9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... >SHRI KUL BHARAT , JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant by : Shri K. C. Aneja , Adv. Respondent by : Shri Om Parkash , Sr. DR ORDER PER KUL BHARAT , JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2010- 11 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Karnal dated 12.10.2018. 2. The assessee has raised following ground of appeal:- 1. "That the allegation by the Hon'ble Commissioner Appeal Karnal on the assessee that he failed to discharge his onus in establishing the genuineness of the land transaction and deposit in his bank account are wrong and unjustified. The case of Dinesh Kumar Jain (Late) Through (Legal Heir Ankit Jain) vs PCIT, [2018], 407 1TR-65(DEL) has not applied on me. 2. That the Ld. AO and Hon'ble Commissioner Appeal Karnal has not considered the Assessee's reply that he had sold the agriculture land during the Financial Year 2008-09 relevant to the Assessment Year 2009-10. Which is wrong and unjustified and against the natural justice. 3. That the Ld. AO and Hon'ble Commissioner Appeal Karnal has wrongly assumed the total sales consideration of agriculture land as Income which is illegal and unjustified." 3. The only effective ground i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the assessee submitted that both the authorities below have not adverted to the submissions of the assessee. 8. On the contrary, Ld.Sr.DR opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. 9. I have heard the contentions of Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Ld.CIT(A) has decided the issue by observing as under:- 3.4. Findings:- I have examined the facts of the case and the submissions made by the assessee. An addition of Rs. 17,10,000/- was made u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961 being unexplained cash credit. The A.O. has dwelt with, in length, in his order on the reasons for making the said additions. The relevant extract of the assessment order is reproduced as under:- During the period under consideration the assessee engaged in the business of commission agent of food grains. The information furnished by the assessee is placed on record and has been examined. The case was discussed with the AR of the assessee. The details of cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee is as under;- Sr.No. Date Amount (In Rs.) Sr.No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 008.. The assessee has not furnished any documentary evidence i.e. capital account, copy of balance sheet etc. for the year ending 31.03.2009 to establish the genuineness of the transaction. Moreover, on perusal of affidavit it is noticed that no specific/practical reason of cancellation of deal between Uncle and Nephew is stated. Why both the blood related persons were involved in a deal and without any specific reason the same is being cancelled. It is pertinent to mention here that original agreement of sale of land (copy not furnished) was executed between both the parties on 24.07.2008 and the date of maturity of the deal was 24.03.2009 and in absence of maturity of the same the advance money is returned back by the seller latest by 05.07.2009 which is almost after the expiry of eleven months from the execution of agreement which is impractical in general practice such type of transactions. Generally, it is a mandatory clause in the such type agreements that if the purchaser will back out or go out from the term and conditions of said agreement then entire advance money will be forfeited by the seller and if the seller will back out then seller have to repay double of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ale Khan Mohammad Anif Vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), Roshan Di Hatti Vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR (SC) vide which it is held that onus of providing the source of a sum of money found to have been received by the assessee is on him. Where the nature and source thereof cannot be explained satisfactorily, it is opened to the revenue to hold that it is the income of assessee and no further burden is on the revenue to show that the income is from any particular source. It may also be pointed out that the burden of proof is fluid for the purposes of section 68. Further, in the case of CIT Vs. Jagtar Singh reported at 315 ITR 106 (P&H) (Appeal No. 373 of 2006 (2.12.2011) it has been held by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court that it is well settled that wherever a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the department is required to prove that the same falls within the taxing provision and where the receipt is in the nature of an income, the burden lies on the assessee to show that it is not taxable as it falls within the purview of exemption provided by the Act. However, under section 68 of the Act, where any amount is found credited in the accounts of the assessee relating to any prev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
