SHRI KULDIP SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(4), MOHALI

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chandigarh [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 30-08-2019 u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act,196 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”).

Kuldeep Singh v. ITO, Mohali 2 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. It was noted that on all occasions that the appeal came up for hearing in the past the assessee remained unrepresented throughout. On the last occasion, i.e., 18.05.2021, the bench directed the notice to be issued through DR. The Ld. DR stated before us that the notice remained unserved since the assessee refused to take the notice. Considering the consistent non-representation of the assessee, that too in an appeal filed by it, it was considered fit to proceed with the disposal of the same ex-parte, noting that several opportunities had already been granted to the assessee in the past which for no apparent reason the assessee had failed to avail. Accordingly the appeal was proceeded to be decide ex-parte on the basis of material available on record.

3. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:

“1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in sustaining the addition of Rs. 91,29,248/-.

4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in ignoring the corroborating evidence filed i.e. affidavits of S/Sh.

Inderjit, Nambardar of the village, Parvinder Singh, one of the witnesses and Jagjit Singh who have confirmed that the assessee received Rs.1,28,500/- on the date of registry from the purchaser.

in the bank, now it is for the department to prove that the assessee had earned this huge amount in the year assessment in a day (overnight) and the circumstantial evidence proves that the deposit was made out of sale proceeds of his agri. Land.

Vs Intezar Ali in dismissed the appeal of the department by accepting source of deposit in the bank was sale consideration of agriculture land. The facts and circumstances of the case are the same as in the case of the assessee.

and Sh. Jagjit on the point of affidavit filed by them nor rebutted the content of the affidavit which remain uncontroverted, must inverbalkly be accepted as true and reliable as held in case of Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 186, 187 (S.C. and Kanshna Vs. CIT(All) 142 ITR 618.

Kuldeep Singh v. ITO, Mohali 4 8. The assessee craves leave to add or delete any grounds of appeal at the time of appellate proceedings.”

The solitary issue, as is evident from the grounds reproduced above, relates to additions made amounting to Rs. 91,29,248/- on account of cash deposits in bank remaining unexplained. The cash deposited in the bank account was Rs. 1,26,99,248/-,which the assessee claimed to be on account of the actual sale consideration of land sold to one M/s Chandigarh Educational Trust, Mohali. But the AO noted that the sale deed mentioned the consideration to be Rs.35,70,000/-. He therefore rejected the explanation of the assessee relating to the amount of cash deposit in excess of the consideration mentioned in the sale deed amounting to Rs. 91,29,248/- and added the same to the income of the assessee on account of the same remaining unexplained.

The matter was carried in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) where additional evidences by way of affidavits of certain persons confirming assessees version of the transaction were filed, which were duly sent to the AO for his comments ,after considering which the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO following the decision of the coordinate bench of the ITAT in the case of Mohinder Singh in the group of case in to 666/Chd/2011 and in ITA No.474/Chd/2017 Dated 28.01.2018,noting the facts and issue in the present case to be identical to that case. Kuldeep Singh v. ITO, Mohali 5 We have gone through the order of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A),we find, found the facts in the present appeal to be identical with that decided by the ITAT and further noted that the ITAT in the said case had held that once the parties to the transactions, i.e., seller and the purchaser, had made to believe not only to the public authority but to the public at large that the transactions relating to purchase/sale of land between them was settled at a particular consideration, subsequently they were estopped from their act and conduct to plead that the actual consideration was at variance of the earlier representation. That the extra amount received constituted extra money paid as consideration for the execution of the sale deed of land and not for the sale of land itself and the same was therefore to be taxed as income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) also noted that the ITAT in the said decision considered a similar reference to the case of Intezar Ali decided by the Allahabad High Court and had distinguished the same as not applicable in the facts of the case before it. The CIT(A) further went on to state that the said distinction was relevant to the facts of the present case as well , as there was no evidence of the assessee making efforts to get the registration done on the actual value of consideration. Thus finding Kuldeep Singh v. ITO, Mohali 6 the issue in the present appeal to be identical to that in the case of Mohinder Singh (supra), the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.

The facts in the present case no doubt, we find, are identical to that in the case of Mohinder Singh (supra) with the assessee attributing the cash deposited in bank to the sale consideration received from sale of land, but the registered sale deed recording a much lower value of the consideration . We see no reason to interfere in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) who has rightly adjudicated the issue applying the decision laid down by the ITAT in Mohinder Singh(supra).The order of the Ld.CIT(A), upholding the addition made by the AO on account of the cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee remaining unexplained ,amounting to Rs. 91,29,248/-, is therefore upheld.

All the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on .08.2021.