Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune
Mohite Suryakant Tukaram,, Solapur vs Income-Tax Officer,, on 31 August, 2017
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,
अिधकरण पुणे यायपीठ "बी
बी"
बी पुणे म
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCH "B", PUNE
ी डी.
डी. क णाकरा राव , लेखा सद य
एवं ी िवकास अव थी,
अव थी याियक सद य के सम
BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM
AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM
आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 2452/PUN/2016
िनधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2012-13
Shri Mohite Suryakant Tukaram, .......... अपीलाथ /
Kabadi Block Tembhurni Road, Appellant
Kurdwadi, Tal. Madha,
Dist. Solapur
PAN : ACAPM3901C
बनाम v/s
ITO, Ward-1(3),
Pandharpur .......... यथ /
Respondent
Assessee by : Shri S.N. Doshi
Revenue by : Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
सुनवाई क तारीख / घोषणा क तारीख /
Date of Hearing : 30.08.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 31.08.2017
आदेश / ORDER
PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-7, Pune dated 22-07-2015 for the Assessment Year 2012-13
2. Assessee filed the concise grounds of appeal before us and the same read as under :
"1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs 84,50,000/- rejecting the appellant's contention that it represents the sale proceeds of an agricultural land duly supported by the Sathe Khat i.e. lssar Pavati executed on stamp paper of Rs 100 and duly witnessed.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in not appreciating the factual evidences proving that the agreed purchase consideration of the land has been deposited by the purchasers directly in the bank accounts of the appellant under bank deposit slips duly filled in and signed by the purchasers only that proves the fact that land is sold for Rs 85,00,000/- though the purchasers for their convenience got the final sale deeds executed mentioning the purchase consideration at Rs 10,85,000/-.2 ITA No.2452/PUN/2016
Shri Mohite Suryakant Tukaram
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the land sold was rural agricultural land and doesn't fall in the definition of capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14)(iiib) of the l.T.Act,1961."
3. Briefly stated relevant facts are that the assessee filed the return of income declaring income of Rs.2,76,830/-. During the assessment, AO noticed huge cash deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee with SBI and Sangli Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. Sangli. Account Nos. are SBI, Branch Kurudwadi - 11488960666 and Sangli Urban Co.operative Bank Ltd. Branch Kurudwadi - 0340042010004107. AO analysed the said bank deposits and considered the assessee's explanation and held an amount of Rs.85,38,870/- is required to be added on account of disallowance of peak cash credit of Rs.84,50,000/- and interest income of Rs.88,870/-.
4. Aggrieved with the same the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) and the appeal resulted in dismissal of the same. Aggrieved with the same, the assessee is in appeal before us.
5. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee explained the sources of the said cash deposits. According to him, the immovable property (land) located at Village Kurdu, Ambad and a plot at Bhosare (Para 4 of CIT(A)' order is owned by his ancestors. To demonstrate the ancestral property details, Ld. Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to page 1 of paper book, i.e. Free English translation of Advance Receipt (Isar Pawati) dated 12-02- 2011 between the Assessee and the Purchaser Shri Ranjit Dattatray Shingare. Further, Ld. Counsel mentioned that the said property was eventually not purchased by Shri Ranjit Dattatray Shingare but by his wife Smt. Ashwini Ranjit Shingare, Shri Kantilal Dattu Hakke and Abbar Kureshi, Shri Rajkumar Gawade, Shri Ashok Tarange and Shri Sanjay Koyale, Shri Punadalik Yele, Shri Bhagyawant Tarange and Shri Jaysingh Jagtap (Para 5.4 of the CIT(A)'s order-Table). 3 ITA No.2452/PUN/2016
Shri Mohite Suryakant Tukaram According to the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, all the relevant details of the buyers of the property were disclosed to the AO who did not find necessity of conducting of further investigation into the sources of the funds invested by the said parties. Ld. Counsel is of the opinion that the matter should be decided by the Tribunal without remanding to the file of the AO.
6. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue brought our attention to the relevant facts and submitted that the order of the CIT(A) confirming the additions made by the AO do not call for any interference. Talking about the discharging of onus by the assessee with regard to the details of the buyers of the property, Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that the Isar Pawati is in the name of Shri Ranjit Dattatray Shingare who is ultimately not a buyer of the land. Referring to page 4 of the paper book (Isar Pawati) Ld. DR mentioned that the said document is invalid as the relevant final registration took place beyond the period of six months. He also narrated the deficiencies with regard to the validity of the said Isar Pawati. Bringing our attention to the contents of Para 5.3 of the order of CIT(A), Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that the AO summoned all the six parties out of which only couple of buyers responded. According to the CIT(A), these two parties merely stated the fact of giving of Rs.4 lakhs of cash as hand loan which has not been returned by the assessee. There is no whisper about the payment of the same for purchase of the land, as advocated by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. Rest of the 4 parties never responded to the said notices. Further, there are no details about the manner of appropriation of said Rs.3.5 lakhs of cash advance paid by Shri Ranjit Dattatray Shingare vide Isar Pawati placed at page 1 of the paper book. Ld. DR was also critical of the fact that the registered value of the land is only Rs.10.85,000/- on 22-09-2011 whereas the assessee received huge sum of Rs.88 lakhs from the said six parties. 4 ITA No.2452/PUN/2016
Shri Mohite Suryakant Tukaram
7. We heard both the parties on the issues raised before us relating to the addition of Rs.84,50,000/-, credit worthiness/sources of the funds to the buyers, genuineness of the transaction and finally the nature of the land if it is in the nature of Rural Agricultural land which attracts the provisions of section 2(14)(iiib) of the Act etc. We find the missing of relevant facts which are required for adjudication of the grounds raised before the Tribunal. There is no information as to whether the said six parties filed the confirmation letters in support of the ownership of the funds contributed for buying the said lands, i.e. to the extent of their share of property from the assessee. The genuineness of the transaction were also not put to test by the AO. Further, we find Assessee failed to furnish the postal addresses of all the six parties and their PAN Numbers etc., for the purpose of facilitating the requisite basic enquiries by the AO. It is not demonstrated if they maintain the bank accounts and the requirement of payment of cash to the assessee. Further, there is no justification for the buyer to pay excess consideration over and over the registered value of Rs.10.85 lakhs for the entire property.
8. In our opinion, the onus is on the assessee to discharge all these aspects, if not other issues related to them. Therefore, in our considered view, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee has fulfilled the initial onus cast on him, is not acceptable and therefore the same is rejected. Further, there are no relevant facts necessary to determine how the land which is under consideration zone of development constitutes Rural Agricultural land. CIT(A) has not given relevant facts to determine if the land in question constitutes Rural Agricultural land. Therefore, as pronounced in the open court, we are of the opinion that the matter should revisit the file of AO for fresh adjudication. AO is directed to discuss all the arguments of the assessee by passing a speaking order 5 ITA No.2452/PUN/2016 Shri Mohite Suryakant Tukaram and after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 31st day of August, 2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
(VIKAS AWASTHY) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO)
याियक सद य /JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
पुणे Pune; दनांक Dated : 31st August, 2017.
सतीश
आदेश क ितिलिप अ िे षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. यथ / The Respondent
3. The CIT(A)-7, Pune
4. The CIT-7, Pune
5. िवभागीय (ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, "B Bench"
Pune;
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,स
स यािपत ित //True Copy//
//True Copy// Senior Private Secretary
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune