SMT. SANTOSH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR

Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. The facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual and derived income from 2 ITA 1128/JP/2018 Santosh Gupta Vs ITO house property, capital gains and income from other sources. Return was filed on 30/12/2016 declaring total income at Rs. 4,12,490/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has deposited cash in her bank account. In support of availability of cash on the date of deposit, the assessee filed cash flow statement. After rejecting the cash flow statement filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer added Rs. 29,12,500/- in her income. By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the Assessing Officer’s action and the assessee is in further appeal before us.

I have heard the rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and found from the record that the assessee had deposited cash in her bank account no. 51009004348 with SBBJ Ganpati Plaza, Jaipur. While explaining the source of cash deposited in the bank account the assessee explained that she has sold a piece of agricultural land to Shri Dilip Jain urf Deepak Jain for a sum of Rs. 32,62,500/- out of which amount of Rs. 29,12,500/- was received in cash. It was this cash which was deposited in the bank account. In support of the sale of agricultural land the assessee submitted a copy of agreement of sale executed on 23.01.2014. A copy of this sale agreement is available on paper book page no. 1 to 4. As per this sale

3 ITA 1128/JP/2018 Santosh Gupta Vs ITO agreement the assessee was possessing/owning agricultural land at village Sinwar Patwar Halka Sinwar tehsil Jaipur bearing khasra no. 907/1200. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer required evidence of purchase of this agricultural land. The assessee submitted a copy of the registered purchase deed dated 20.04.2011 which evidences the purchase of land from Shri Kajod S/o Shri Ramnath by caste Jat of village Sinwar. Copy of purchase deed is available on paper book page no. 5 to 9. However it so happened that in the purchase deed the khasra no. was different. The purchase deed disclosed khasra no. 907/1143 whereas in the sale deed it was 907/1200. In view of the difference in the khasra no. the Assessing Officer raised doubts regarding the genuineness of sale of agricultural land. The assessee did his best to convince the Assessing Officer and in this regard the purchaser Shri Dilip Jain was produced. His statements were also recorded. But this did not convince the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer also wrote a letter directly to the Tehsildar, Jaipur, to confirm the actual khasra No. sold by the assessee. However instead of waiting and getting reply from Tehsildar, Jaipur the Assessing Officer hastily passed the assessment order on 30.12.2016 and made addition of Rs. 29,12,500/- holding the sale agreement as self serving document and the sale was rejected. No effort was made by the Assessing Officer

I have perused the report of Tehsildar dated 28/12/2016 whereas the Assessing Officer had passed order on 30/12/2016. As per

From the record, I found that the Tehsildar vide his letter dated 28/12/2016 has clarified that on breakup of agricultural land bearing khasra no. 907/1143 a further khasra no. 907/1200 was generated. Therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case the doubts of the Assessing Officer was baseless in so far as the controversy of difference in khasra number in purchase and sale deeds is settled, the addition deserves to be deleted.

I also found that while confirming the addition, the ld. CIT(A) has stated at page No. 8 of his order that the source of the source is not 6 ITA 1128/JP/2018 Santosh Gupta Vs ITO proved because there is nothing on record which may established that the plots were not allotted in the year 1997 as stated by number of buyers of these plots. I found that the ld. CIT(A) did not consider the statement of Dilip Jain who has confessed that the pattas were allotted on same land belonging to the assessee to various persons and cash were received which was paid against the sales consideration of land to the assessee and the assessee has deposited the same sales consideration in her bank account and the sale of land was duly disclosed by the assessee in her income tax return and tax on capital gains was also paid.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the addition so made. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the same.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.