Tribunal sets aside unexplained deposit, orders detailed inquiry

The Tribunal set aside the addition of Rs. 15,00,000 as unexplained deposit to the assessee's total income, directing the Assessing Officer to conduct a detailed inquiry into the transaction, including verification of sale deeds and the utilization of the deposited amount. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with instructions for re-evaluation after allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- as unexplained deposit to the total income of the assessee.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- as Unexplained Deposit
The primary issue in this appeal is whether the sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- deposited in the assessee's bank account should be treated as unexplained income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act.

Facts and Arguments:
- The assessee claimed that the Rs. 15,00,000/- deposited in her bank account was from the sale of a plot of land located at 319 Udyog Nagar, Jhotwara, Jaipur.
- The sale was allegedly made to Shri Shakeel Khan, with the transaction documented through an Agreement to Sale, a General Power of Attorney (GPA), and a Will, all dated 4th June 2007.
- The Assessing Officer (AO) did not accept the assessee's explanation, primarily because Shri Shakeel Khan, in his statement recorded under Section 131, denied entering into any such agreement or making any payment of Rs. 15,00,000/-.
- The AO further noted discrepancies in the sale deeds and the cheque transactions, concluding that the sale consideration was paid in cash and not through cheques as claimed.

CIT (A) Findings:
- The CIT (A) upheld the AO's decision, emphasizing that the Agreement to Sale did not bear the purchaser's signature and that Shakeel Khan denied the transaction.
- The CIT (A) also noted the absence of documentary evidence to substantiate the receipt of Rs. 15,00,000/- by the assessee.
- The CIT (A) dismissed the assessee's reliance on the Agreement to Sale, GPA, and Will, considering them insufficient to prove the transaction's genuineness.

Assessee's Contentions:
- The assessee argued that the documents executed (Agreement to Sale, GPA, and Will) are common practices in real estate transactions.
- The assessee provided a detailed breakdown of the cash payments received from Shakeel Khan on various dates, totaling Rs. 15,00,000/-.
- It was contended that the possession of the plot was handed over to Shakeel Khan, and the cash was deposited in the bank account on 16.07.2007.
- The assessee also cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana to support the validity of such documents in real estate transactions.

Revenue's Arguments:
- The Revenue argued that there was no correlation between the cash payments allegedly received and the deposit made on 16.07.2007.
- The Revenue also highlighted that the Agreement to Sale was a sham document, as it neither reflected the assessee's intention nor bore Shakeel Khan's signature.
- Shakeel Khan's statement under Section 131, where he denied the transaction, was also emphasized.

Tribunal's Observations:
- The Tribunal noted that the primary contention revolves around the unexplained deposit of Rs. 15,00,000/- in the assessee's bank account.
- It was observed that the assessee's explanation was based on documents that were not corroborated by Shakeel Khan.
- The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT (A) had not thoroughly examined certain aspects, such as the subsequent sale of the plot by Shakeel Khan and the assessee's use of the deposited amount for purchasing a residential house.

Conclusion and Directions:
- The Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO for fresh examination, directing a detailed inquiry into the nature of the transaction, including the verification of the sale deeds, the role of Shakeel Khan, and the utilization of the deposited amount.
- The assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with the AO instructed to re-evaluate the case after providing an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

Order Pronouncement:
- The order was pronounced in the open court on 30/10/2015.

This comprehensive analysis ensures that all relevant facts, legal arguments, and judicial observations are preserved, providing a clear understanding of the judgment and its implications.

---