ITO, ROHTAK vs. SH. JAGBIR SINGH, ROHTAK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1174/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 September 2016AY 2006-073 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The CIT(A) held that the AO failed to establish that the assessee had any other source of income to explain the amount and did not prove the verification of the advance giver was false. The CIT(A) also noted factual inaccuracies in the AO's assessment regarding the sale deed.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed to have received advances totaling Rs. 4,65,000/- for the sale of agricultural land. The Assessing Officer (AO) added this amount to the assessee's income, rejecting the explanation. The CIT(A) considered the evidence and found the AO's assessment to be factually incorrect.

What were the issues?

Whether the advances received by the assessee for the sale of agricultural land were genuine and properly explained to the AO.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-3’, NEW DELHI

ORDER This is an appeal filed by the Revenue directed against the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals), Rohtak dated 30.12.2015 pertaining to the A.Y. 2006-07.

1.

1.1. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issual of notice through R.P.A.D. There is no application for adjournment either. Under these circumstances I dispose of the case ex parte qua the assessee on merits after hearing the Ld.Sr.D.R. 1.2. Heard Shri Amrit Lal, Ld.Sr.D.R. on behalf of the Revenue.

2.

The assessee is an individual. He stated that he received an advance of Rs.4,65,000/- from Shri Ran Singh, S/o Sh Jage Ram on account of sale of agricultural land sold on 30.6.2006 as under. On 1.9.2005 – Rs. 2 lakhs; In October, 2005 – Rs.4,50,000/-; In January, 2006 – Rs.40 lakhs 2.1. He claimed that out of these amounts he gave a gift of Rs.20 lakhs to his son Shri Devender Rathee. The AO had made an addition of Rs.46,50,000/- being cash deposited in the bank account by rejecting the claim of the assessee that he received advances on account of sale of agricultural land. On appeal the First Appellate Authority considered the evidences filed by the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) held that the assessee has no other source of income other than agricultural income. He further observed that the A.O. could not establish that the assessee is having some other source of income which can earn him a huge amount of Rs.46,50,000/-. No evidence was brought on record by the A.O. with confirmation of Mr.Ran Singh son of the purchaser was false or unverifiable. The sale deed was in June,2000 after harvesting the crop.

2.2. The Ld.CIT(A) also observed that the A.O. is factually incorrect in stating that in the sale deed executed on 30.6.2006, no details of advance paid was mentioned. I find no infirmity in the factual finding of the A.O.

3.

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 28th September, 2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →