9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 2563 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained deposit - Held that - In the present case assessee was called upon to explain the deposits made in her savings bank account to the extent of 15, 00, 000/-. The assessee was required to satisfactorily explain the source of the cash deposit in the savings bank account during the assessment year. For the purpose of explaining the source of cash deposit the assessee has submitted that the amount was received by her on account of sale of her plot to one Shri Shakeel Khan vide documents dated 4.6.2007 . The sale consideration received by her was deposited by her in savings bank account after finalization of sale. The assessee transferred this plot on the basis of Agreement to Sale Will and General Power of Attorney. The General Power of Attorney had been registered in favour of Shri Shakeel Khan on 04.06.2007. The assessee s case prima facie appears to be in favour of assessee that no one without any receipt of consideration would register the General Power of Attorney in favour of a stranger. But it is also undisputed fact that on verification from the side of Shri Shakeel Khan through statement recorded under section 131 has shown that he had denied having given 15, 00, 000/- against the sale consideration as claimed by the assessee. Thereafter Shri Shakeel Khan had sold this plot subdividing to third party on subsequent date through registered sale deed. There is no evidence about subsequent sale and what status has been shown in the registered sale deed of Shri Shakeel Khan. On verification of bank account it is also clear that assessee has withdrawn money from the bank account in which cash of 15, 00, 000/- were deposited for purchase of residential house. It is also found from the copy of account that assessee had also taken loan from Punjab National Bank for construction of the house. All these facts are required to be re-examined by the AO which has not been considered at the time of assessment as well as by the ld. CIT (A) which shall explain the nature of transaction. Accordingly we set aside this issue to the file of AO for fresh decision after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- as unexplained deposit to the total income of the assessee. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- as Unexplained Deposit The primary issue in this appeal is whether the sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- deposited in the assessee's bank account should be treated as unexplained income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. Facts and Arguments: - The assessee claimed that the Rs. 15,00,000/- deposited in her bank account was from the sale of a plot of land located at 319 Udyog Nagar, Jhotwara, Jaipur. - The sale was allegedly made to Shri Shakeel Khan, with the transaction documented through an Agreement to Sale, a General Power of Attorney (GPA), and a Will, all dated 4th June 2007. - The Assessing Officer (AO) did not accept the assessee's explanation, primarily because Shri Shakeel Khan, in his statement recorded under Section 131, denied entering into any such agreement or making any payment of Rs. 15,00,000/-. - The AO further noted discrepancies in the sale deeds and the cheque transactions, concluding that the sale consideration was paid in cash and not through cheques as claimed. CIT (A) Findings: - The CIT (A) upheld the AO's decision, emphasizing that the Agreement to Sale did not bear the purchaser's signature and that Shakeel Khan denied the transaction. - The CIT (A) also noted the absence of documentary evidence to substantiate the receipt of Rs. 15,00,000/- by the assessee. - The CIT (A) dismissed the assessee's reliance on the Agreement to Sale, GPA, and Will, considering them insufficient to prove the transaction's genuineness. Assessee's Contentions: - The assessee argued that the documents executed (Agreement to Sale, GPA, and Will) are common practices in real estate transactions. - The assessee provided a detailed breakdown of the cash payments received from Shakeel Khan on various dates, totaling Rs. 15,00,000/-. - It was contended that the possession of the plot was handed over to Shakeel Khan, and the cash was deposited in the bank account on 16.07.2007. - The assessee also cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana to support the validity of such documents in real estate transactions. Revenue's Arguments: - The Revenue argued that there was no correlation between the cash payments allegedly received and the deposit made on 16.07.2007. - The Revenue also highlighted that the Agreement to Sale was a sham document, as it neither reflected the assessee's intention nor bore Shakeel Khan's signature. - Shakeel Khan's statement under Section 131, where he denied the transaction, was also emphasized. Tribunal's Observations: - The Tribunal noted that the primary contention revolves around the unexplained deposit of Rs. 15,00,000/- in the assessee's bank account. - It was observed that the assessee's explanation was based on documents that were not corroborated by Shakeel Khan. - The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT (A) had not thoroughly examined certain aspects, such as the subsequent sale of the plot by Shakeel Khan and the assessee's use of the deposited amount for purchasing a residential house. Conclusion and Directions: - The Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO for fresh examination, directing a detailed inquiry into the nature of the transaction, including the verification of the sale deeds, the role of Shakeel Khan, and the utilization of the deposited amount. - The assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with the AO instructed to re-evaluate the case after providing an opportunity for the assessee to be heard. Order Pronouncement: - The order was pronounced in the open court on 30/10/2015. This comprehensive analysis ensures that all relevant facts, legal arguments, and judicial observations are preserved, providing a clear understanding of the judgment and its implications.
|
