BHASAKAR KISANRAV GIRAM,JALNA vs. ITO WARD 3, JALNA

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that proper opportunity of cross examination and statements of third parties not provided by the ld. AO and secondly the statements recorded u/s.131 of the witnesses and buyers appearing in the sale deed for sale of agricultural land have not been considered by ld.CIT(A).

On the other hand, ld. DR submitted that the buyer in the statement has stated that the only Rs.3.00 lakh has been received and not Rs.31.00 lakh as claimed by the assessee to 2 Bhasakar Kisanrav Giram have been received from sale of agricultural and which is not falling in the category of capital asset.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before me. I observe that the assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income for A.Y. 2012- 13. Based on the information about transaction of sale of immovable property not disclosed in the income-tax return and probable escapement of income, ld. Assessing Officer issued notice u/s.148 of the Act for carrying out the reassessment proceedings. During the course of reassessment proceedings, assessee furnished the written submission stating that the source of cash deposit of Rs.22.00 lakh on a single day on 19.11.2011 is arising from the sale consideration of Rs.31.00 lakh received from sale of agricultural land. Ld. AO observed that the sale considered mentioned in the sale deed is Rs.3.00 lakh and there is no evidence that the assessee has received Rs.31.00 lakh as sale consideration. Ld. AO observed that against the deposit of Rs.22.00 lakh assessee has already explained the source of Rs.3.00 lakh and thus made addition of difference amount of Rs.19.00 lakh. I further observe that in the appellate proceedings ld.CIT(A) has affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer inspite of the fact that assessee has referred to certain documents including the recording of statements (post assessment order) of the witnesses and the buyers who were part of the registered sale deed for sale of agricultural land by the assessee. However, ld.CIT(A) did not accept the contention stating that there are additional evidence not filed before the ld. Assessing Officer.

Before me, ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to paper book pages 68 to 75 and stated that the statement u/s.131 of the Act was recorded by the ld. AO on 15.10.2018 in which the witness have affirmed the statement of the assessee that consideration of Rs.31.00 lakh was received against sale of agricultural land, whereas the buyer has stated that only Rs.3.00 has been paid. I notice that the statement have been recorded after the conclusion of the reassessment proceedings but before the passing of the impugned order. It clearly indicates that ld. AO had carried out certain enquiries but ld.CIT(A) has not taken the cognizance of the same.

Under these given facts and circumstances where the witness have affirmed the contention of the assessee about the sale consideration of Rs.31.00 lakh received against sale of agricultural land allegedly claimed to be not falling in the category of capital asset, whereas the buyer has stated to have paid only Rs.3.00 lakh, I deem it proper that the matter needs to be restored to the file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for carrying out the denovo reassessment proceedings after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee and referring to the statements recorded u/s.131 of the Act, providing the opportunity of cross examination to the concerned parties including the buyer and then decide in accordance with law. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is hereby set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.