MEERA BAI CHOUHAN ,INDORE vs. ITO 1 (4), INDORE
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV HONBLE & SHRI MANISH BORAD
अपील�य अ�धकरण, इ�दौर �यायपीठ, इ�दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE
BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.140/Ind/2020 Assessment Year:2011-12 Shri Ram Singh Chouhan ITO 1(4) Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.BYJPC4571L ITA No.141/Ind/2020 Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Meera Bai Chouhan ITO 1(4) Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.DUPPB1243A Revenue by Shri H.N. Joshi, AR Respondent by Shri Amit Soni, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 11.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 06.12.2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD: The above captioned appeals at the instance of Assessee are directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income
Ram singh & Meera Bai ITA No.& 140& 141/ind/2020
Tax(Appeals)-I, (in short ‘CIT(A)’), Indore dated 10.12.2019 which are
arising out of the order u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act
1961(In short the ‘Act’) dated 12.12.2018 framed by ITO-1(4) Indore.
The assessee namely Ram Singh Chouhan has raised following
grounds of appeal in ITANo. 140/Ind/2020:
That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and in fact in passing the 1st appeal order without considered the fact and confirming the assessment order. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the document which has produced at the time of appeal. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has not considered all the fact that the appellant has on money from sale of ancestral agricultural land. 4. That thus the 1st appeal order so passed is quit illegal unjust, unwarranted contrary to fact and deserve to be set aside. 5. That the appellant further craves leave to add other and/or amend any of the forgoing grounds as and when necessary. The assessee namely Meera Bai Chouhan has raised following
grounds of appeal in ITANo. 141/Ind/2020:
That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and in fact in passing the 1st appeal order without considered the fact and confirming the assessment order. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the document which has produced at the time of appeal. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has not considered all the fact that the appellant has on money from sale of ancestral agricultural land. 4. That thus the 1st appeal order so passed is quit illegal unjust,
Ram singh & Meera Bai ITA No.& 140& 141/ind/2020 unwarranted contrary to fact and deserve to be set aside. 5. That the appellant further craves leave to add other and/or amend any of the forgoing grounds as and when necessary.
As the issues raised in these appeals are common and
relate to assesse’s related to each other (husband and wife) at
the request of both the parties both appeals were heard
together and are being disposed of by this common order for
sake of convenience and brevity.
Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that on
the basis of Annual Information Report available with the
Department it was noticed that a cash of Rs.28,00,000/- and
Rs.26,45,000/- was deposited during F.Y. 2010-11 relevant to A.Y.
2011-12 in the Saving Bank Account held by the assessee’s namely
Shri Ram Singh Chouhan & his wife Smt. Meera Bai Chouhan
respectively. PAN No. of both the assessees were not quoted. Query
letters were issued to both the assessees to explain the source of
cash deposit in the Saving Bank Account held with the State Bank of
India, but there was no compliance. Ld. AO accordingly passed ex-
parte order u/s 144 of the Act and made the addition for
unexplained cash as well as bank interest earned from the Saving 3
Ram singh & Meera Bai ITA No.& 140& 141/ind/2020 Bank Account assessing the income of Rs. 28,19,290/- &
Rs.26,61,740/- in the case of assessees namely Shri Ram Singh
Chouhan & his wife Smt. Meera Bai Chouhan respectively.
Aggrieved assessee(s) preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). It
was contended by Ram Singh Chouhan along with necessary
documentary evidences and an affidavit that he sold the ancestral
agricultural land for a consideration of Rs.22,14,000/- received in
cash. Assessee also accepted on oath through an affidavit that he
also received ‘on money’ of Rs. 32,31,000/- and the total
consideration received was Rs.54,45,000/-. It was further stated on
oath that out of the total consideration of Rs.54,45,000/-, sum of
Rs. 26,45,000/- was deposited on various dates in the bank
account of his wife wife Smt. Meera Bai Chouhan and remaining
sum of Rs.28,00,000/- was deposited in his own bank account. It
was also stated on oath that Mr. Ram Singh Chouhan accepts that
he received sum of Rs. 54,44,000/- on sale of agricultural land and
he is ready to pay income tax (as applicable) on this amount and no
income was earned by his wife Smt. Meera Bai Chouhan and the
cash amount of Rs.26,45,000/- deposited in her bank account is
Ram singh & Meera Bai ITA No.& 140& 141/ind/2020 owned by him (Ram Singh Chouhan) only. But, ld. CIT(A) was not
satisfied with these submissions and was of the view that the
assessee failed to corroborate the ‘on money’ received by any
confirmation from the purchaser of the aforesaid land and the date
of registry of agricultural land does not corroborate with the
impugned deposit, and accordingly confirmed the addition of
Rs.28,00,000/- & Rs.26,45,000/- made by the Ld. AO in the case
of Shri Ram Singh Chouhan & Smt. Meera Bai Chouhan
respectively.
Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before this Tribunal. Ld.
counsel for the assessee took us through written submission and
paper book filed in both the cases stating that sale consideration so
received was from sale of agricultural and part of the same has been
further utilized for purchasing the agricultural land and since the
said land sold by Mr. Ram Singh Chouhan is out of the purview of
the definition of capital asset, the income earned from sale of land is
exempt. Reference was also made to various decisions placed in the
paper book.
Per contra Ld. DR vehemently argued supporting the orders of
Ram singh & Meera Bai ITA No.& 140& 141/ind/2020 both lower authorities.
We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed
before us. Common issue raised in both instant appeals relates to
addition for unexplained cash deposit in the Saving Bank Account
held by the respective assessees at Rs.28,00,000/- &
Rs.26,45,000/- made in the hands of the assessee namely Shri Ram
Singh Chouhan & Smt. Meera Bai Chouhan. We, find that the
alleged sum has been deposited in cash in the Saving Bank Account
held by the assessee(s). Perusal of the registered sale deed shows
that Shri Ram Singh Chouhan entered into sale agreement with
Mr. Divesh Shah for selling 1.281 hectare of ancestral land situated
at Gram-Baroli, Tehsil Sanwar District Indore on 15th June 2010
and sold the said land for a cash consideration of Rs.22,14,000/-.
Further on page 34 of the paper book Mr. Ram Singh Chouhan has
filed an affidavit stating on oath that apart from the sale
consideration of Rs.22,14,000/- mentioned in the registered sale
deed, he also received ‘on money’ of Rs.32,31,000/-. In other words,
the said land was sold for a consideration of Rs.54,45,000/- and
out of this amount of Rs.28,00,000/- was deposited in his own
Saving Bank Account and remaining amount of Rs.26,45,000/- in 6
Ram singh & Meera Bai ITA No.& 140& 141/ind/2020 the bank account of his wife Smt. Meera Bai Chouhan.
As far as the case of the assessee namely Meera Bai Chouhan is
concerned, all these series of facts are sufficient enough to prove
that she had no regular source of income except the bank interest
and the alleged sum of Rs.26,45,000/- was not owned/earned by
her and it was her husband who deposited the said sum in her
bank account. So there is a sufficient explanation towards the
source of cash deposited in her bank account, therefore, as far as
the appeal of the assessee namely Smt. Meera Bai Chouhan is
concerned, we are of the view that no addition for Rs.26,45,000/-
was called for in her hands for the alleged cash deposit. We
accordingly set aside the finding of ld. CIT(A) and delete the addition
of Rs.26,45,000/- and allow grounds of appeal raised in the case of
assessee Smt. Meera Bai Chouhan in ITANo.1541/Ind/2020.
As far as, the case of another assessee i.e. Shri Ram Singh
Chouhan in ITANo.140/Ind/2020 is concerned, we find that he has
owned this transaction of sale of agricultural land for a
consideration of Rs.22,14,000/- and the ‘on money’ of
Rs.32,31,000/- received from sale of this land. Though the Ld.
Ram singh & Meera Bai ITA No.& 140& 141/ind/2020 CIT(A) has doubted the genuineness of the claim that ‘on money of
Rs.32,31,000/- has been received by the assessee over and above,
the sale consideration but we find that the assessee has stated this
fact on oath through an affidavit and this fact was also brought
before the ld. CIT(A) with necessary evidences. Since no effort has
been made by the Revenue to controvert this fact by way of calling
information from the purchaser namely Divesh Shukla, we accept
this contention of the Ld. counsel for the assessee that total sale
consideration received from the sale of land is Rs.54,45,000/- which
includes ‘on money’ of Rs.32,31,000/-.
We find that there is no appearance of the assessee before the
Ld. AO and when the matter traveled before the Ld. CIT(A) there is
no discussion about the said land as to whether it forms part of the
capital asset or not. No such enquiry has been conducted at any
stage. In case the land sold by the assessee is an agricultural land
not forming part of the capital asset as provided in section 2(14) of
the Act, then the income earned from sale of such agricultural land
will be exempt from tax. Since this aspect remained to be verified by
the lower authorities and the assessee has also not filed any such
Ram singh & Meera Bai ITA No.& 140& 141/ind/2020 evidence to prove that the said land does not fall in the category of
capital asset u/s 2(14) of the Act, in the interest of natural justice
and being fair to both parties, we set aside the issue raised in the
case of assessee namely Ram Singh Chouhan to the file of the ld.
AO for the purpose of limited verification as to whether 1.281
hectare land sold by the assessee situated at Gram-Baroli, Tehsil
Sanwar District, Indore falls in the category of capital asset u/s
2(14) of the Act and if Ld. AO find that it is not a capital asset u/s
2(14) of the Act then no addition will be called for in the hands of
assessee and if found otherwise then assessee will be required to file
computation of capital gain after claiming the benefit if any
pertaining to index cost of acquisition, cost of improvement (if any)
and the amount applied for purchase of other agricultural land as
provided in section 54B of the Act and the same shall be examined
by the ld. AO as per the Provision of Income Tax Act. Needless to
mention that assessee should be provided reasonable opportunity of
being heard to file necessary evidences as and when called for.
Accordingly grounds of appeal raised in ITANo.140/Ind/2020 are
allowed for statistical purposes.
Ram singh & Meera Bai ITA No.& 140& 141/ind/2020 11. In the result, Appeal of the Assessee in ITANo.141/Ind/2020 is
allowed and in ITANo.140/Ind/2020 is allowed for statistical
purposes.
Order pronounced as per Rule 34 of I.T.A.T., Rules 1963 on …06.12.2021.
Sd/- Sd/-
(RAJPAL YADAV) (MANISH BORAD) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Indore; �दनांक Dated : 06/12/2021 Patel/PS Copy to: Assessee/AO/Pr. CIT/ CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/Guard file. By order Assistant Registrar, Indore
