Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur
Amar Singh Sharma, Bharatpur vs Ito, Bharatpur on 20 December, 2016
+vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR
Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL;] ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 758/JP/2016
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12
Amar Singh Sharma, cuke Income Tax Officer,
S/o- Shri Prem Raj Sharma, Vs. Ward-3,
R/o- Near Maruti School, Sanjay Bharatpur.
Nagar, Bharatpur-321001 (Raj).
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BNVPS 1963 H
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rajendra Agarwal
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Poonam Rai.
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 19/12/2016
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 20/12/2016
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 27/06/2016 passed by the ld CIT(A), Alwar for the A.Y. 2011-12, wherein the assessee has raised. The ground of the appeal, which is against confirming the addition of Rs. 19,80,000/- treating unexplained money U/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act).
2 ITA 758/JP/2016_ Amar Singh Sharma Vs ITO
2. Brief facts of the case are that amount of Rs. 28.00 lacs was deposited in the bank account of the assessee maintained with Axis Bank Bharatpur being account No. 909010038466220. The assessee claims that the amount deposited by Shri Kuldip Shrma, who is son in law of the assessee. Shri Kuldip Sharma alias Deepak Kumar has also submitted an affidavit in this regard, wherein he has stated that in the financial year 2010-11, he and his mother have sold agricultural land to Smt. Angoori Devi, W/o- Shri Bhajan Lal Sharma, R/o- village- Chiksoli, tehsil- Chata, district- Mathura.Rs. 3.00 lacs received as advance on 08/7/2010 and balance of Rs. 21.00 lacs on 23/7/2010, which was deposited in his account. It is also submitted that a Nohra at the same village was also sold to Smt. Subhadra Devi, W/o- Shri Banwari Lal of the same village for Rs. 4.00 lacs on 03/6/2010. The total amounts of Rs. 28.00 lacs was deposited in the bank account of the assessee on various dates. The Assessing Officer has observed that, on perusal of copies of registry of land, it is found that Shri Kuldip Sharma had sold the land to Smt. Shubhadra Devi at Rs. 1,10,000/- and to Smt. Angoori Devi at Rs. 8,00,000/-. The copy of the registry of land and agreement to sale shows that Shri Kuldip Sharma had received Rs. 9,10,000/- only. The Assessing Officer held that on being asked the details about deposit of 3 ITA 758/JP/2016_ Amar Singh Sharma Vs ITO Rs. 28,00,000/- in the bank account, no satisfactory explanation with evidence was provided by the assessee. The Assessing Officer had made addition of Rs. 18.90 lacs to the income of the assessee.
3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A), who had confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer by observing as under:-
"4.3 I have gone through the assessment order as well as submissions made by the appellant and find that an addition of Rs. 18,90,000 has been made by the AO on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act. Based on the information received from the ITD database, it was found that appellant has deposited an amount of Rs. 32,01,000 in savings bank account with Axis Bank in cash during the period under consideration. The requisite details furnished by the appellant were examined by the AO in the course of assessment proceedings and based on the details with supporting evidence furnished, it was found that cash deposits of Rs. 28 lacs are unexplained. The appellant further explained that this amount has been deposited by his son in law Sh. Kuldeep Sharma Urf Deepak Kumar out of the sale proceeds of land sold by him and his family members.
4 ITA 758/JP/2016_ Amar Singh Sharma Vs ITO 4.4 The same facts were substantiated by Sh. Kuldeep Sharma in his statement before the AO, however the supporting evidence filed by him for sale of land shows receipt of only Rs. 9,10,000 on this account. Therefore, even after considering the explanation of the appellant with regard to the deposits of cash in his account made by his son in law, an amount of Rs. 9,10,000 was treated as explained by the AO out of the cash deposits of Rs. 28,00,000 and balance amount of Rs. 18,90,000 was held to be unexplained cash deposits.
4.5 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has reiterated the submissions filed before the AO and has stated that total money deposited in cash is on account of sale of land by Sh. Kuldeep Sharma and his mother, Smt. Sita Devi. It is further stated that declared consideration for sale of land was less for the reason that buyer of the land wanted to avoid payment of stamp duty. It is also stated that money deposited in the bank account by the family members has been returned back to them by the appellant.
4.6 Having considered the material available on record, I find that copy of the sale agreements filed by the appellant reflect a sale consideration of Rs. 8 lacs and Rs. 1,10,000 having been received by Sh. Kuldeep Sharma and his mother for sale of land. The stamp duty due on the land has been duly charged by the State 5 ITA 758/JP/2016_ Amar Singh Sharma Vs ITO Government at the "Nirdharit Dar" i.e. the Circle Rate. The transactions between the family members of funds transfer cannot be conclusive evidence as these are self serving in nature. The appellant has failed to bring any evidence to the contrary on record in the course of present proceedings to prove the receipt of consideration more than what has been stated in the sale deed. Thus, I confirm the addition of Rs. 18,90,000 made by the AO on account of unexplained deposits made in cash by the appellant."
4. Now the assessee is in appeal before me. The ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer has sought directions U/s 144A of the Act but no opportunity was provided to the assessee. Ld. AR also submitted that the Assessing Officer sought the direction on the three situations he noticed during investigation, which is clear from the directions of the ld. JCIT, Bharatpur, the same are as under:-
1- Jh dqynhi 'kekZ mQZ nhid dqekj] tks djnkrk dk nkekn gS]a us nks i`Fkd&i`Fkd Hkwfe Jherh lqHknzk nsoh vkSj Jherh vaxwjh nsoh dks Øe'k% :i;s 4 yk[k vkSj :i;s 24-00 yk[k esa csph vkSj cash jkf'k djnkrk ds cSd a [kkrs esa tek djokbZA ¼dqy jkf'k :i;s 28-00 yk[k½ 2- foØ; i=ksa ds vuqlkj Jh dqynhi 'kekZ mQZ nhid dqekj us Jherh lqHknzk nsoh vkSj Jherh vaxwjh nsoh dks Øe'k% :i;s 1-10 yk[k vkSj :i;s 8-00 yk[k esa csphA ¼dqy jkf'k :i;s 9-10 yk[k½A 6 ITA 758/JP/2016_ Amar Singh Sharma Vs ITO 3- fujh{kd dh fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj Jh dqynhi 'kekZ mQZ nhid dqekj us Jherh lqHknzk nsoh vkSj Jherh vaxwjh nsoh dks Øe'k% :i;s 5-00 yk[k vkSj :i;s 14-00 yk[k esa csphA ¼dqy jkf'k :i;s 19-00 yk[k½ Ld. AR submitted that the directions of the Addl.CIT was prejudicial to the assessee, therefore, as per provisions of law, the assessee has to be given an opportunity of being heard, which has not been done by the revenue authorities. He pleaded that the matter may be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer.
5. On the contrary, the ld DR has relied upon the orders of the authorities below and claimed that the order of the ld. CIT(A) deserves to be sustained as there is no evidence regarding the claim of the assessee that the amount was received on the sale of land and Nohra by the son in law and mother in law of the assessee.
6. I have heard both the parties and have also gone through the papers submitted in the paper book by the assessee. There is an Inspector's report submitted to the Assessing Officer placed at page No. 17 of the paper book wherein Smt. Angoori Devi, W/o- Shri Bhajan Lal Sharma, R/o- village- Chiksoli, tehsil- Chata, district- Mathura has stated that she had purchased agricultural land for Rs. 14.00 lacs and the amount was received before the Sub-Registrar, Chata. Further, the 7 ITA 758/JP/2016_ Amar Singh Sharma Vs ITO Inspector has also reported that Smt. Subhadra Devi, W/o- Shri Banwari Lal, R/o- village- Chiksoli, tehsil- Chata, district- Mathura (UP) has also stated that she had purchased a plot (Nohra) for Rs. 5.00 lacs and the registry amount was only Rs. 1.10 lacs and the amount of Rs. 3.90 lacs were received in front of the Panch Patel of the village. I have also gone through the direction sought by the Assessing Officer from the JCIT, Bharatpur vide letter dated 14/3/2014, which is placed at page No. 19 of the paper book. I have also gone through the direction issued by the ld. JCIT vide its letter No. F.No.: Jt.CIT/Range/Bharatpur/018-Directions U/s 144A/2013-14/1252 dated 14/03/2014. The Assessing Officer sought direction on 14/3/2014 and the ld. JCIT issued the direction on the same date. There is no evidence on record to justify or confirm the fact that assessee was provided adequate and effective hearing with regard to the direction sought and provided. Provisions of Section 144A clearly provide that no direction which are prejudicial to the assessee shall be issued before an opportunity is given to the assessee to be heard. The facts of the case shows that the assessee has not been provided an effective opportunity of being heard with regard to directions issued by the ld. JCIT, which is a mandatory requirement of law. Therefore, by keeping in view of all these facts, I restore all the issues to the file of the Assessing 8 ITA 758/JP/2016_ Amar Singh Sharma Vs ITO Officer to decide de novo after giving adequate and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20/12/2016.
Sd/-
¼Hkkxpan½ (BHAGCHAND) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 20th December, 2016 *Ranjan vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf'kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Amar Singh Sharma, Bharatpur.
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward-3, Bharatpur.
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT
4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A)
5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur
6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 758/JP/2016) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar