TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (10) TMI 218
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....making the addition to the income of the assessee by holding the amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act 1961, (for short, 'the Act'). 4. The ld. counsel for the assessee further submitted that the assessee had proper source of income in the previous years relevant to the A.Y. under consideration from family pension and agricultural income which were not subjected to the Income Tax Act, in the preceding years. 4.1 The ld. counsel for the assessee further submitted that out of these tax free resources the assessee saved an amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- which was actually the saving collected during earlier years by the assessee and which was invested in the purchase of property, therefore, the AO was not justified in holding that the assessee never disclosed income to the department. 4.2 The counsel for the assessee also submitted that the fact of the earning from family pension and agricultural income, prior to relevant assessment year 2006-07 cannot be denied on the ground that the assessee did not disclose the same to the Revenue Department as the same income was out of ambit of taxable income limits. The counsel for the assessee drawn our at....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... income which were not subjected to tax in earlier years. It is observed that the appellant has earned average monthly pension of Rs. 4,600/- totaling to Rs. 52,800/- per annum. Besides that agricultural income has also been shown. . It appears that the appellant was regularly maintaining bank account No.9521 with Allahabad Bank and it has been claimed that since February, 2000, a sum of Rs. 7,09,000/-- were withdrawn from this account for justifying the cash in hand from past savings at Rs. 1,35,000/-. The appellant's argument goes against herself as average yearly withdrawal from February, 2000 to March, 2005 comes to Rs. 1,41,800/-. Thus entire pension income and other funds were consumed by the appellant in the past 5 years and balance as on 31-03- 2005 remained just Rs. 1,209/- only. The pattern of withdrawals shows that the appellant was solely dependent upon the pension income and the moment pension was credited in, the bank account, the same was' withdrawn in small amounts reflecting the consumption, rather than the savings. Alternatively, the appellant was earlier having FDRs (encashment of which has been shown at Rs. 3,26,849/- on 25-04-2005). Such FDR must have b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther funds were consumed by the assessee during the earlier 5 years and there was a balance of Rs. 1,209/- only as on 31st March, 2005. The ld. CIT(A) further held that the pattern of withdrawal shows that the assessee was solely dependend on the pension income and the moment pension income was credited to her bank account, the same was withdrawn in small amounts reflecting the actual consumption rather than the savings. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that had there been any surplus funds or savings, the same could have been in the form of bank deposits or FDRs but nothing of this kind of evidence was available with the assessee, therefore, it could not be believed that the assessee collected a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- from her past savings during preceding period of 5 years. 9. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that the assessee had not furnished details of withdrawals for household expenses neither during the assessment proceedings nor during the appellate proceedings, therefore, considering the old age of the assessee and other relevant factors like medical expenses etc. it can safely, be hold that the receipts from family pension as well as agricultural income were consumed by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....invested Rs. 12,50,000/- towards purchase of land and the same was claimed to be an investment made from advance received from intended / proposed purchasers Shri Rukmesh Pal, Shri Rajesh Pal, Shri Ravindra Kumar Pal and Kuntesh Pal amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/-, advance from Shri Jeet Singh and Smt. Kusum Devi amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/-and advance from Shri Vijay Singh amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/-. (total Rs. 12,50,000/-) 14. The ld. DR vehemently contended that the assessee received payments from the purchasers in cash on 12.01.2006 i.e. on the date of execution of sale deed by the assessee and there is no stipulation in the sale deed about the amount and date of receipt of advance by the assessee. The ld. DR further contended that the assessee had purchase property on 18.11.2005 and the assessee received payment from said purchasers on 12.01.2006 therefore, it cannot be presumed that the investment in purchase of land was made by the assessee from the amount of the advance received from the purchasers. The ld. DR further contended that the assessee had received Rs. 5,00,000/- from Shri Ajeet Singh and Smt. Kusum Devi on 07.12.2005 and Rs. 2,50,000/- from Shri Vijay Singh on 07.12....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore, impugned addition is liable to be deleted. The ld. counsel for the assessee drawn our attention towards paragraph 3.3 of the impugned order and reiterated assessee's submissions before the ld. CIT(A) which have been reproduced in the impugned order. 17. The ld. counsel for the assessee strongly contended that the assessee submitted copies of the passbook of the purchasers, copies of the pass book of the seller, copies of the passbook of the assessee herself, and copies of the purchase and sale deeds which clearly reflects the nexus between the amount received by the assessee as advance from the purchasers and its further utilizations for purchasing or for making investment in purchase of land. Therefore, the AO was not justified in making addition and the same was rightly deleted by the ld. CIT(A) on cogent and justified grounds. 18. The ld. counsel for the assessee also drawn out attention towards paragraph 3.3.2 of the impugned order and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) rightly held that the assessee by furnishing evidence, requisite details and explanation very well established that the amount of Rs. 12,50,000/- invested for purchase of land represented advance received agai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uring 116.99 Sq. Mts. on 18-11- 2005. The appellant has also furnished affidavits of the aforesaid purchasers wherein the aforesaid purchasers have deposed to have advanced amounts to the original seller Sh. Santosh Chand Tyagi, original owner (husband of Smt. Subhdra Tyagi) against purchase of plots of land/shop. It has been argued that in the sale deeds no specific date has been written in respect of receiving the amount by the appellant and instead, the sentence "kul vikraya mulya dhan dwitya paksh se nakad peshtar prapt kar liya hai .. " The appellant has defmed the word "Peshtar" which is an Urdu word meaning "advance received' before execution of the sale deeds and does not mean that the sale consideration were received on the date of execution of sale deed as alleged by the AO in the assessment order. It has further been contended that Sh. Jeet Singh and Smt. Kusum Devi in their joint affidavit clearly deposed that they had issued cheques the name of Sh. Santosh Chand Tyagi (original owner) before 18-11- 2005 who executed sale deed in favour of the appellant. This very fact had been noted by the AO in the reasons recorded for initiation of proceedings U/S 147 of the Act.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he case the assessee purchased land from Smt. Subhadra Tyagi wife of Dr. S.C. Tyagi on 18.11.2005 and purchase price was Rs. 14,00,000/- as per stipulations in the sale deed executed in favour of the purchaser assessee, at page no. 4 of the sale deed available from page nos. 22 to 32 of the paper book we observe that the seller has received entire consideration in cash before witnesses from the assessee (purchaser) on the same date i.e. 18.11.2005. 21. From the copies of the sale deed available from page nos. 33 to 81 of the paper book executed by the assessee seller in favour of Shri Vijay Singh, Shri Jeet Singh, Smt. Kusum Devi, Shri Rukmesh Kumar Pal and Smt. Ramesho Devi, we clearly observe that all these sale deeds have been executed by the assessee after execution of sale deed in her favour (the assessee) i.e. after 18.11.2005. In all these sale deeds executed by the assessee (seller) in favour of the aforementioned purchasers it has been stipulated that the assessee (seller) has received sale consideration before respective witnesses, but the detail and date of receipt has not been clearly mentioned. From copies of the passbooks of Dr. S.C. Tyagi and his wife Smt. Subhadra ....