9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, the said agreement dated 04/03/2010 do not contain signature of Jaipal on the said agreement which goes to prove that Jaipal was never signatory or party to the said agreement. Therefore, this document dated 04/03/2010 carries no evidentiary value. When a registered document has been placed on record Presumption is to be drawn that registered document in the shape of registered sale deed dated 05/05/2010 carried evidentiary value which shows that the consideration paid to the assessee for the sale of the land in question was only at ₹ 6,95,600/- and the A.O. had rightly completed the assessment at ₹ 13,79,400/- after allowing credit of ₹ 6,95,600/- being sale consideration of the said land as per sale deed out of the total bank deposits of ₹ 20.75 lacs. The decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Pappu Ram Saran [ 2020 (9) TMI 228 - ITAT JAIPUR] is of no help to the assessee as the facts contained in that case is altogether different from the facts of the present case- No new facts or circumstances have been brought before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by the ld. CIT(A), therefore, we up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the Tribunal and the contents of his written submission reads as under: The appellant is an illiterate farmer residing in village Dingali, P.O.-Kotkasim, Teh.-Tijara, Distt.-Alwar. He has no other source of income except agricultural income. Therefore, he did not obtain PAN and also did not file any return of income. During the previous year relevant to the A.Y. 2011-X:2 cash of ₹ 19,50,000/- was deposited on 06.05.2010 in S.B.A/c No. 77430100026369 of the appellant in Rajasthan Gramin Bank, Bibirani. After making several cash withdrawals on different dates, further cash deposits of ₹ 35,000/-, ₹ 45,000/-, ₹ 45,000/- were made in the said account on 12.10.2020, 15.11.2010 and 11.12.2010 respectively. Thus, there were aggregate cash deposits of ₹ 20,75,000/- in this account during the relevant previous year. On the basis of AIR information relating to the aforesaid cash deposit of ₹ 19,50,000/- on 06.05.2010, the ld. AO issued notice u/s. 148 to the appellant on 06.12.2013. The appellant being an illiterate agriculturist, residing in a remote village and not conversant with Income-Tax did not make any compliance of the said notice i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s purely a farmer residing in a remote village, having no other source of income except agricultural income. The ld. AO has also not made any other addition except addition on account of bank deposits. For the preceding or succeeding assessment years no notice u/s. 142(1) or 148 was ever issued by the Department. The land sold in the name of his son is rural agricultural land being used for agricultural purposes as also confirmed by the Tehsildar, Kotksifn (P.B.page-21) and is not a capital asset u/s. 2(14)(iii) of the Act. The witnesses to the agreement dated 04.03.2010 (P.B.page-12-13) have also confirmed that the impugned agricultural land was sold @ ₹ 9,90,000/- per bigha. (P.B.page-15-16) and the ld. AO has not even examined them during the remand proceedings. The appellant is a person of very low means and has no such source of income from which unexplained cash of ₹ 19,50,000/- could be generated. It is also worth mentioning that the sale-deed was registered on 05.5.2010 (P.B.page-3 to 6) and the bank deposit of ₹ 19,50,000/- through a single entry in the bank account of the appellant was made on 06.5.2010 (P.B. Page-2). The assessee cannot earn undisclosed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that since the source of cash deposits were asked from the assessee, therefore, in compliance thereof, the assessee had placed on record copy of sale deed dated 05/05/2010 thereby showing sale of 2 Bigha 7 Biswa agricultural land by the assessee to Sh. Prithvi Singh S/o. Sh. Jaipal Singh. Copy of which is at page No. 3 to 6 of the paper book. It was submitted by the ld. AR that in fact the said land was sold for ₹ 25,36,500/- @ ₹ 9,90,000/- per bigha but on the insistence of the purchaser the sale-deed was executed at ₹ 6,95,600/-, being the DLC rate. It was also submitted that prior to execution of sale deed, an agreement was also made to the above fact, which was initially not traceable before the A.O.. However, the said agreement was placed on record by way of additional evidence before the ld. CIT(A) during the course of appellate proceedings and as per the said agreement, a total consideration of land in question was fixed at ₹ 23,26,500/- out of which ₹ 2.50 lacs were received at the time of execution of agreement and the remaining amount of ₹ 20,76,500/- was received on 05/05/2010 at the time of executing the sale deed and out of which &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be placed of agreement dated 04/03/2010 as the same is not an authentic document. It was further submitted that the said agreement is not between the assessee and Shri Prithivi Singh, however, the said agreement has been shown to be executed between the assessee and one Jaipal who is father of purchaser Shri Prithivi Singh. Even otherwise that agreement do not contain the signatures of the seller i.e. Shri Jaipal, therefore, the same cannot be relied upon. 8. After having heard both the parties at length, we found that during the first appellate proceedings, the remand report was sought by the ld. CIT(A) from the A.O. concerned and in the said report, the A.O. had categorically mentioned that necessary summons U/s. 131(1) of the Act were issued upon the said Jaipal on 13/04/2018, 15/01/2019 and 06/02/2019 for carrying out necessary verifications in order to verify the veracity and genuineness of the said agreement dated 04/03/2010 but the said Jaipal, the alleged purchaser of the agricultural land had not made any compliance and even did not appear before the A.O. Apart from this, the A.O. had also asked the assessee to produce the said Jaipur for examination but the assessee a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he land in question was only at ₹ 6,95,600/- and the A.O. had rightly completed the assessment at ₹ 13,79,400/- after allowing credit of ₹ 6,95,600/- being sale consideration of the said land as per sale deed out of the total bank deposits of ₹ 20.75 lacs. The decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Pappu Ram Saran Vs ITO (supra) is of no help to the assessee as the facts contained in that case is altogether different from the facts of the present case, the said agreement on the basis of which the assessee is raising his claim of having received ₹ 23,26,500/- is not sustainable as the said agreement did not find mention in the registered sale deed dated 05/05/2010 and the said agreement is also executed between the different parties and do not contain the signature of said purchaser i.e. Jaipal, therefore, the pari materia contained in the judgment cited by the assessee i.e. Shri Pappu Ram Saran Vs ITO (supra) is different from the facts of the present case and therefore, that decision is distinguishable from the facts and therefore, not applicable in the facts of the present case. No new facts or circumstances have been b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
