9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 853X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y explained the source of the source. Further ₹ 22 lacs were received by the assessee from his father would also be many plausible explanation of receipt of 22 Lacs as sale consideration for the sale of his land from one Sh Gopi Ram. The assessee himself had produced the receipt of the ₹ 6,00,000/-received on account of sale of his Tractor. Thus the assessee was able to explain the complete source of investment of ₹ 50 lacs. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 265/JP/2015 - - - Dated:- 13-8-2016 - SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM For The Assessee : Shri P.C. Parwal (CA) For The Revenue : Shri Rajendra Singh (Addl.CIT) ORDER PER: LALIET KUMAR, J.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 15/01/2015 passed by the ld CIT(A), Alwar for the A.Y. 2009-10. The sole ground taken by the assessee in appeal is as under:- 1 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of ₹ 50,00,000/- on account of alleged unexplained investment in agricultural land. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is stated to be an agriculturist and has not filed any return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... result, the appeal is dismissed. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. The ld AR of the assessee has submitted that from the facts stated above and the evidence produced before the lower authorities, it is evident that both the authorities have not considered these evidences in proper perspective and made/confirmed the addition with a pre-determined mind. The explanation and the evidences in respect of each of the issues raised by the lower authorities is as under:- (i) The fact that assessee is only having share in the land purchased through agreement from Sh. Prem Chand is evidenced by the consent deed duly notarized on 21.06.2008 made on a stamp paper dated 27.03.2008, where Sh. Hukum Singh and Sh. Satveer have given the consent that assessee can get the agreement in his name for the entire land as they are unable to have their name in the agreement as they are residing outside due to employment. This consent deed was not held to be bogus/sham. It may be noted that no question on this issue was asked by the AO in the statement dated 20.03.2013 recorded by him. Further, affidavit of Sh. Satveer where he affirmed that he is 1/4th co-owner in the said land is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 22 lacs was given to Sh. Bharat Singh on 20.06.2008. All these evidences clearly proves that Sh. Dheerpal gave ₹ 22 lacs to Sh. Bharat Singh who gave this amount to the assessee for the purchase of land. All these facts are confirmed by Sh. Dheerpal in his statement also. No contrary evidence is brought on record by the lower authorities. Therefore, the finding of CIT(A) that the evidence produced by the assessee lacks substance and merit is only on surmises and conjectures. (v) The assessee owns a dumper having registration no. HR55A-6310 which was transferred in his name on 14.08.2007. He sold this vehicle for ₹ 6 lacs to Sh. Narendra Singh on 11.11.2008. Copy of the sale letter is at. This clearly evidenced the source of ₹ 6 lacs with the assessee for making payment towards purchase of land. This documentary evidence was ignored by the CIT(A) in holding that assessee has failed to furnish evidence with regard to sale of truck or receipt of money. Thus, the source of ₹ 6 lacs for investment in the land is fully established. He further submitted that the lower authorities have made the addition on account of unexplained investment in purchase o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as well as the High Court were in error in their interpretation of s. 69 of the Act. It was held by Hon ble Supreme Court as under:- We are unable to agree. As pointed out by the Tribunal, in the corresponding clause in the Bill which was introduced in Parliament, the word shall had been used but during the course of consideration of the Bill and on the recommendation of the Select Committee, the said word was substituted by the word may . This clearly indicates that the intention of Parliament in enacting s. 69 was to confer a discretion on the ITO in the matter of treating the source of investment which has not been satisfactorily explained by the assessee as the income of the assessee and the ITO is not obliged to treat such source of investment as income in every case where the explanation offered by the assessee is found to be not satisfactory. The question whether the source of the investment should be treated as income or not under s. 69 has to be considered in the light of the facts of each case. In other words, a discretion has been conferred on the ITO under s. 69 of the Act to treat the source of investment as the income of the assessee if the explanation offere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing amount of ₹ 30 lacs was received was Shri Prem Chand through GPA on 30/11/2008. In our view, the agreement dated 11/7/2008 was not signed by the assessee and moreover, said agreement was neither stamped nor registered. Further , it is recorded in that श्री सुनिल कुमार पुत्र श्री भरत सिंह, निवासी जाट बहरोड, तहसील मुण्डवर, जिला- अलवर 10.06.2009 करकेमु 20.00.000/- रूपया (बीस लाख रूपया) आज रोज नकद रोबरू गवाहान वसूल पा लिये हैं It is further recorded in the agreement that the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 352; किया था तथा इस जमीन के मालिक श्री अनिल कुमार पुत्र श्री बलवान के बीच किया हे , इसलिये इस सौदे की रजिस्ट्री अभी तक नहीं हो पाई। Further from reading of the terms and conditions of the agreement to sale and the statement recorded, it is clear that land has not been transferred in favour of the assessee and the agreement to sell was neither signed nor registered. Therefore, on the basis of this agreement, no transfer of property can take place. In view thereof, the reliance of the revenue on the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement or by the assessee to claim that the property has been pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investment, in consequence thereof or there cannot be any investment. The question of investment will only arise when there is a document to support that. Further we find that the assessee has been able to explain, assuming documents are admissible in law, source of investment, which is reflected from the statement given by the father of the assessee and also by the person from whom as well as also by the other persons. The assessee explained that ₹ 11 lacs were received by him from Sh. Hukum Singh and Satveer Singh. This said persons have duly explained the source of the source. Further ₹ 22 lacs were received by the assessee from his father would also be many plausible explanation of receipt of 22 Lacs as sale consideration for the sale of his land from one Sh Gopi Ram. The assessee himself had produced the receipt of the ₹ 6,00,000/-received on account of sale of his Tractor. Thus the assessee was able to explain the complete source of investment of ₹ 50 lacs. In the light of the above the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 08/08/2016. - - TaxTMI - TMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
