PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL vs. SMT RENU AGARWAL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 195/2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Central, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus Smt. Renu Agarwal, 25, Dayal Nagar, Gopalpura Byepass, Jaipur ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 343/2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar. ----Appellant Versus Shri Subhash Chand Bansal Prop. M/s Niranjan Lal Subhash Chand, Shiv Ganj Mandi Bayana, Bharatpur. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mrs. Parinitoo Jain with Ms. Shiva, Goyal, Mr. Siddharth Bapna for Mr. Anil Mehta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS Judgment 21/03/2018 1. In both these appeals common question of law and facts are involved hence they are decided by this common judgment. 2. By way of these appeals, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the tribunal whereby tribunal has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.

(2 of 5) [ITA-195/2017] 3. Counsel for the appellant has framed following substantial questions of law:- Appeal No.195/2017 (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned ITAT was right in deleting the addition of Rs.76,00,000/- imposed by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed income despite admission under Section 132 and material availabe on record. (ii) Whether ITAT was correct in deleting the addition contrary to evidence in record and without proper explanation by assessee. Appeal No.343/2017 (1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case Hon’ble ITAT was justified in deleting addition of Rs.76.00 lacs on account of on money received from Smt. Renu Agarwal on sale of property? (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case Hon’ble ITAT was justified in not considering the Ikrarnama wherein the sale consideration of property was shown at Rs.1.41 Crores comprising Rs.76.00 lacs in cash? 4. The facts of the case are that assessee is engaged in the business of real estate. A Search and seizure under Section-132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out by the Income Tax Department on the Shree Ram Group on 22.09.2010. During search various assets/books of accounts and documents were found and seized. 4.1 Notice under Section-153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was served upon the assessee on 06.09.2011 for filing return of income. In compliance to the notice return declaring total income of Rs. 2,86,24,330/- was filed on 6.12.2011 for A.Y. 2009-2010.

(3 of 5) [ITA-195/2017] After considering all the available material, facts and circumstances assessment u/s-153B/143(3) was completed on 31.3.2013 determining total income at Rs.3,62,24,330/-. 4.2 During the assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee purchases agriculture land and thereafter, applies to JDA for conversion of land for residential and commercial purposes and after approval of township plan and map by the JDA, the assessee does the development work in the schemes as per the norms of the JDA wherever applicable and also carries on trading of land/plots/properties. 4.3 During the assessment proceedings it was found that the assessee had constructed a house jointly with his wife Smt. Renu Agarwal at 10B Scheme, Gopalpura Bye-Pass, Jaipur. This house has been constructed on two adjoining plot Nos. 281 and 282. One plot has been purchased by Shri Ashok Kumar Agarwal about 8 years age and the other plot was purchased by Smt. Renu Agarwal during the year under consideration i.e. 2009-2010. 4.4 During the course of search and agreement (Ikrarnama) (Page 7 to 9 of Exhibit-AS-7) was found from the residence of the assessee, which indicated that the said plot was purchased by the assessee for a consideration of Rs.1,41,00,000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that when the husband of the assessee Shri Ashok Kumar Agarwal was confronted with the same, at the time of search, he admitted under sworn statement under Section-132(4) dated 22.9.2010 that this plot was actually purchased from Shri Subhash Chand Bansal, Shri Niranjan Lal Bansal for a consideration of Rs.1,41,00,000/-, whereas the registry was made

(4 of 5) [ITA-195/2017] for Rs.65,00,000/- only. Further, Shri Ashok Kumar Agarwal admitted that the payment of Rs.76,00,000/- has not been shown in his regular books and was made out of undisclosed income. 5. The tribunal while considering the facts and after taking into account the evidence on record has made the following observations:- “No statement of assessee was recorded during search operation while she was present at the time of search. The cancellation agreement was found and seized during search operation itself. Therefore, its authenticity cannot be doubted when the Revenue had not been able to establish otherwise. Therefore, looking to the present facts, circumstances of the case and the case laws relied on by the assessee (supra), we find that the lower authorities have erred in confirming the addition of Rs 76.00 lacs on account of unexplained investment in purchase of Plot No. 281, 10B, Gopal Pura Bye Pass, Jaipur. ” 5.1 Even otherwise in other appeal No.343/2017, the tribunal has observed as under:- “The seller stated that there was no construction and no water and electric connection which is also established by Google earth Maps and photographs placed in the paper book. There is no evidence of payment of any on money on the purchase of the vacant plot. No Statement of assessee was recorded during search operation while she was present at the time of search. The cancellation agreement was found and seized during search operation itself. Therefore, its authenticity cannot be doubted when the Revenue had not been able to establish otherwise. Therefore, looking to the present facts, circumstances of the case and the case laws relied on by the assessee (supra), we find that the lower authorities have erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 76.00 lacs on account of unexplained

(5 of 5) [ITA-195/2017] investment in purchase of Plot No. 281, IOB, Gopal Pura Bye Pass, Jaipur.” 6. We are of the opinion that tribunal being last fact finding authority has not committed any error in making the above observations. In that view of the matter, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the tribunal. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises. 7. The appeals stand dismissed. The application (12245/2018) for taking documents on record is also disposed of. (VIJAY KUMAR VYAS),J (K.S.JHAVERI),J Brijesh 134-135.