Sharma and Smt. Pushpa Arora in order to ascertain the real transaction and both Smt. Nutan Sharma and Smt. Pushpa Arora i.e. purchasers of the land had categorically submitted that the aforesaid transaction was made @ 6.75 lacs as is mentioned in the sale deed. After gone through the arguments of both the parties, we found that it is an undisputed fact that the assessee was one of the owner of the land in question located at Gram-Barso, Tehsil and Distt.- Bharatpur which was sold through registered sale deed executed in favour of Smt. Nutan Sharma and Smt. Pushpa Arora but in the said registered documents, total sale consideration of the land was shown as ₹ 6.85 lacs and not ₹ 20.80 lacs as alleged by the assessee. It is an admitted fact that there is no occasion of sale which reflects ₹ 20.80 lacs as valuation of the land in question and nothing has been placed on record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll as his co-owners and thus when once an specific evidence by way of registered document has been placed on record, then in that eventuality as per Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, no contrary oral evidence is permissible. Thus, considering the totality of facts and circumstances more particularly when the registered sale deed has been executed between the parties which specifically contains that a sum of ₹ 6.75 lacs were paid by the purchasers to the assessee and his co-owners in lieu of purchase of the entire land in question and the said conveyance deed has also been corroborated by the statement of Smt. Nutan Sharma and Smt. Pushpa Arora recorded U/s 133(6) of the Act and no contrary evidence has been lead by the assessee in order to controvert or rebut the said presumption which is attached with the registered document. The case law relied by the ld. AR in the case of Shri Pappu Ram saran Vs ITO in ITA No. 1303/JP/2018 order dated 03/09/2020 is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case under consideration, therefore we are not conveniencd with the arguments put forth by the assessee before us. Therefore, we feel no reasons to interfer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
