URMILABEN JAYANTILAL JADAV vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 28.02.2017 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Ahmedabad, in ITA No.1151/Ahd/2013 for A.Y. 2009-10, by which the learned Tribunal has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the assessee and has confirmed the addition made by the A.O. and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad, of Rs.25,50,000/- as unexplained investment not reflected in the Return of Income, the assessee has preferred the present appeal with the following proposed questions of law: “(1) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.25,50,000/- as undisclosed income being not reflected in the return of income? (2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Income tax Appellate Tribunal was illegal, perverse, contrary to evidence on record and wholly unsustainable? (3) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.25,50,000/- as undisclosed income on the basis of forged `sale deed’, which stood ultimately cancelled? (4) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in presuming that consideration for transfer of land was passed without any material on record?”

The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under: 2.1 That the assessee filed a Return of Income for A.Y. 2009- 10 declaring total income of Rs.2,03,240. The A.O. made addition of Rs.25,50,000/- as unexplained investment in land. The A.O. found that the assessee had purchased agricultural land bearing Survey No.607 for Kudasan Village, District: Gandhinagar, for an amount of Rs.51 lakhs. The A.O. asked the assessee to explain the alleged income as per purcahse deed. It was found that the sale consideration as per the sale-deed was Rs.51 lakhs out of which Rs.15 lakhs were paid by Account Payee Cheque and Rs.36 lakhs were stated to be paid by cash. Therefore, the assessee was asked to explain the source of said amount of Rs.36 lakhs paid by way of cash. During the assessment proceedings, it was found that initially, the land was purchased in the name of three persons, namely, Smt.Urmilaben Jadav (assessee), one Shri Rajnikant Gautambhai Patel and Shri Haresh Kanaiyalal However, share of Shri Haresh Kanaiyalal was given back to him by payment of Rs.15 lakhs by Account Payee Cheque and said Shri Haresh Kanaiyalal executed Sale Deed with Shri Rajnikant Gautambhai .Patel and Smt. Urmilaben Jadav. That thereafter, the said land was sold by original landlords Smt.Shardaben G. Patel and Shri Rajnikant G. Patel and the Sale Deed amounting to Rs.72 lakhs was executed and duly registered. Therefore, it was requested to drop the idea of making addition of Rs.25,50,000/- on account of so-called Sale Deed which was never executed in real sense (as per the assessee). However, the A.O. did not accept the same and while finalising the assessment, made an addition of Rs.25.50 lakhs on account of unaccounted investment. Before the CITA, the assessee was unsuccessful, so also before the ITAT. Hence, the assessee is before this Court by way of present appeal.

Shri Umaidsingh Bhati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the assessee has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, all the authorities below have materially erred in making the addition of Rs.25,50,000/- under unaccounted investment.

It is further submitted by Shri Bhati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the assessee, that the learned ITAT has not properly appreciated the fact that as such, the document/ Sale Deed which was in favour of the assessee as co-owner was declared null and void or cancelled by the competent Court and ultimately, the agricultural land was transferred by the original owners to some other persons for Rs.72 lakhs vide another Sale Deed. It is submitted that therefore, on the basis of the first Sale Deed which was cancelled, no addition could have been made towards unaccounted investment.

Heard Shri Umaidsingh Bhati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such, there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by all the authorities below on addition of Rs.25.50 lakhs towards unexplained investment in land. It is required to be noted and it cannot be disputed that as such, in view of the registered Sale Deed, the assessee acquired 50% of the share in the agricultural land purchased. As rightly observed by the authorities below, without making any payment, the assessee could not have acquired 50% of the ownership in the land purchased. It was the case on behalf of the assessee that she did not pay anything towards purchase of the land and a sum of Rs.17 lakhs was outstanding to Shri Haresh Kanaiyalal. However, everything was verbal. No seller would pass on the title and execute the Sale Deed without getting any sale consideration. The registered Sale Deed is in the name of the assessee as a co-purchaser. The source of sale consideration mentioned in the Sale Deed has not been explained. Under the circumstances, the A.O. rightly made the addition of Rs.25,50,000/- towards undisclosed/ unexplained investment/ income and the same is rightly confirmed by the CIT(A) as well as the learned ITAT.

In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, no interference of this Court is called for. No substantial questions of law arise. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. (M.R. SHAH, J) (A.Y. KOGJE, J) sunil