9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 853X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The ld A.O. noticed that during the year under consideration, the assessee purchased six acres of land located at Nagal Ugra Teju, Tehsil Bawal, Haryana from Shri Prem Chand, S/o- Ram Narayan, R/o- village- Shahpur, Post-Nagal Ugra (Bawal) through Ikrarnama for a consideration of Rs. 50 lacs and payment of the said amount was made in two installments i.e. Rs. 20 lacs on 14/7/2008 and Rs. 30 lacs on 30/11/2008. The ld Assessing Officer asked vide order sheet dated 26/10/2012 to produce documentary evidence in respect of the investment made by the assessee . During the assessment proceedings, the assessee produced various documents in the form of affidavit from his father Shri Bharat Singh, affidavit of Shri Satyaveer Singh and other documents. The ld Assessing Officer had also recorded the statement of Shri Deer Pal and Shri Hukam Singh. However, the ld Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the statement of the said witnesses and also the affidavit, made the addition of Rs. 50 lacs to the income of the assessee on account of unexplained investment from his undisclosed source of income. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count, there is a withdrawal of Rs. 1,60,000/- on 25.11.2008. In his statement, he has stated that his annual agricultural income is Rs. 2 lacs. He also stated that has given Rs. 8 lacs to the assessee about 5 years back. All these evidences shows his creditworthiness to contribute Rs. 11 lacs in purchase of the land but the same were ignored by the lower authorities. Therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) that Sh. Hukum Singh failed to furnish evidence with regard to source of fund is incorrect. (iii) Sh. Satveer contributed Rs. 11 lacs in purchase of this land. He has stated in his affidavit that he and his brother Dharamveer sold agricultural land for Rs. 12 lacs. Further, Sh. Dharamveer has filed an affidavit where he stated that he has given his share in the sale proceeds to Satveer. Thus, the source of fund in the hand of Satveer to give his contribution for purchase of land is fully established. The lower authorities have not given any cognizance to these documentary evidences and therefore the finding of lower authorities in this connection is incorrect. (iv) Sh. Bharat Singh, father of the assessee, has given Rs. 22 lacs to the assessee for purchase of the land. Sh. Bhar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry explained, no addition can be made in the peculiar facts of the case in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in case of CIT vs. P.K. Noorjehan 237 ITR 570. In this case, assessee was a Muslim lady aged 20 years. She made certain investments in land. The explanation of assessee regarding the source of the purchase money for these investments was that the same were financed from out of the savings from the income of the properties which were left by her mother's first husband. The said explanation offered by the assessee was rejected and addition was made u/s 69. The Tribunal, however, held that even though the explanation about the nature and sources of the purchase money was not satisfactory but in the facts and circumstances of the case it was not possible for the assessee to earn the amount invested in the properties and that by no stretch of imagination could the assessee be credited with having earned this income in the course of the assessment year or was even in a position to earn it for a decade or more. The Tribunal took the view that although the explanation of the assessee was liable to be rejected, s. 69 of the Act conferred only a discretion on the ITO to deal with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the said view of the Tribunal. We also do not find any error in the said finding recorded by the Tribunal. There is thus no merit in these appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed." The ratio of this decision is also applicable in the present case in as much as in case, the source of investment explained by the assessee is not found to be satisfactory, in the absence of any other source of income having been brought in record by the lower authorities, addition u/s 69 is not justified. In view of above, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is unjustified and the same be deleted. 5. At the outset, the ld DR has vehemently supported the order of the ld CIT(A) and has submitted that the assessee has made an investment of Rs. 50 lacs on 14/7/2008 and 30/11/2008 and the assessee has failed to prove the source of such investment. It was submitted that even the witnesses produced by the assessee in support of this case has also not supported the case of the assessee. It was, therefore, submitted that the addition made by the ld A.O. and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) is required to be upheld by this Tribunal. 6. We have heard the rival contentions of both t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would only be owner of half of the property though, the agreement of sale was executed in his favour for the entire property. Out of the total sale consideration of 54 Lacs Hukum Singh and Satveer Singh collectively contributed Rs. 22 lacs. Thus in our opinion the the conjoint reading of the consent deed and the statements of Hukum Singh, clearly exclusively the source of investment of Rs. 22 lakhs for the purchase of land. Till date has not been executed in favour of the assessee, that can always be executed in favour of the persons who had provided the sale consideration. We wish to support from the statement of the assessee recorded by the AO in response to question 11 which is as under:- प्रश्न 11 कृपया बताये कि आपने जो 50.00.000/- (पचास लाख) रू. का इकरारनामा (जमीन का) किया है उस सौदे की रé ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the time of assessment proceedings has mentioned that the assessee has purchased the land by investing a sum of Rs. 50 lacs in the agricultural land, in our view, the said conclusion of the ld Assessing Officer should be based on some cogent and legal documents executed between the assessee and the seller. The assessing officer has not recorded any statement of the Seller under section 131 of the Act, to show that the said land was sold by him for a valuable consideration to the assessee. The statement of seller namely Shri Prem Chand or his attorney have not been recorded by the ld Assessing Officer, which could prove the receipt of the amount by the said persons from the assessee. Therefore, in our view, revenue was not right in concluding that the assessee has invested the amount in the property and some right has accrued in his favour of the assessee on the basis of the said document. In our view, the agreement to sell is not admissible in law and cannot be relied upon for the purposes of approving the investment in the land on account of specific buyer under section 17 and 18 of Registration Act. The next submission, which is required by us to examine, whether the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
