TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 1277
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Rs. 80 lacs from their bank account on 11/05/2009 out of which Rs. 72 lacs was paid to the assessee against the sale of land which was deposited by her by opening the bank account on the same date. (b) Assessee has discharged her initial burden to prove the source of credit in her bank account but still holding that she has failed to discharge the onus u/s 68 to prove the identity of the creditor, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction and overlooking the fact that the addition made u/s 68 is illegal and bad in law inasmuch as this section does not apply to the deposit made in the bank account. 1.1) The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in confirming the above addition without rebutting the various evidences filed and case laws relied upon by solely basing his decision on the ground that assessee has failed to produce the buyer Smt. Kiran Devi for examination in the remand proceedings before the A.O. 2) The assessee craves to alter, amend, modify any of the grounds of appeal. 3) Necessary cost be allowed to the assessee." 2. All the grounds of the assessee's appeal are revolving around the assessee's income on account of unexplained cash....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 72 lacs has been deposited in cash on a single day i.e. 11th May, 2009 in her saving account in PNB, Deeg, Bharatpur branch. It was explained by the appellant that she has sold agricultural land in District Mathura and as per sale deed registered, the same consideration received is only Rs. 20 lacs. It is submitted by the appellant that balance amount of Rs. 52 lacs has been received from the purchaser of land Smt. Kiran Devi, W/o- Sh. Girraj Singh, R/o- Kosi Kalan, district- Mathura. The appellant could not substantiate the sources of cash deposits in the bank account. The A.O. has given a number of opportunities to the appellant to produce the buyer of land, who is stated to have given the cash but the appellant failed to produce the buyer. 4.6 The appellant has explained that the amount deposited in cash is on account of cash sale of land for which the registered sale deed has been executed at Rs. 20 lacs only. The appellant has also filed copies of bank account of the buyer of land Smt. Kiran Devi and her husband Shri Girraj Singh, wherein huge cash deposits and withdrawals from the bank account are reflected in the same period. It is stated that the source of cash....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....equest to record the statement of Smt. Kiran Devi has neither recorded her statement nor the statement of her husband Sh. Girraj Singh who is stated to have furnished a written submission. He has also not provided the copy of such written submission to the assessee and also not called the bank statement of purchaser and her husband before completing the assessment. 2. Immediately after completion of the assessment, the assessee vide letter dated 02.04.2013 again requested the AO to provide the copy of written reply filed by Smt. Kiran Devi/Sh. Girraj Singh and also requested to call the bank statement of Smt. Kiran Devi and her husband Sh. Giiraj Singh by issuing notice u/s 133(6) to the bank manager. In response, the AO vide letter dated 02.04.2013 refused to call the bank statement on the lame excuse that the same cannot be called as no proceedings are pending before him. All these facts shows that AO was not inclined to go into the truth of the matter. 3. In the meanwhile, the assessee has obtained the bank account of Smt. Kiran Devi, her husband Sh. Girraj and her relative Sh. Latoor Singh maintained with PNB, Koshikala and also letter dated 05.03.2013 i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eply she has put the signature. All this cast a shadow of doubt about the veracity of letter dated 05.03.2013 issued by the AO to Smt. Kiran Devi and the reply dated 08.03.2013 stated to be filed by her. Therefore, only on the basis of the so called letter filed by Kiran Devi/Girraj, the sale consideration of the property considered by the AO at Rs. 20 lacs as against Rs. 72 lacs is incorrect and cannot be a basis of making addition of Rs. 52 lacs as unexplained income of the assessee. 5. So far as other observations of the AO are concerned, the same are not relevant in as much as from the facts stated above, it is established that Smt. Kiran Devi has paid Rs. 72 lacs against purchase of agricultural land from the assessee and the AO for the reasons best known to him has not examined Smt. Kiran Devi nor provided any opportunity to cross-examine her. Further, stating the name of husband of Smt. Kiran Devi as Gopal Singh instead of Sh. Girraj Singh in the reply filed by assessee was only a typographical mistake. Hence, the reasons given by the AO for making the addition are frivolous. 6. In the remand proceedings the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the bank account is not found to be satisfactory explained, no addition can be made in the peculiar facts of the case in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in case of CIT vs. P.K. Noorjehan 237 ITR 570. In this case, assessee was a Muslim lady aged 20 years. She made certain investments in land. The explanation of assessee regarding the source of the purchase money for these investments was that the same were financed from out of the savings from the income of the properties which were left by her mother's first husband. The said explanation offered by the assessee was rejected and addition was made u/s 69. The Tribunal, however, held that even though the explanation about the nature and sources of the purchase money was not satisfactory but in the facts and circumstances of the case it was not possible for the assessee to earn the amount invested in the properties and that by no stretch of imagination could the assessee be credited with having earned this income in the course of the assessment year or was even in a position to earn it for a decade or more. The Tribunal took the view that although the explanation of the assessee was liable to be rejected, s. 69 of the Act c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed as income of the assessee. The High Court has agreed with the said view of the Tribunal. We also do not find any error in the said finding recorded by the Tribunal. There is thus no merit in these appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed." The ratio laid down in this case is equally applicable on the facts of the present case and therefore the addition made by AO is uncalled for and be deleted. 9. The Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in case of Sh. Rajesh Gupta Vs. ITO in ITA No. 1458/JP/2010 order dated 08.04.2011 (PB 41-46) and in case of Deepak Saren Vs. ITO in ITA No. 619/JP/2009 dated 31.03.2010, in somewhat similar circumstances by relying on the decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. P.K. Noorjehan supra and after considering all the circumstantial evidences including the source of income, deleted the addition made by the AO where there is difference in what is written in the sale deed and what was the actual consideration in respect of the sale of properties. 10. The lower authorities have made the addition u/s 68. Section 68 applies when any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee. It is a fact on....