9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brought anything contrary on the record during the remand proceedings such as examination of the purchaser. Therefore, in the absence of any contrary material the explanation of the assessee regarding source of cash deposit in the bank account cannot be disputed When the deposit of cash in the bank account is contemporaneous to the transaction of sale of land then in the absence of any contrary material the source explained by the assessee cannot be rejected. Hence, the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 1303/JP/2018 - - - Dated:- 3-9-2020 - SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM And SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM Assessee by : Shri O.P. Batheja Revenue by : Miss Chanchal Meena (ACIT) ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J. M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 03.10.2018 of ld. CIT (A), Ajmer for the assessment year 2010-11. Due to prevailing COVID-19 pandemic condition the hearing of the appeal is concluded through video conference. The assesse has raised the following grounds:- Ground No.1:- The Id. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal of the appellant on his g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or delete any of the grounds of the appeal during the course of appellate proceedings. 2. The assessee is an individual and has not filed any return of income U/s 139 of the IT Act. The AO received information from ITS data regarding cash deposit of ₹ 32,56,000/- in the bank account of the assessee during the year under consideration. The AO also conducted enquiry and asked the assessee to file any explanation regarding the source of cash deposits but there was no response from the assessee to the notice issued by the AO. Consequently, the AO issued notice U/s 148 of the Act on 30.03.2017 after recording the reasons and approval from the competent authority. In response to notice U/s 148 of the Act the assessee filed return of income on 28.04.2017 declaring total income of ₹ 1,27,430/-. The AO issued noticed U/s 143(2) of the Act on 21.08.2017 and thereafter notice U/s 142(1) of the Act on 07.11.2017 but there is no response from the assessee to these notices and even nobody attended the assessment proceedings. Despite notice U/s 271(1)(b) of the Act was issued by the AO the assessee has not appeared before the AO nor made any compliance to the earlier notice issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t nexus between the sale consideration of the land and deposit made on the very next day in the bank account of the assessee. Since the land sold by the family was an agricultural land therefore, it does not fall in the definition of capital asset U/s 2(14) of the Act. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal dated 09.10.2018 in case of M/s OM Plantation vs. ITO in ITA No. 1047/JP/2017. Thus, the ld. AR has pleaded that once the assessee has produced the necessary evidence being sale deed and this surrounding circumstances which established the direct nexus with the transaction of the sale of land and deposit made in the bank account of the assessee, therefore, the addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) not justified. 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that the sale deed produced by the assessee states the sale consideration of ₹ 6,45,000/- only and therefore, the evidence produce by the assessee establishes the fact that the land was sold for a consideration of ₹ 6,45,000/-. The assessee has not produced any other evidence in support of the claim that the actual sale consideration of the land was ₹ 27,50,000/-. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not brought anything contrary on the record during the remand proceedings such as examination of the purchaser. Therefore, in the absence of any contrary material the explanation of the assessee regarding source of cash deposit in the bank account cannot be disputed. This Tribunal in case of M/s OM Plantation vs. ITO (supra) has considered an identical issue in para 6 as under:- 6. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. The assessee purchased the land situated at Bhankrota, Jaipur vide two sale deeds both dated 11/8/2005 for a total consideration mentioned in the sale deeds at ₹ 1,76,34,000/-. However, the Assessing Officer received the report of the DDIT(Inv) alongwith the details of the cash deposits in the bank accounts of the sellers and their relatives and further an agreement to sell dated 11/5/2005 wherein the consideration @ ₹ 28,25,000/- per bigha was agreed upon between the parties and part consideration was stated to have been paid at the time of agreement in cash as well as in cheque. The Assessing Officer has computed the total purchase consideration by adopting the rate of ₹ 28,25,000/- per bigha as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1003946 1,50,000/- 14,00,000/- 12/05/2005 12/08/2005 Do 7. Sh. Om Prakash Meena 1004337 1,50,000/- 14,00,000/- 12/05/2005 12/08/2005 Do 8. Sh. Ashok Kumar Meena 1001168 14,00,000/- 12/08/2005 Do 9. Sh. Roshal Lal Meena 1006877 1,50,000/- 14,00,000/- 12/05/2005 12/08/2005 Grandson of Sh Bagwataram, Seller 10. Sh. Jagdish Pd. Meena 100131 7,50,000/- 12/08/2005 Son of Smt. Dhapu Devi Meena, Seller 11. Sh. Manna Lal Meena 1008064 7,15,800/- 12/08/2005 Son of Smt. Dhapu Devi Meena, Seller 12. Sh. Nemi Chand Meena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
