2014 (5) TMI 1118 - AT - Income Tax

Sale of land - Addition on cash deposits in the State Bank of India and Axis Bank - Held that - 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 ₹ 60 lac was received on 02.08.2008. Further amount of ₹ 25 lac was received on 30.04.2009 and further ₹ 15 lac on 25.06.2009 whereas, the first agreement dated 02.08.2008 was cancelled on 30.04.2009 and the entire amount of ₹ 60 lac was stated to be returned. Fresh agreement was carried out and advance of ₹ 85 lac was received, which was also canceled later on and the entire amount of advance of ₹ 85 lakh was also returned on the same date. The facts given in the affidavit and in the statement are, as such, contradictory. The facts stated in the affidavits, relied upon by the appellant are, as such, not in consonance with the agreement and hence are not reliable. In view of the fact discussed above, it is noted that the appellant failed to explain the source of deposit of cash in the saving bank accounts maintained with the Axis Bank and the SBI Bank and hence addition thereof made by the AO is hereby confirmed. Various ground of appeal taken by the appellant are, as such, rejected.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Sustaining the arbitrary addition made by the Income Tax Officer (ITO).
2. Rejection of the Ikrarnama (agreement) for the sale of agricultural land.
3. Rejection of the statement of Solia Ram, the father of the assessee.
4. Rejection of affidavits filed by Hawa Singh, Ram Diya, and Ajmer Singh.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Sustaining the Arbitrary Addition Made by the ITO:
The assessee contested the addition of Rs. 83,26,825/- made by the ITO to his income based on substantial cash deposits in his bank accounts. The ITO had received AIR information indicating that the assessee had deposited cash amounts of Rs. 23,34,075/- and Rs. 59,92,750/- in two separate bank accounts during the financial year 2008-09. The assessee claimed these deposits were from advances received for the sale of agricultural land. However, the ITO found inconsistencies in the explanations provided, such as the absence of corresponding cash withdrawals and deposits matching the claimed transactions. The ITO added the entire amount of cash deposits to the assessee's income, which was upheld by the CIT(A) after noting multiple discrepancies in the assessee's claims.

2. Rejection of the Ikrarnama for Sale of Agricultural Land:
The assessee presented multiple agreements (Ikrarnamas) indicating advances received for the sale of agricultural land. The first agreement dated 2.8.2008 mentioned an advance of Rs. 60 lakhs, with further advances of Rs. 25 lakhs and Rs. 15 lakhs on subsequent dates. However, the agreements were not attested by a notary or witnessed, and the sale deed did not mention these advances. The CIT(A) observed that the agreements were canceled and new ones executed without corresponding bank transactions supporting these claims. The CIT(A) found the agreements unreliable and upheld the ITO's decision to reject them.

3. Rejection of the Statement of Solia Ram, the Father of the Assessee:
Solia Ram, the assessee's father, had given a statement on oath claiming that he and his brothers received advances for the sale of land and handed the money to the assessee for deposit in his bank account. The CIT(A) found inconsistencies in the statement, noting that the claimed receipt of Rs. 60 lakhs on 2.8.2008 did not match the bank deposits. Additionally, the statement was contradicted by the fact that the agreements were canceled and new ones executed without corresponding cash withdrawals. The CIT(A) deemed the statement unreliable and upheld its rejection.

4. Rejection of Affidavits Filed by Hawa Singh, Ram Diya, and Ajmer Singh:
The assessee submitted affidavits from Hawa Singh, Ram Diya, and Ajmer Singh supporting the claim of advances received for the sale of land. The CIT(A) found these affidavits inconsistent with the agreements and the bank transactions. The affidavits claimed receipt of advances on specific dates, but the corresponding bank deposits did not align with these claims. The CIT(A) concluded that the affidavits were not credible and upheld the ITO's decision to reject them.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the addition made by the ITO, reject the Ikrarnama, the statement of Solia Ram, and the affidavits filed by Hawa Singh, Ram Diya, and Ajmer Singh. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide credible evidence to support his claims, noting multiple inconsistencies and contradictions in the explanations provided. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed.