TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 1025
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndemic. Accordingly, the delay is only counted by the 42 days. The ld. DR had not made any objection against the submission of the ld. AR. Accordingly, the delay of 128 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following concise grounds: "1. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals), has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in issuing the notice u/s 148 and with regard to reopening of the case. 2. That there was no reason to believe as per the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, which is sine quo for the purpose of forming the reason to believe and, thus, the proceedings as initiated u/s 148 deserves to be quashed. 3. That the reason to believe as formed by the Assessing Officer are merely on the basis of cash deposits in the bank account, is not proper and it is securely covered as per the judgment of ITAT, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar in the case of Sh. Amrik Singh and also as per the judgment of the Delhi Bench in the case of Sh. Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali. 4. Notwithstanding the above said grounds of appeals, the addition of Rs. 39,05,000/- on account of cash deposits in the bank account is highly unjustified and written submis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Circle-1(2), Bhubaneshwar Vs. M/s Serajuddin& Co. Kolkatta (IT Appeal No. 0019/00-01), (Orissa High Court). 7. The ld. DR only relied on the order of the revenue authorities. 8. We heard the rival submission and relied on the documents available in the record. In the referred cases are not come under the factual matrix of the assessee's case. We respectfully relied on the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana RakeshGupta vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Panchkula, [2018] 93 taxmann.com 271 (Punjab & Haryana) "This judgment does not support the petitioner's case. It is clearly distinguishable. As noted in the earlier part of paragraph 9, the Supreme Court held that the reasons recorded by the ITO for initiating proceedings under Sections 147 and 148 were not in accordance with law. As in that case, the Commissioner merely accorded permission under Section 151 without stating any reason himself it is axiomatic that his order would also not be in accordance with Section 151. The case before us is entirely different. We have found that the reasons recorded by the AO justify the initiation of proceedings under Sections 147 and 148. As the Principal Com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rmed the exchange of funds between the parties in his absence. The copy of the statement of Sh. VirinderBidhan is forming part of APB at Page 38-44. 9.2. The ld AR argued that one more statement of Sh. Dara Singh (witness to sale deed dated 29.03.2010) was also recorded on 11.12.2017 wherein he accepted the cash payment of Rs. 90,00,000/- by Sh. Umed Singh & Others to the assessee and other co-owners in his presence. The copy of the statement of Sh. Dara Singh is forming part of APB at Page 45-49. 9.3. The ld. AR placed that in addition to above, one report dated 10.12.2017 of the handwriting expert Sh. H.S Mander, Barnala was filed with the ld. AO which confirms the fact that the signatures of Sh. Umed Singh on Photocopy of receipt dated 23.03.2010 matches with the signatures put on his statement recorded on oath before income tax authorities. The copy of the report is forming part of APB at Page 60-67. 9.4. The ld. AR argued that during the course of appeal proceedings, the assessee also filed copy of report dated 07.12.2018 of the handwriting expert Sh. H.S Mander, Barnala who confirms the fact that the signatures of Sh. Umed Singh on agreement (Ikrarnama) dated 06.10.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the AO has reproduced the affidavit of the buyer of the land namely Mr.Umed Singh Dabas. The relevant portion of the remand report is reproduced below: "2. In this connection, the report is submitted as under: - 2.1 In order to find out actual state of affairs about correctness of contents in the so called "Ikarnama", from the purchaser Shri. Umed Singh Dabas, summons u/s. 131 of the I.T Act,1961 was issued to him to verify the correctness of contents in the "Ikarnama". The compliance thereto Sh.Umed Singh Dabas filed an affidavit stating therein as under:- 1. That I have purchased the land situated at Village Dhabi Tek Singh, Tehsil Narwana ,Distt. Jind, Haryana' from Shri. AjaibSingh,Harjinder Singh &Harbans Singh Sons of Shri.BalbirSignh. 2. That the total amount for the purchase said agriculture land has been paid through demand raft to the said sellers which the detailed has been mentioned in the registry and the copy of registry already submitted in the office of ITO, Mansa Ward-1(4) and no cash payment was made in the said transaction. However, I have already given my statement in the office of ITO, Mansa Ward. 1(4) on 4.12.2017. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment year 2010-11, the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs. 59,55,000/- in saving bank account No. 65270807817 maintained by the assessee with SBOP, Industrial Area, Mansa. Since the assessee has withdrawn Rs. 20,00,000/- on 15.12.2009, Rs. 10,50,000/- from his saving bank account. After giving benefit of these amounts totalling to Rs. 30,50,000/-, the source of balance cash deposit of Rs. 39,05,000/- (Rs. 69,55,000/- minus Rs. 30,50,000/-) remained unexplained. As the assessee has failed to furnish any explanation with regard to nature and source of said cash deposits, the source of cash credit amount of Rs. 39,05,000/- is unexplained to the department. In view of the provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the unexplained investment of Rs. 39,05,000/- is deemed to be income of the assessee for the Financial Year 2009-10 from undisclosed sources and the same is charged to tax in the Asstt. Year 2010- 11. 6.3 Since the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income to the tune of Rs. 39,05,000/-, I am satisfied that it is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... bank account of the assessee on 09.04.2009. Since the assessee has not appeared before the AO nor made compliance to the various notices issued by the Assessing Officer, therefore, the assessment was completed ex-parte U/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee produced sale deed as well as bank account and also detailed submissions in respect of the source of cash deposit made in the bank account. The ld. C(IT(A) called for remand report wherein the AO has pointed out that the sale deed dated 08.04.2009 shows the sale consideration of Rs. 6,45,000/-. The ld. CIT(A) has consequently allowed the claim of the assessee only to the extent of Rs. 6,45,000/- as stated in the sale deed. The Bench has raised a query about the discrepancy in the name mentioned in the sale deed and the name of the assessee appearing in other records. The ld. AR has pointed out that the assessee Shri Pappu Ram is also known as @ Prabhu Ram. Thus, in the sale deed of the name of the assessee appearing as Shri Prabhu Ram. After verification of the record we are satisfied that the name appearing in the sale deed alias name of the assessee. The AO has also not disputed the fact that the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... khasaras numbers as well as the part consideration of Rs. 15,50,000/- through a cheque No. 582863/- dated 10/6/2005 is not in dispute. The details of the said cheque also find place in the registered sale deed dated 11/8/2005. Thus, the contents of the agreement to the extent of part payment of consideration has been established by the sale deed dated 11/8/2005. Therefore, even if the said agreement is not enforceable in law due to the non-bearing of the signature of the assessee and further due to non-registration, the contents of the said agreement which has been proved and corroborated by the sale deed go to establish the existence of the agreement between the parties. Further the details of the cash deposited in the bank account of the sellers and their relatives has been reproduced by the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings at page No. 4 and 5 of the assessment order as under The dates of deposit of cash as well as cheques in the bank accounts of the sellers, their sons, grandsons and wife are clearly matching to the dates of agreement to sell and sale deed i.e. 11/5/2005 and 11/8/2005. AH the deposits of cash in the bank accounts of these persons were ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee related to cash receive from the purchaser. The entire evidence of the assessee clearly depicted that the agreement was duly executed by the purchaser and seller. Later the purchaser denied the agreement and rejected the argument for transfer of cash to the seller. During assessment, the ld. AO only relied on the statement of the purchaser Mr. Umed Singh Debas. No other circumstantial evidence is placed against the assessee by the revenue. The ld. AR fully relied on the order of Sh. Pappu Ram Saran, (supra), and also relied on the order of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Amritsar, Sh. Jagsir Singh. We also relied on the order of the same bench in case of Jagsir Singhand order of Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Jaipur. The ld. DR in argument was not able to adduce any contradictory fact against the submission of the ld. AR. In our considered view, the cash which was deposited in the bank account by the assessee was contemporaneous to sale of agricultural land and supported the agreement of sale. Accordingly, the addition amount of Rs. 39,05,000/- is quashed. 12.1 In the result, the ground no. 4 of the assessee is allowed. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA ....