By JAGDISH D. SHAH I JAGDISH T. PUNJABI
Chartered Accountants
FACTS
The assessee derived income by way
of interest on fixed deposits. During
the previous year under consideration, he had sold his land and also purchased
land. In order to explain the source of
purchase of land, the assessee contended that it had received amounts in cash
from the purchaser to whom the assessee had sold his land. To substantiate the contention, the assessee
produced receipts issued by the purchaser of land. The Assessing Officer (AO) disbelieved the
receipts produced on the ground that (a) there was no agreement between the
assessee and the purchaser of land; (b) the receipts were not serially
numbered; (c) the letter issued by the AO to the purchaser of land Windstar
Realtors Pvt. Ltd., calling for information was returned unserved; and (d) the
conveyance deed mentioned that the amount had been received on execution of
sale deed by mentioning the word “today”.
The AO did not accept the contention of the assessee that there was a
mistake in the conveyance deed which was rectified by a registered
rectification deed, which was produced by the assessee.
The AO added a sum of Rs. 76,05,701
to the income of the assessee on the ground that money was received from
undisclosed sources as well as on the ground that there was unexplained expenditure.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred
an appeal to the CIT(A) who considered the set of money receipts produced by
the assessee and also affidavit signed by Mr. Dhar, authorised person of the
purchaser company. The CIT(A) in his
order mentioned that the authorised person of the purchaser company appeared
before him and confirmed the cash payments as well as the dates mentioned in
the money receipts. Mr. Dhar had also
confirmed that making cash payments were necessary and a common feature for
purchases of land in rural areas from the agriculturists and the company had
made the payments by withdrawing cash from its bank accounts. The Ld. CIT(A)
deleted the addition made by the AO.
Aggrieved, the revenue preferred an
appeal to the Tribunal where, on behalf of the revenue, it was contended that
the order of CIT(A) be set aside as the CIT(A) had accepted additional evidence
in the form of affidavit of Mr. Dhar as well as his explanations and that the
AO was not provided an opportunity. It
was also contended that the CIT(A) erred in accepting the rectification deed
produced by the assessee to correct the original conveyance deed.
The assessee contended before the
Tribunal that all the details were filed before the AO and that filing of
affidavit was only supplementary and supporting evidence and additional
evidence. Reliance was placed on the
following case laws –
i) Shankar
Khandasari Sugar Mill vs. CIT reported in 193 ITR 669 (Kar);
ii) DCIT vs. New Manas Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. (Gau) reported in 73 ITD
157 (Gau)
HELD
The Tribunal held that the assessee
has discharged the onus that lay on him to prove the sources for purchase of
land. It observed that the AO has only doubted the timing of receipts of cash
by the assessee, consequent to the sale of land to Windstar Realtors Pvt. Ltd.
Any money receipts issued by an individual would have a date but not a serial
number, as in the case with a business concern. When the company has confirmed
the payments in cash on the dates mentioned in the receipts, nothing else
survives. In view of the factual findings of the Ld. CIT(A), the Tribunal
upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A).
The appeal filed by the revenue was
dismissed.
