Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.33 seconds)Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Durga Prasad More on 26 August, 1971
ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020
A.Y. 2016-17
Page 3 of 37
2.4 That further finding that "the whole transaction in both the cases now clearly
comes out as perfectly orchestrated and the story of the assessee is to be judged on the
test of human probability and the documents are to be seen with reference to the
surrounding circumstances" is fundamentally flawed, legally erroneous, factually
incorrect and thus untenable apart from being arbitrary and unjustified.
2.5 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate
that cash received represented consideration received against sale of agricultural land
and as such entire cash could not have been brought to tax as income of the appellant
2.6 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has proceeded to
sustained impugned addition without appreciating the settled position of law
that, it is not for the appellant to explain the source of source of the creditor and
therefore, any addition made and sustained on irrelevant and extraneous
considerations is illegal, unjustified and hence untenable.
2.7 That further reliance placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of CIT v. Durga Prasad More reported in 82 ITR 540 is wholly
inapplicable on the facts of the assessee.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ram Narain Goel on 5 November, 1996
13. The fact that the amount was forfeited after about 4 years
of serious efforts to conclude the detail is a matter of record.
Th us, w here desp ite the best ef forts of the pur chasers, they
could not go ahead and purchase the land due to lack of funds
ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020
A.Y. 2016-17
Page 16 of 37
which also has been duly explained as direct result of fall in
a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d p r i c e s a r e u n r e b u t t e d f a c t s o n r e c o r d . Th e
fact that the price considered to be correct price for sale did
not materialize so as to enable raising funds by the purchaser
who wanted to sell and invest those proceeds in the purchase
of the specific agricultural land from the assessees are
unrebutted f acts clear ly on re cord. The fact that ultimatel y Rs.
10 lacs each has been returned back to the respective
purchasers through banking channels by the assessee as is
evidenced from para 1.16 of the written submissions made
available to the Commissioner (Appeals) is also a fact which
has conveniently been ignored and the statements, evidences,
documents are not cared to be rebutted and instead
repetitively repeating the reasons of the AO and his findings,
the additions have been sustained in the impugned order.
Accordingly, it was his prayer that the decision may not be
upheld and infact be reversed. The case l aw re lied upon by
t h e C I T( A ) , i t w a s s u b m i t t e d , i s i n a p p l i c a b l e w h e r e i n t h e f a c t s
of Durga Prasad More relied upon by the ld. Commissioner in
the extract in the impugned order itself, it was submitted that
notwithstanding the other differences, it is evident that it was
a case of family arrangement. In the facts of the present case,
the contemplated transaction is between strangers. Even
otherwise, it was his submission that source of source cannot
ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020
A.Y. 2016-17
Page 17 of 37
be enquired into in a case like the present case for which
purposes, he would rely upon the decision of the jurisdictional
High Court in the case of CIT v. Ram Narain Goel
[1 99 7] 224 I TR 18 0 (Punj. & H aryana). For simi lar prop osi tion,
rel ian ce w as p laced upon S umer Chand Jai n Vs CI T 2 92 I TR
241 (M.P) where mere evidence of identifying the purchase was
held to be sufficient. The Cour t held that it was not for the
seller to identify the sources of his funds. It was argued that
it was placing an impossible burden on a seller. It was also
his submission that the gap of 11 months conte mplated in the
Agreement to Sell in the eyes of the Revenue was considered to
be very abnormal. It was his submission that by what
yardstick gap of 3 months fixed is reasonable. Th e p a r t i e s
arrived at a conclusion keeping the practicalities and realities
of the purchaser who had to first sell his lands to raise the
funds. The sellers agreed to wait out for 11 months,
ultimately the land could not be sold due to fall in prices in
the land which the purchasers had planned to sell them, even
11 months were not sufficient. Th e facts have be en i gnored
purely based on prejudices and biases. The grounds, it was
his prayer, may accordingly be allowed.
1