2019 (12) TMI 1099

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ment, when the said amount was available with the assessee. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 16,04,000/- without appreciating the facts that the assessee was having the source of the said deposits not giving the effect of the amount withdrawn and redeposited in bank and also did not allow the consideration received of Rs. 18,37,800/- instead of Rs. 11,92,000/-. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. A.O. both of them have erred in law and were not justified in disbelieving the sale proceeds of agriculture land (Rs. 18,37,800/-.) 6. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) as well as Ld. A.O. were not justified in making addition of Rs. 29,96,000/- appeared in State Bank of India on 3.7.2005 and 18.7.2005 respectively whereas the peak investment in this said bank amounted to Rs. 19,31,000/- only. 7. That the appellant craves to add, alter or delete any ground or grounds of appeal on or before hearing. 2. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of the AIR information. A notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd was at Rs. 18,37,800/-, against a sum of Rs. 11,92,000/- as recorded in the sale deed. He further contended that no inquiry was made from the purchasers, even the co-owners of the land have confirmed this fact on oath, i.e. the actual consideration of the agricultural land so sold was higher than what was recorded in the sale deed. 8. Further, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has accepted the source of income but did not accept the opening cash balance as on 1.04.2005. He contended that under these facts ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the entire addition. 9. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) vehemently opposed these submissions. He submitted that the entire explanation so furnished is after thought and is not being supported by any material evidence. Ld. DR further submitted that the issue in question is to examine and verify the source of cash deposit which stood deposited in the account of the assessee. Hence, onus is on the assessee to prove the sources of the deposits with plausible evidences. He submitted that mere making statement would not be sufficient to accept the contention of the assessee. In rejoinder Ld. Autho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h received in parts prior to 27.05.2005 Rs. 5,16,400/- Regd. Sale deed dated 27.05.2005 in favour of Shri Balbeer Singh Meena Rs. 3,04,000 Cash received in parts prior to 27.05.2005 Rs. 3,04,000/- Regd. Sale deed dated 27.05.2005 in favour of Smt. Kaushalaya Bai Meena Rs. 2,80,000 Cash received in parts prior to 27.05.2005 Rs. 5,01,200/- Regd. Sale deed dated 27.05.2005 in favour of Shri Manmohan Singh Meena Rs. 3,04,000 Cash received in parts prior to 27.05.2005 Rs. 5,16,400/- Total Rs. 11,92,000/-   Rs. 18,37,800/- It was claimed in the written submission filed during appeal that the purchasers had actually paid an amount of Rs. 18,37,800/- instead of Rs. 11,92,000/- mentioned in the registered sale deeds. It was further stated that the assessee and his eight siblings jointly held about 20acres of agricultural land out of which the above 1.5 acres X4=6.0 acres of land was sold by them as per the four registered sale deeds dated 27.05.2005. The assessee has filed Khasra and Form P-II which show that the land was irrigated and under cultivation of Soya bean. Accordingly to the assessee, the income from the sa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the opening cash in and of Rs. 5,27,432/- as claimed by the assessee. Similarly, no documentary evidence has been furnished in support of the receipts of agricultural income of Rs. 2,00,000/- claimed to be received on 30.04.2015. As per the four registered sale deeds dated 27.05.2005, the assessee had received cash of Rs. 11,92,000/- upto the date of registration, i.e. 27.05.2005. there is no material/evidence with the appellant to establish that the actually received, Rs. 18,37,800/- instead of Rs. 11,92,000/-. The plea of the assessee that cash of Rs. 11,92,000/- was available with him for being deposited on 03.07.2005 is accepted. Further the appellant and his siblings had a land holding of about 20 acres out of which 6 acres was sold on 27.05.2005. The assessee had filed Khasra and Form P-II which show that the land was irrigated and under cultivation of Soyabean. Accordingly to the assessee, the income from the said agricultural land was about Rs. 25,000/- per acre. However, in the absence of any documentary evidence regarding the actual receipt of sale proceeds or the actual consumption by the households of the 9 siblings, it is held that it would be reasonable if fu....