9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income tax proceedings as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal [1995 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court ] . The explanation canvassed by assessee defies logic and fails to invoke any confidence. In view of the foregoing have no hesitation to hold that assessee failed to discharge burden cast by I T Act in this behalf. - Decided against assessee - ITA No. 408/JP/2013 - - - Dated:- 22-2-2016 - SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri Tanuj Agarwal, CA For The Revenue : Shri Purshottam Kashyap, Addl. CIT-DR ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-II, Jaipur dated 11-03-2013 for the assessment year 2008-09 wherein the assessee has raised following grounds. 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining an addition of ₹ 7,45,500/- on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits in bank account. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining an addition of ₹ 54,680.75 on account of Short term capital gains from shares ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e total income of the assessee. 3.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred first appeal where the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on this ground by observing as under:- 4 .. The perusal of the bank account of the assessee showed deposits of more than 10.00 lacs. When the AO asked the source of deposits to be proved, the assessee furnished a cash flow statement which showed receipt of ₹ 7,45,500/- on 17-12-2007 on account of advance sale of land. When asked to prove, the assessee furnished a copy of Agreement to sell agricultural land (situated at village Tatiwas, Sikar Road, Jaipur ). The AO has stated that date of agreement was not mentioned on the agreement. That the agreement was not valid because stamp paper was purchased on 7-01-2006 whereas the agreement was executed on 18- 12-2007. That the agreement should have been executed within six months of the date of purchase of the stamp paper. That the assessee did not produce the original agreement though required. Thus according to the AO the agreement of sale was not valid because the stamp paper was not executable 5. Through written submission it was stated that as per Stamp Paper Act, 1989, there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at AIR (2008) 1541 SC (paper book page no. 3 to 10), wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court held that under the Stamp Act, 1899, there is no expiry date for use of stamp paper and section 54 does not require purchaser of stamp paper to use it within six months. The limit of six months is for seeking refund of unused stamp paper by way of its surrender. Hence, the agreement to sell is valid in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court and was wrongly treated as invalid on this ground by the ld. A.O. The CIT(A) also erred in not considering this plea and judgment while adjudicating the matter. 2. Secondly, the ld. CIT(A) also contended that when agreement was executed on 17.12.2007 then how come the receipt of ₹ 7,45,500/- is shown in the cash flow statement on 18.12.2007. It is humbly submitted that this contention is not valid to invite an adverse inference against the appellant s claim because the receipt is shown just a day afterwards and not before the execution of agreement. It is possible due to various reasons viz. receipt of cash and execution of agreement in late hours or oversight. 3. Thirdly, it was held that the original agreement wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er and Section 54 does not require purchaser of stamp paper to use it within six months. The limit of six months is for seeking refund of unused stamp paper by way of its surrender. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on by the ld. AR of the assessee in the case of Thiruvengada Pillai Vs. Navaneethammal Anr. (supra). The documents are kept by the purchaser and not by the seller. Xerox copy was furnished for execution of sale agreement. Original copy being with the purchaser i.e. Shri Mangi Lal Jalan could not be produced. Ld. AO did not get verified from Shri Mangi Lal Jalan on per the address provided by the assessee with PAN ABWPJ 7034 L. Assessee having discharged her burden the addition should be deleted. 3.6 The ld. DR relied on the other hand relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 3.7 I have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. So far no authentic or corroborative evidence has come on record from the assessee side to support the explanation. It is incumbent on the assessee to support its explanation based on proper evidence. Only a photocopy of agreement cannot be held as sufficient corro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
