TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 1118
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation was received by the Assessing officer which depicted that the assessee (being ½ share) has deposited cash amounting to Rs. 233407/- and Rs. 5992750/- during the year. On enquiry it was mainly submitted that assessee's father Shri Solia Ram along with his brothers S/Shri Hawa Singh, Ram Dia and Ajmer Singh had entered into an agreement dated 2.8.2008 to sell their agricultural land @ Rs. 1.11 lakh per acre to Shri Baldev Singh. Total area of the land was 30 kanals and initially an advance of Rs. 60 lakhs was received on 2.8.2008 and date of registration was fixed on 1.5.2009. Later on another agreement was entered into on 30.4.2009 and an advance of Rs. 85 lakhs was received and date of registration was fixed on 30.6.2009. Later on this agreement was cancelled and fresh agreement was executed on 26.6.2009 and an advance of Rs. 1 lakh was received but the date of registration was not mentioned. This agreement was not attested by Notary or witnessed by an witness. The assessee filed the affidavit dated 9.12.2011 which contains the following averments: (i) That my father Shri Solia Ram and my uncles namely S/Shri Ajmer Singh, Hawa Singh entered into an agreement dated 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ii) Smt. Sweta w/o Shr Rajesh Khurania s/o Shri Surjeet Bahadur Khurana ½ share Total sale consideration has been incorporated at Rs. 54,12,000/- and stamp duty of Rs. 2,16,500/- has been paid. Considering the submissions and above facts from the sale deed he observed that there was no mention of advance in the sale deed. However, the advance is stated to have been received from Baldev Singh but the land was sold to Amar Nath, Smt. Nilima, Smt. Navita and Smt. Sweta. In any case total sale consideration in the sale deed was only Rs. 54,12,000/-. Therefore there cannot be any receipt of advance amounting to Rs. 60 lakhs. In this background the Assessing officer added a sum of Rs. 8326825/- being cash deposited in two banks to the income of the assessee. 4 On appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) the submissions made before the Assessing officer were reiterated. It was further pointed out that original agreement was extended on various occasions and more payment was received on various dates. It was also pointed out that Shri Teji Singh i.e. the assessee s/o Shri Solia Ram was the only educated person in the family having bank account, therefore he was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....what is shown in the sale deed and in this regard reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of Dinesh Kumar Mittal, 193 ITR 770. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of CIT Vs. Parineeta, ITA No. 278 of 2010 vide order dated 7.2.2011. 8. We have gone through these submissions and find that the Ld. CIT(A) has discussed all these issues in detail in his order vide para 1.04 to 1.13 which are as under: "1.04 To appreciate the facts, details of deposit of cash in the saving bank account made by the appellant during the year under consideration are given below:- 1.05 The issue is examined. The fact in brief are that on the basis of AIR information, it was noted that there were substantial cash deposits in the saving bank account maintained by the appellant with the Axis Bank & SBI Bank and on that basis the case was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings, the AO asked the assessee to explain the source of deposits of cash in these bank accounts. The appellant tried to explain the source of deposit in the saving bank account maintained with the Ax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut of the advance of Rs. 60 Lakh received is also not correct since the said advance was received on 02.08.2008 only and hence the same was not available prior to 02.08.2008. The plea of the appellant of deposit of cash in piece meal is not tenable also in view of the fact that in that case there was no need of piece meal withdrawal of cash from the bank being huge amount was available at home. 1.09 Further sequence of events are also discussed below:- On the back of the 1st page of the agreement, the following statement has been written which is reproduced below: - The date has been written 30.04.2009. In view of the above, it is noted that the entire amount of advance of Rs. 60 lac was returned to the purchaser on 30.04.2009. A fresh agreement was taken place on 30.04.2009 as per which a sum of Rs. 85 lac was received in advance. This agreement was also cancelled on 25.06.2009 and the entire amount of advance of Rs. 85 lac was returned on the same date as per the agreement dt. 26.06.09 which reads as under: 1.10 There was no further agreement per which it is claimed that amount of Rs. 151ac was further paid by the purchaser for getting the date of execution of sale de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmons u/s 131 of the IT. Act was issued on 19.12.2011 to Sh. Baldev Singh S/o Sh. Ram Singh R/o Village Shergarh, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal but Sh. Baldev Singh has refused to accept the summon as per Inspector's report placed on file. However, one copy of summon has been sent by post as Regd. A.D. Sh. Baldev Singh has failed to comply with the summon issued u/s 131 of the I.T. Act, 1961." 1.12 In view of the facts discussed above, the only inference which can be drawn is that the deposit of cash made by the appellant in his saving bank accounts maintained with the Axis Bank and with the SBI Bank had nothing to do with the facts of sale of land by his father and his uncles. It is also endorsed by the fact that there was no such deposit or withdrawal from the bank accounts maintained by the appellant. As far as, reliance placed on the statement of the father of the assessee and the copy of the affidavit of the father and of uncles of the appellant, it is noted that in the statement as well as in the affidavit, it is stated that the advance of Rs. 60 lac was received on 02.08.2008. Further amount of Rs. 25 lac was received on 30.04.2009 and further Rs. 15 lac on 25.06.2009 whereas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....between the parties to a sale. The Actual consideration may be more or may be less. What is the actual consideration that passed between the parties is a question of fact to be determined in each case, having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. In this case, the petitioner brought to the notice of the Commissioner that the portion purchased by him was under the tenancy of his mother and actually they were themselves occupying it. This may be a reason for selling the house at a rate lesser than fair market value or it may not be; but that is a question of fact. It is true that the ITO had observed that the petitioner had not placed any material before him in the circumstances of the case, but he seems to have omitted to notice that the purchased premises were under the tenancy of the assessee's mother and the assessee's family was said to be occupying it. In the circumstances, the orders of all the three authorities are quashed and the matter is remitted to the ITO for re-determination of the actual consideration which was paid by the assessee in the said transaction afresh in the light of the observations made above. The assessment may be finalized according....