2022 (2) TMI 1091

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... "1. That the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Jal, is against law & facts of the case. 2. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals)-I, Jal, has erred in law & facts of the case in confirming the addition u/s 68 to the tune of Rs. 79,50,000/- 3. That the impugned order under appeal is arbitrary and contrary to law & facts of the case, hence deserves to be cancelled." 2. Succinctly stated, on the basis of information received that the assessee had during the year under consideration made deposits of Rs. 1,71,59,223/- (79,50,000 + 92,00,000) in his Saving bank account No. 652410110005482 with Bank of India, Machhiwara, the A.O reopened his case u/s 147 of the Act. In response to the N....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....jeet Kaur W/o. Shri Hari Singh for a consideration of Rs. 92.11 lac. Backed by the aforesaid details, the AO called upon the assessee to explain the nature and source of deposit of Rs. 79.50 lacs (supra) in his bank account a/w supporting evidence. Also the AO called upon the assessee to furnish details as regards the withdrawals that were made by him from his aforesaid bank account. Further, the AO directed the assessee to produce Shri Jail Singh (supra) with whom the "agreement" for sale of land was claimed to have been executed a/w the original "agreement". However, the assessee thereafter came up with a changed version and claimed that the amount of Rs. 79.50 lacs (supra) was received by him from Shri Jail Singh (supra) as earnest money....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....with the A.O, but re-characterized the addition qua the unexplained cash deposits in the bank account that was made by him u/s 68 of the Act, as an addition u/s 69A of the Act., and dismissed the appeal. 6. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter before us. We have heard the ld. Authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the ld. A.R to drive home his contentions. Admittedly, the assessee had, inter alia, received in his bank account an amount of Rs. 79.50 lac (supra) as a transfer entry from one Shri Jail Singh (supra). As ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....On the contrary, the fact that the assessee as on 27.01.20211 had received the sale consideration of Rs. 92 lac from Smt. Charanjeet Kaur (supra), i.e., the person to whom the aforesaid agricultural land was sold by him vide a registered sale deed, in itself militates against his claim of having received on the very same date, i.e, on 27.01.2011 as earnest money an amount of Rs. 79.50 lac (supra) by way of a transfer entry in his bank account from the aforementioned Shri Jail Singh (supra). In our considered view, now when the assessee had vide a registered sale deed dated 27.01.2011 sold his aforesaid agricultural land in question for a consideration of Rs. 92 lac to Smt. Chanrajeet Kaur (supra), and had received the sale consideration vid....