AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL
No AI summary yet for this case.
per the verification report of DIT(I&CI), Chandigarh. The assessee's case records revealed that it was admitted that the source of cash deposit of Rs.2,35,80,000/- was from the sale proceeds of the agricultural land held in the name of her husband Sh. Ajmer Singh only. This fact is not assailed by the assessee during the present proceedings either. The AO in his order accepted that the actual name of his wife is Smt. Gurdev Kaur but in the bank statement (joint account maintained with State Bank of Patiala) the name of his wife appears as Smt. Baldev Kaur in which the entries have been found. In this regard it is further relevant to quote from the assessment order the contents of an affidavit filed by the assessee. The relevant extracts of the affidavit is reproduced as under :
"1. That I have received notice u/s 142 of the Income Tax Act in the name of Baldev Kaur. It appears that notice has been issued on the basis of name as appear in the bank account when I am holding with my husband Sh. Ajmer Singh. 2. That I am having PAN-DGDPK4070C
That all the transactions in the said bank accounts pertains to Ajmer Singh 3. my husband as I am illiterate and housewife but no having any taxable income during the year 2010-11. 4. That the notice may be dealt in the name of my husband Ajmer Singh, however I will be responsible in the event, Sh. Ajmer Singh does not own any responsibility for the transactions. 5. That my correct name is Gurdev Kaur as per Voter Card and Aadhar Card as well as PAN Card. (Signed) (Deponent)
The AO had accepted this facet of the assessee's contention the assessments had been framed in the name of Sh. Baldev Kaur alias Smt. Gurdev Kaur, the same is accepted as such. It is revealed from the assessment records of the assessee's husband for the same year that the above submissions had been accepted by the AO and the assessment of the impugned amount had been done on a substantive basis in the hands of the husband which is a matter separately under appeal.
It's also pertinent to point that the assessment order in the present case also records an affidavit's contents given by her husband that all the transactions featuring in the joint bank account are his and not of the wife who is an illiterate housewife. Her husband Sh. Ajmer Singh had furnished affidavit in this regard as under :
"1. That my wife Baldev Kaur have received notice u/s 142 of the income Tax Act. It appears that this notice has been issued to her on the basis of name as appear in the Bank account which I am holding with her jointly. 2. That I am having a PAN - CWJPS6206H.
That all the transactions in the said bank account pertains to me. 3. 4. That the notice may be dealt in the name of undersigned and will be responsible under the provisions of Income Tax Act for all the consequences. (Signed) (Deponent) 7.4 During the course of assessment proceedings, it was contended on her behalf that the assessee was a housewife and having no source of income. She maintained a bank account with State Bank of Patiala, Kharar jointly with her husband Sh. Ajmer Singh. The assessee submitted that cash deposits in the account emanated from transactions in land undertaken by her husband Sh. Ajmer Singh Who had sold his agricultural land and furnished the c*opy of sale deed duly registered on 22.05.2009 for an amount of Rs.62,70,000/-. 8. The assessee made her submissions through her counsel. He submitted that assessment in the case of assessee's husband Sh. Ajmer Singh has also been made on the same deposits of Rs.1,73,10,000/- while completing assessment in his case. Sh. Ajmer Singh and assessee's wife Smt. Baldev Kaur (alias Smt. Gurdev Kaur) have a joint account in State Bank of Patiala having account no. 55030123698. 8.1 The assessee further submitted that the AO passed the order against the assessee who does not own any movable or immovable property in her name. It is a fact on record that the assessee is an illiterate housewife and has no source of income other than small interest on saving bank account under consideration during the F.Y. 2009-10. In the assessment proceedings under section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee repeatedly said that the amount in the bank was the sale proceeds of agricultural land of her husband. Because the assessee's husband has no bank account and the amount is huge and not possible to carry to other place. Her husband deposited entire amount of sale of agricultural land in the bank. During the proceedings, the AO has not found any other source of income in the hands of the assessee relied upon the report of investigation wing. The AO also did not even try to apply her mind to find out the real source of deposit of Rs.2,35,80,000/- dated 22.05.2009 in State Bank of Patiala, Kharar and to find out whether the assessee had any other source of income either in past or in future. On the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not possible for the illiterate assessee attaining more than the 60 years to earn the huge amount and deposit in the joint account. 9. It is clear in the case that additions had been made on the same transaction in the hands of both the assessee and her husband. It is seen that the AO had also gone to assess the income arising out of the impugned transaction in the hands of assessee's husband on a substantive basis. Clearly, the addition of this amount could have been made in the hands of either of the two persons, Sh. Aimer Singh or Smt. Gurdev Singh alias Baldev Kaur w/o Sh. Aimer Singh and not in both cases. Smt. Gurdev Kaur had already filed an affidavit before the AO that all the transaction in the said bank account pertains to Sh. Aimer Singh and she is an illiterate house wife and having no taxable income in the A.Y. ^010-11. The Ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 1,73,10,000/- in the hands of Smt. Gurdev Kaur vide order dated 23.03.2016 and similar addition of Rs.1,73,10,000/- was made later on in the case of Sh. Ajmer Singh on 22.12.2017. The addition could have been made
only in the hands of the husband who not only is the owner of land transacted but also owned up that all the transactions and consequent deposits are his. The AO having done that in the case of her husband (on a substantive basis) was not right in adding the same amount in the present case. The additions made require to be deleted. In light of the above it is held that Grounds of appeal 2, 3 and 4 require to be allowed in the case of the assessee.”
We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record. The undisputed facts emerging from the records are that there were cash deposits in the joint bank account maintained by the assessee alongwith her husband, Shri Ajmer Singh. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee in her affidavit submitted that all the transactions in the bank account pertain to her husband, Shri Ajmer Singh. The husband, Shri Ajmer Singh also owned up all the transactions and confirmed the said fact by way of an affidavit. The AO took cognizance of the said explanation and gave credit of sale consideration as recorded in the sale deed executed by her husband and remaining amount was brought to tax in the hands of the assessee and separately, in the hands of her husband on substantive basis. The ld CIT(A) has deleted the addition in the hands of the assessee holding that the addition of the same amount can be made in the hands of either of the two persons and where the land transaction was in the name of the husband and he has owned up all the transactions in the joint bank account, the addition has rightly been made in the hands of the husband on substantive basis. 65. We find that the ld CIT(A) has rightly examined the nature and ownership of land transaction and the affidavits so submitted by both the assessee and her husband and which are found to be consistent in terms of both the assessee and her husband stating clearly that the all transactions pertain to the husband and who has also owned up all the transactions. There is nothing contrary on record or has been brought to our notice during the course of hearing. We therefore donot see any legal or factual infirminity in the said findings of the ld CIT(A) and the same is hereby confirmed.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 67. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 03/05/2024. Sd/- Sd/- आकाश दीप जैन िव�म �सह यादव (AAKASH DEEP JAIN) ( VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) उपा�य� / VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद�य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AG आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु� (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File
आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar
