BIRENDER YADAV S/O RAM NARAYAN YADAV,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), GURGAON

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12 is directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I [in short, the “CIT(A)”] Gurgaon’s order dated 29.03.2017 passed in case no. 93/14-15, involving proceedings under sections 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Case called twice. None appeared at the behest of the assessee. We accordingly proceeded ex-parte against him.

It emerges during the course of hearing as per the relevant facts emerging from the case file that the assessee is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ action assessing long term capital gains of Rs.3,53,84,140/- in his hands followed by section 68 addition of unexplained cash credits amounting to Rs.1,94,98,400/- in course of assessment dated 28.03.2014 followed by CIT(A)’s lower appellate findings upholding the said twin additions and also rejecting section 54B and section 54/54F claims; respectively.

The Revenue vehemently argues in support of both the learned lower authorities’ foregoing findings that the assessee’s land sold has been rightly assessed as a capital asset and the very outcome ought to follow for his cash deposits as well. We deem it appropriate to reiterate that we have proceeded ex-parte against the assessee. We, therefore, sought to verify the relevant facts from the Revenue side itself. Learned departmental representative took us to para 5 at page 3 in assessment discussion that the registered sale deed between the assessee (vendor) and the corresponding

Learned departmental representative at this stage sought to buttress the point that the assessee had received the entire consideration in the relevant previous year and, therefore, he has rightly assessed for the long-term capital gain in question.

We invited the Revenue’s attention to the specific statutory provision i.e. section 2(47) of the Act, wherein the clinching statutory expression “transfer”; inclusive in nature, given in clauses (i) to (vi), nowhere treats such an instance of mere receipt of the entire sale consideration as amounting to transfer of a capital asset, in any manner, whatsoever. We accordingly delete the impugned addition in very terms.

Next comes the second issue of section 68/69 unexplained cash credits addition amounting to Rs.1,94,98,400/- representing assessee’s cash deposits made in his bank account on 23.02.2011 when the above cheque payment had been received. The Revenue