9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee, as it is for the assessee to disclose the source of investment made by her in the property. Nothing has been disclosed and merely because the same was disclosed by the husband of the assessee, in our view, is no explanation in the eye of law as it is required to be independently tested and examined by the revenue authorities- in the assessment proceedings, the assessee has not submitted that the investment made by her was made after borrowing it from the husband. In fact, it was the case of the husband that the consideration was paid in cash to the seller. The assessing Officer of the husband had made the addition in the hands of the assessee (on account of undisclosed cash deposit in the bank account). As the assessee failed to disclose the source of investment either before the Assessing Officer or before CIT or before us, therefore, we have no other option but to confirm the addition - Decided against assessee. - I.T.A. No. 643/AMR/2017 - - - Dated:- 16-8-2021 - Laliet Kumar, Member (J) And Dr. M.L. Meena, Member (A) For the Appellant : Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. For the Respondents : Rahul Dhawan, CIT, D.R. and J.S. Khalo, CIT, D.R. ORDER La ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lear that the assessee has entered into agreement for purchase of property measuring 606 sq. yards at Krishna Nagar, Ludhiana as admitted before the DDIT. But the assessee has not disclosed the true facts of the transactions made along with her husband. Perusal of agreement which has been entered into by the assessee with Sh. Sarup Singh, copy of which is in the possession of the department, reveals that the assessee has paid an amount of ₹ 50,00,000/- as advance to Sh. Sarup Singh on 09.05.2008 and agreed to pay ₹ 2,67,47,450/- on 15.09.2008. However, the said property was got registered on 08.10.2008 through two different registration deeds one for ₹ 34,90,000/- in the name of the assessee her husband and the other was made at ₹ 29,20,000/-, in the name of the assessee, totaling at ₹ 64,10 lac. The assessee has not shown the full and true value of the property in the registration deeds. Further the assessee's claim that there are four partner of the impugned property is not correct and without any evidence. Perusal of agreement reveals that the property has been purchased by the assessee only. The assessee failed to explain the source of invest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. The copy of the RTI Application along with response is annexed as Annexure-C. (d) The response under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 have been received on 09.11.2016 and thus, the Appellant has filed the present Appeal. 6. The CIT appeal was not convinced with the reasoning given by the assessee for delay in filing the appeal as well as on merit, and therefore the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the CIT(A) vide order impugned before us 7.7.2017. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT appeal the assessee is in appeal before us for the grounds mentioned hereinabove. 8. The learned A.R. for the assessee has submitted that the assessment order was sent at the wrong address by the Assessing Officer which is clear from the order and the speed post received back unserved. At the envelope the address was mentioned as 507, Mota Singh Nagar, Jalandhar. In fact, the said address was the address of the father of the assessee where she was living prior to her marriage. Further, the learned A.R. has drawn our attention to another address, namely, at 863, Krishna Nagar, Ludhiana. It was the contention of the learned A.R. that even the said address was not co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he wrong address. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid facts have duly been verified by the learned CIT (DR) and the other facts reproduced herein-above clearly show that the assessee was prevented from filing the appeal before the CIT (Appeals) within the time granted by the statute. 14. In our considered opinion, there was reasonable cause for not filing the appeal in time before the CIT (Appeals) and, therefore, the delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned by the CIT (Appeals). As the assessee was able to demonstrate the just and reasonable cause for not filing the appeal in time and considering the 'no objection' of the learned CIT (DR), the delay in filing the appeal for a period of 1313 days is condoned. 15. As we have condoned the delay, we have intimated the fact of condoning the delay in the open court to the CIT (DR) and directed the parties to make submissions on the merit of the case and the matter was adjourned to 12.07.2021. 16. The A.R. for the assessee had submitted that the additions were made by the Assessing Officer made on the photo copy of a forged agreement to sell dated 09.05.2008 (at page 39-46 of the paper book). It was subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he above said fact is clear from the income assessed in the hands of Shri Satnam Singh, which was (page 6) as under: The income of the assessee is computed as under Income as per return 4,51,000/- Addition as discussed above 19,02,450/- Addition as discussed above 27,50,000/- Total income of Assessee 51,03,450/- Assessed. Issue requisite documents Charge Intt. u/s. 234B and 234C Penalty Notice u/s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately. 20. Shri Satnam Singh had preferred the appeal before the CIT (Appeals) and the CIT (Appeals) at page 4 to page 6 has held as under:- The Assessing Officer in the assessment order has observed the assessee had purchased a plot measuring 600.66 sq. yard for ₹ 64,10,000/- having worth of ₹ 3,17,47,500/-. The said plot had been purchased as under:- S.No. Registration Date Measurement Name of the purchaser Purchase Amt. 1 23.10.2008 288.66 Sq.Yd. Smt. Parminder kaur W/o. Dr. Satnam Singh R/o. 868, Krishna Nagar, Ludhiana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Singh had stated before the Assessing Officer that the said amount of ₹ 25 lacs was loan taken by him from another family friend. The Assessing Officer, therefore, proceeded to work out the assessee's half share in the property and the investment thereof to the tune of ₹ 19,02,450/- and made the addition. The Assessing Officer further confronted the facts of deposits of cash in the bank account No. 4005000100372260 and 4005000100398365 by Dr. Satnam Singh to the tune of ₹ 27,50,000/-. The assessee on being confronted with the same submitted before the assessing officer that he owned agricultural land at village chowkiman where teak plants and other plants had been developed and the amount deposited in the bank account was proceeds of such sales. The Assessing Officer however found that the assessee did not have a single acre of land and most of the land was in the name of his wife. The assessee on being given an opportunity to produce evidence of either ownership or of cultivation of land in support of his claim could not produce the same. The Assessing Officer also brought on record that the assessee, as per his return of income had not shown any agric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... griculturist Sh. Mohinder Singh is not genuine and unable to prove creditworthiness hence this evidence cannot be accepted. The fact is that the assessee himself has introduced his own income from other sources, to purchase a property in question, which was not declared before the department for tax. The cash investment made by assessee has been calculated as under: Total area of plot 312 sq. yards share of Satnam Singh 156 Sq. yards Total purchase price of property 312 Sq. Yards. ₹ 34,90,000/- share of the assessee ₹ 17,45,000/- share of stamp duty paid ₹ 1,40,000/- Other expenses 1% commission paid etc. ₹ 17,450/- Total income escaped ₹ 19,02,450/- The assessee had made investment of ₹ 19,02,450/-, which has escaped assessment and by applying provisions of Section 69 of I.T. Act, 1961, the same is added back to the income of the assessee for the year under consideration. The assessee has concealed his income for the year from tax and not offered to tax, I have therefore reasons to believe that the assessee has concealed income of ₹ 19,02,450/-. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts, we have enquired from the learned A.R. to disclose the source of investment of the registered value of the property. However, the assessee had failed to disclose the source of investment. However, a brief synopsis in support of the contention that no addition can be made even in respect of half share of the sale consideration as mentioned in the sale deed dated 08.10.2008, it was mentioned as under. 1. That late Sh. Satnam Singh purchased a plot 606.66 sq. yards and even, both in the order of the husband and in the order of the assessee, there is a mention of the statement of sh. Satnam Singh since he was the fund provider for the purchase of the plot and the assessee has nothing to do with it. He in his answer to the Assessing Officer, explained the source of ₹ 64.10 lacs as under: As per the information received the assessee Sh. Satnam Singh has deposed before the Dy. Director of Income Tax (Inv.)-II, Ludhiana, during the course of recording his statement on 10.05.2010 (recorded on oath) the assessee, Sh. Satnam Singh in a reply to question No. 6 has replied as under: Q. No. 6 Please state the source of payment at ₹ 64 Lacs (Approx.) Ans. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had been questioned before the DDIT, for full investment of the plot and, therefore, any addition of the investment of the plot in the hands of the assessee who is a widow lady cannot be made. 3. The reliance is being placed in the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of H. Shahul Hameed vs. ACIT reported 0258 ITR 266 (copy enclosed) in which, the wife could not explain the source of the property and the addition as made in the hands of the husband and the same was upheld by the Hon'ble Madras High Court because it was the husband who has acquired the property in the names of the wife and, in this case also, everything had been asked about the sources from Sh. Satnam Singh as is evident from the order of the assessee and the assessment order of late Sh. Satnam Singh. Therefore, when no cognizance have been taken of the so called agreement and as such, no addition of any investment can be made in the hands of the wife on the basis of statement recorded of the husband. There was no requirement of the Assessing Officer for any statement regarding the source by the widow lady and no addition could be made on the basis of the statement of the husband in the hands of h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
