9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 2025X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice . 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in treating the entire cash deposits were sale consideration as the assessee has not provided any proof for connection between the money deposited in the bank account and the money received from purchaser. The Ld. CIT(A) while allowing the appeal has not seen considered the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court's order in the case of Paramjit Singh vs ITO(2010) 195 Taxman 273 wherein it was mentioned that it is wellknown principle that no oral evidence is admissible once the document contains all the terms and conditions. Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for brevity 'the 1972 Act') incorporate the aforesaid principle. 3. The facts of the case are that on verification of details produced, it was found that the assessee had made huge deposits in his bank accounts in SBI Kakkanad, Federal Bank Thrippunithura, Canara Bank Thripunithura and Federal Bank Puthencruz as under: i. SBI, Kakkanad Rs. 1,77,02,505/- ii. Federal Bank, Puthencruz Rs. 1,78,53,985/- iii.Federal Bank, Thripunithura Rs. 14,50,213/- iv. Canara Bank, Thripunithura Rs. 1,95,444/- Total Deposits Rs. 3,7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Less available source 1. Sale consideration of Property Rs. 16,07,500/- 2. LIC receipts Rs. 54,817/- 3. Agricultural receipts Rsf_2,73,185/- Total source available Rs. 19,35,502/- Unexplained Income Rs.1,54,86,598/- . 4. On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the facts of the instant case are squarely covered by the decision of the ITAT, Cochin Bench in the case of ITO vs. Abraham Varghese Cheruvil (2017) Taxcorp (A.T.) 55729. The CIT(A) found that the Assessing Officer had not been able to point to any other source of income apart from sale of agricultural land and therefore, the deposits in the bank accounts were to be treated as proceed of sale of agricultural land and therefore, exempt from taxation. Thus, the CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.1,54,86,598/-. 5. Against this the Revenue is in appeal before us. The Ld. DR tried to justify the order of the Assessing Officer on the issue and submitted that the onus lies solely on the assessee to establish the source of deposits in the Banks which the assessee has failed to establish and hence, the addition is to be sustained as unexplained income of the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee also filed these documents before the Assessing Officer. If the Assessing Officer chooses not to cause any enquiry from the parties concerned, he cannot simply reject the sale consideration shown in the sale agreement. Admittedly, in this case the sale deed has been registered at a value which is below the amount actually received by the assessee and deposited in the Bank account. There was no material whatsoever or any circumstance, which could have suggested that the impugned amount was received by the assessee from any other source. The deposition of the purchaser by way of an affidavit filed with the authorities had shown a higher value which was sufficient to discharge the burden, which the Assessing Officer had doubted the source of deposit. There was a sale agreement which was entered into by the assessee with the purchaser for sale of 11 acres of rubber plantation in Kokkayar Village, Idukki District at the rate of Rs.55,750/- per cent. This was also brought on record by the assessee vide letter dated 29/02/2016. The Assessing Officer in disbelieving the evidence had not given any reasons whatsoever to discard the evidence placed by the assessee so as to explain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s wife had disclosed the entire value of sale transaction amounting to 70,79,000/- (including the on-money). A copy of the income tax return filed by the assessee and his wife alongwith computation statement for the assessment year 2013-14 are enclosed at pages 7 to 19 of the paper book filed by the assessee. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I have no hesitation to hold that the receipt of on-money was in no way different from the receipt amount shown in the sale deed. The Assessing Officer has not disputed the source of cash receipts. Her only contention is that balance value of the property not shown in the sale deed can only be considered as unaccounted money/on-money and the same has to be brought to tax as 'income from other sources'. 7.2 In this context, it is important to refer to section 68 of the I.T. Act, which reads as follows-. "Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
