SMT. SONIKA TAXAK,HISSAR vs. PR.CIT, PANCHKULA

per the records submitted by the assessee, the house in

ITA No.55/Chd/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 5 of 10

question was transferred vide letter No.874, dated

01.04.2015 in the name of the assessee. He observed that

the assessee was not the owner of the above-said property at

the time of execution of agreement to sell. He further

observed that in the agreement to sell, the property was

mentioned as a plot but actually it was a duplex house. He,

therefore, observed that there was clearly lack of inquiries

by the AO. He accordingly, held that the order of the AO was

erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He,

therefore, set aside the assessment order in question with

the direction to the AO to pass a fresh assessment order.

The relevant para of the order of the Ld. Pr.CIT, for the sake

of reference, is reproduced hereunder:

“The reply filed by the assesse has been examined but not acceptable because as per agreement to sell dated 14.02.2011 by which the assessee has claimed that during the year under consideration, he had received Rs.19 Lakh from Sh. Sunil Khasa on 14.02.2011 for sale of his 20% share in plot No. 213. Noida the final date of "conclusion of deal was fixed for 31.03.2011, but as per reply dated 17.03.2021 of the assessee, he has submitted a copy of letter No. 874 dated 01.04.02015 of Naveen Okhla Audhyogik Vikas Pradhikaran. Noida vide which the above said house was transferred to the name of the assessee on 01.04.2015 only. Thus it is clear that the assessee was not the owner of the above said property at the time of agreement to sell. The above facts do not prove the genuineness of cash deposits Rs.19,02,000/-. Moreover, in the agreement to sell, the property was mentioned as a plot but it was actually a duplex residential house. This fact has also not been examined.

ITA No.55/Chd/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 6 of 10

the assessee has come in appeal before us. We have heard

the rival contentions and have gone through the records. A

perusal of the above reproduced relevant para of the order of

the Ld. Pr.CIT reveals that the Ld. Pr.CIT had proceeded on

the wrong footing that the assessee had deposited the

amount of Rs.19 lacs in the account and further that the

ITA No.55/Chd/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 7 of 10

assessee had entered into an agreement to sell for 20%

share in the house with Shri Sunil Khasa, whereas, the case

of the assessee from the very beginning has been that the

amount of Rs.19 lacs was not deposited by her in the joint

bank account, rather the amount in question was deposited

by the other/second account holder i.e. her husband,

namely Shri Surender Singh Taxak.

In our view, once the assessee had come with a clear

stand that the account in question was a joint account and

the amount was deposited by the other account holder and

that other account holder, namely Shri Surender Singh

Taxak had admitted before the AO in clear term that in fact,

he had deposited the amount in question and not the

assessee and further the source in his hand was also

mentioned, then under the circumstances, the addition, if

any, could have been made in the case of Shri Surender

Singh Taxak, if he would have failed to prove the

genuineness of the transaction. In our view, when the

assessee had explained that the account was a joint account

and the amount was deposited by the second account

holder, then in our view, the AO should have dropped the

proceeding against the assessee and issued notice to the

second account holder, i.e. the husband of the assessee.

ITA No.55/Chd/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 8 of 10

However, the AO continued with the proceedings, wherein

the assessee duly explained the source of cash deposited

even by the second account holder. The AO to further verify

the genuineness of the transaction, recorded the statement

of Shri Sunil Khasa, the proposed purchaser, who

categorically admitted that he had paid the amount of Rs.19

lacs to the second account holder. However, the Ld. Pr.CIT

proceeded with the revision order on the premises that the

amount was deposited by the assessee and that she had

allegedly executed the agreement to sell and further that she

was not the owner of the house on the date of the execution

of the agreement to sell.

Whatever may be the shortcomings/discrepancies

relating to the agreement to sell 20% portion of the house,

that could have been taken into consideration in the

assessment proceedings in the case of the second account

holder i.e. the husband of the assessee. Once the assessee

had explained that she has not deposited any amount in the

joint account and further the second account holder had in

clear term admitted that the amount was deposited by him,

the assessee, in our view, was absolved of her liability to

further explain about the transaction. However, the Ld.

Pr.CIT proceeded on wrong footing that the aforesaid

ITA No.55/Chd/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 9 of 10

explanation relating to the agreement to sell 20% share in

the house pertain to the assessee. Even it was explained

that the father of the husband of the assessee was paralytic

and was not in good health and, therefore, the agreement to

sell was executed by the husband of the assessee i.e. the

second account holder. The compulsion for execution of

agreement to sell was also explained as installment was due

of Rs.17.25 lacs towards the Noida Authority/Developer and

that the husband of the assessee was in dire need of money

for which he obtained Rs.19 lacs from his friend Shri Sunil

Khasa and in lieu of that, he executed agreement to sell of

20% share of the house. The father-in-law of the assessee

expired after some time and thereafter the house in fact,

was transferred in the name of the husband of the assessee

on 01.04.2015.

The above facts show that the AO had duly made

appropriate inquiries and even recorded the statement of

Shri Sunil Khasa, who admitted that he had given Rs.19 lacs

to the husband of the assessee. In view of the above

discussion, it is held that the Ld. Pr.CIT wrongly exercised

his revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. The impugned

order passed by the Ld. Pr.CIT u/s 263 of the Act being bad

ITA No.55/Chd/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 10 of 10

in law, is not sustainable and the same is accordingly, quashed.

Order pronounced on 07.12.2021.

Sd/- Sd/- (N.K.SAINI) (SANJAY GARG) उपा�य�/VICE PRESIDENT �या�यक सद�य/ Judicial Member

Dated: 07.12.2021 *रती*

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File

आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar