Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी आकाश दीप जैन, उपा"य" एवं "ी िव"म "सह यादव, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Balwinder Singh Bajwa बनाम The ITO S/o S. Pishora Singh, Nambardar Ward, Sunam VPO Nawan Gaon, Tehsil-Moonak, Sangrur 148033 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CHNPS7240G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Dev Ahuja, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 30/01/2024 उदघोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 26/04/2024 आदेश/Order PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. :
This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, dt. 30/03/2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. In the present appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. The Ld. CIT(A) was not right in sustaining the addition of Rs. 34,37,500/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act by not treating the entire cash receipt of Rs. 53,00,000/- as sale proceeds of agricultural land which is exempt from taxation.
The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in not allowing to withdraw the Ground No. 2 that the AO has wrongly applied the provisions of section 144 of the Income Tax Act whereas the assessment has been completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in law by wrongly justifying that order u/s 143(3) cannot be passed as notice u/s 143(2) was not issued on account of non-filing of return of income in response to notice u/s 148. However, mentioning of section 143(3) r.w.s 147 on first page of the order, the Ld. CIT(A) has considered it “to be inadvertent error on the part of the AO.”
Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs. 63,85,000/- in his bank account maintained with State Bank of India (SBI) during the F.Y. 2010-11, inquiries were conducted under section 133(6) but the assessee was unable to furnish source of cash deposited in his bank account. Thereafter, notice under section 148 was issued dt. 29/03/2018. In response to the notice, the assessee did not file any return of income. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) was issued and information was called for and assessment was completed under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. 3.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has deposited a sum of Rs. 53,00,000/- on 09/08/2010 and as per the explanation submitted by the assessee, the cash was deposited out of the sale consideration of his agriculture land. The AO referred to the copy of the registered sale deed in respect of agriculture land sold by the assessee and stated that in the registered sale deed, the sale consideration towards sale of the agriculture land has been shown at Rs. 14,82,500/- only. Thereafter the assessee was asked to furnish evidence regard the remaining amount of Rs. 38,17,500/- however there was no details furnished by the assessee. The AO also referred to the bank statement of the assessee and noted that there were cash withdrawal of Rs. 3,80,000/- prior to deposit of cash amounting to Rs. 53,00,000/- and the credit thereof was given to the assessee and the remaining cash of Rs. 34,37,500/- deposited in bank account of the assessee was treated as unexplained and the addition was made under section 69A of the Act.
Being aggrieved the assessee carried the mater in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC Delhi who has since sustained the order passed by the AO. 5. Against the said findings and direction of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before us.
During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a Nambardar of VPO Nawan Gaon, Teh. Moonak and he is only an agriculturist. He was the owner of 3 Acre, 2 Kanal and 7 Marie of agricultural land situated in VIII. Nawan Gaon. Teh. Moonak. This land was sold to one Smt. Beant Kaur w/o Sh. Nirnajan Singh s/o Sh. Bhagwan Singh, Safidon Road, Jind (Haryana) and the Registry of this land was got done by Smt. Beant Kaur through her son-in-law Shri Balwinder Singh s/o Sh. Maan Singh on 09-03-2010. This land was sold for a sum of Rs 53,00,000/- but because of insistence of the buyer to save stamp duty, the sale consideration was disclosed in the sale deed at Rs 14,82,500/- (circle rate fixed by the State Govt). The entire sale consideration i.e. Rs 53,00,000/- received in cash was deposited in the saving bank account maintained by the assessee with the State Bank of India, Patran on the same date when the sale of agricultural land was done i.e. on 09-08-2010. The learned AO did not accept this explanation of the assessee and make an addition of Rs 34,37,500/- after giving the credit of Rs 14,82,500/- on account of sale consideration of agricultural land as per registered deed and Rs 3,80,000/- by treating the same as cash available with the assessee out of the withdrawal made by the him from the bank before depositing of cash amounting to Rs 53,00,000/- (53,00.000 - 14,82,500 - 3,80,000 = 34,37,500/-). The Ld. AO made addition of Rs 34,37,500/- by treating the cash deposit as unexplained cash u/s 69A of the IT. Act. 6.1 It was submitted that there is not much of transaction in the bank account of the assessee either before or after the sale transaction of agricultural land. The assessee is not having any other source of income so as to generate undisclosed income of Rs 34,37,500/-. The assessee was doing agricultural activities. Nothing has been concealed as the entire consideration on sale of agricultural land was deposited in the bank. 6.2 It was submitted that the Ld. AO did not brought anything on record that the assessee was in a position to generate unaccounted income of Rs 34,37,500/- other than on-money on account of sale of agricultural land. Reducing the sale consideration to be disclosed in the sale-deed was for the purpose of reducing stamp duty payment.
6.3 Before the Ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that the ITAT, Cochin Bench in the case of ITO vs Dr. Koshy George reported in (2009) 317 ITR (AT) 116 (Cochin) has held that any surplus money arising to an assessee on sale of agricultural land would always partake the character of agricultural income itself. The consideration stated in the registered sale deed was agricultural income. Likewise "the on-money" also should be treated as agricultural income.
6.4 Reliance was also placed on the decision of Cochin Bench in in the case of ITO, Ward 1(1), Non-Corporate, Kochi Vs. Shri A braham Varghese Charuvil, Kochi. The facts of this case and the facts of the case of the assessee are identical. The Hon'ble Tribunal has observed that- " He was engaged in agricultural activities on his retirement and there is nothing on record to suggest that the assessee along with his wife were in a position to generate unaccounted income of Rs.39 lakhs other than on-money on account of sale of agricultural land. The payment of on-money is an unfortunate practice in most part of our country, and none can deny this factual situation. It is the case of the assessee that the buyers were insisting on reducing the sale consideration to be disclosed in the sale deed for the purpose of reducing stamp duty payment. This contention of the assessee cannot be totally brushed aside. I also place reliance on the order of the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Dr. Kosny George (supra), wherein it was held by the Tribunal that any surplus money arising to an assessee on sale of agricultural land would partake the character of agricultural income itself. For the aforesaid reasoning, I hold that the order of the CIT(A) is correct and in accordance with law and no interference is called for. It is ordered accordingly." 6.5 It was submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that keeping in view the above submissions, the appeal may be allowed, however, the Ld. CIT(A) in his order (para 4.3) has observed – “In support of the ground, the appellant has relied upon judgment passed by IT AT, Cochin Bench in the case of ITO Vs Dr. Koshi George (2009) 317 ITR (AT) 116 Kochin, wherein it was held by the tribunal that any surplus money arising to an assessee on sale of agricultural land would partake the character of agricultural income itself. Further, as per the appellant, his case is identical to the case of Kochin Bench of IT AT in (A.Y.2013-14) of The ITO, Ward 1(1), Non/Corporate, Kochi Vs Shri Abraham Varghese Charuvil.” Further, the Ld. CIT(A) in his order (para 4.4) has observed that- " I have perused the case of cochin Bench of the IT AT in I.T.A. No. 30/Coch/2017 (A.Y. 2013-14) of The ITO, Ward 1(1), Non/Corporate, Kochi Vs Shri Abraham Varghese Charuvil, wherein reference to other case law relied upon, also comes. The case of Shri Abraham Varghese Charuvil has been claimed to be based on identical set of facts as per the appellant. However, actually facts of the case are distinguishable from the case in hand. In the case of Shri Abraham Verghese, entire sale proceeds of sale of agricultural land held in the name of Abraham Verghese and his wife Alice Abraham has been disclosed by them in their respective returns. However, in present case the appellant is a non-filer of return of income. Therefore, disclosure of sale proceeds doesn't arise. Therefore, addition of Rs. 34,37,500/- is upheld and ground raised by the appellant is dismissed." 6.6 In this context, it was submitted that the assessee has no other income except agricultural income as already stated above. In the absence of any income/taxable income, the assessee was not liable to file any Income Tax Return. The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal only on the point that the assessee is a non-filer of return of income and has ignored all the following points as observed by the Tribunal in the case of Sh. Abraham Varghsse Charuvil and the submissions of the assessee: i) There is no much of transactions in the bank account of the assessee either before or after the sale transaction of agricultural land. ii) The appellant assessee was engaged in agricultural activities and there is nothing on record to suggest that the assessee was in a position to generate unaccounted money to the extent of Rs. 34,37,500/- other than on-money on account of sale of agricultural land. iii) The payment of on-money is an unfortunate practice in most part of our country, and none can deny this factual position. iv) It is the case of the assessee that the buyer was insisting on reducing the sale consideration to be disclosed in the sale deed for the purpose of reducing stamp duty payment. This contention of the assessee cannot be totally brushed aside. v) The Tribunal has also placed reliance on the order of the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs Dr Koshy George wherein surplus money arising to an assessee on sale of agricultural land would partake the character of agricultural land.
6.7 It was further submitted that the ITAT, Delhi Bench-C in 823/Del2018 AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 in the case of ACIT Cen. Cir -16 New Delhi Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Rathi has observed that- "The only reason, on which Assessing Officer has added back the sale consideration as undisclosed income of the assessee is because, the assessee has not disclosed the sale proceeds of the land sold in the original return of income. Whereas, in the revised return of income filed in pursuance to the notice issued u/s 153 A of the Act, the assessee has offered the amount received from sale of land. This, in our view, cannot be a finding which is sustainable either on facts or in law. Firstly, Assessing Officer has not controverted the nature and character of land sold. Once, nature and character of land sold is established as agricultural land not to be treated as capital asset u/s. 2(14)(iii) of the Act, any income arising out of sale of such land - whether by way of declared sale consideration or on account of on-money, would partake the character of exempt income, as the source of both the declared sale consideration and the on-money received is the same, viz., sale of agricultural land. That being the factual position, the income derived from sale of agricultural land, which is not a capital asset, cannot be made taxable. The decisions relied upon by Id. Counsel for the assessee fully supports this view. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of Id. Commissioner (Appeals) in deleting the additions made"
6.8 It was submitted that it is clear from the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi that once the land sold, being agricultural land, is not coming within the purview of capital asset as defined u/s 2(14)(iii) of the Act, any income arising out of sale of such land - whether as declared sale consideration or alleged on-money would partake the same character, hence would be exempt from taxation. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as submitted above, it was submitted that the appeal may kindly be allowed.
Regarding Ground No. 2, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. AO has erred in law and facts by applying the provisions of section 144 of the IT. Act while completing the assessment.
7.1 This ground of appeal was withdrawn by contending that the assessment has been completed vide order under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961 by the learned AO. However, the learned AO has reproduced the provisions of section 144 of the IT. Act in the body of assessment order whereas the assessment has been completed u/s 143(3) read with sec.
Therefore, this ground of appeal was withdrawn. But the Ld. CIT(A) has not allowed to withdraw this ground of appeal and has dismissed the same by observing that- “It transpires from the perusal of the assessment order dated 25-12-2018 that, actually the AO has passed order u/s 144 of the Act. On 2nd page of the assessment order the AO has pointed as many as six occasions of non- compliance made by the assessee.” 7.2 In this context it was submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(b) by the AO for non-compliance vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/105005141(1) dated 23-02-2023. The Ld. CIT(A) in his order observed that "the AO had actually quoted the section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on initial page of the assessment order and concluding para of the assessment order mentions that income is assessed u/s 144 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has observed that in view of compliance made by the assessee during the assessment proceedings and overall factual and legal matrix of the case, the appeal of the appellant is allowed and penalty is ordered to be deleted". 7.3 In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case as explained above, It was submitted that this ground of appeal may kindly be allowed to be withdrawn as the assessment has been completed u/'s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961
The Ld. DR has relied on the order of the lower authorities.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on the record. In the instant case, the undisputed facts which are emerging from records are that the assessee is an agriculturist and during the year under consideration, he has sold agricultural land in terms of registered sale deed dated 09-03-2010 and there are deposits of cash amounting to Rs 53 lacs in his bank account on the same day. We find that it is assessee’s consistent submission before the AO as well as before the ld CIT(A) that the source of cash deposit of Rs 53 lacs in the bank account is the sale proceeds of the agriculture land sold by him during the year under consideration and the necessary nexus has been established. It has also been submitted that the land was sold for a sum of Rs 53,00,000/- but because of insistence of the buyer to save stamp duty, the sale consideration was disclosed in the sale deed at Rs 14,82,500/- as per the circle rate fixed by the State Govt. The AO has not disputed the fact that the assessee has sold the agriculture land but at the same time, has partially accepted the explanation of the assessee and has held a part of deposits as relatable to sale of agriculture land based on the sale consideration as shown in the registered sale deed and the remaining deposits as not relatable to sale of agriculture land and brought the same to tax. The question that arises for consideration is the taxability of the on-money on sale of the agriculture land. In this regard, we find that during the appellate proceedings before the ld CIT(A), the assessee has referred to the decision of the Coordinate Delhi Benches in case of ACIT Cen. Cir -16 New Delhi Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Rathi (supra) wherein it was held that once the nature and character of land sold is established as agricultural land not to be treated as capital asset u/s. 2(14)(iii) of the Act, any income arising out of sale of such land - whether by way of declared sale consideration or on account of on-money, would partake the character of exempt income, as the source of both the declared sale consideration and the on-money received is the same, viz., sale of agricultural land. That being the factual position, the income derived from sale of agricultural land, which is not a capital asset, cannot be made taxable. In the instant case, we find that the AO has accepted the nature and character of the land being sold as agriculture land whereby sale consideration as so stated in the sale deed has been held as not taxable and source of cash deposit to that extent has been accepted. Further, the assessee has established the necessary nexus between the sale transaction and deposit of on-money in the bank account which has happened on the same day, therefore, the said decision supports the case of the assessee.
In case of Jagir Singh Vs ACIT (ITA No. 331/Chd/2019 dated 21/02/2023), a 10. similar matter came up for consideration and speaking through one of us, we have held as under:
Further, on perusal of the bank statement of assessee’s account maintained with HDFC bank, out of Rs. 82,65,000/-, a sum of Rs. 79,00,000/- was deposited on 07.07.2009 and Rs 2,00,000/- was deposited on 09.07.2009 which lends credence to assessee’s contention that there was direct nexus between receipt of sale consideration and deposits thereof in bank on the same date when the sale deed was registered. We find that a similar matter came up for consideration before the Coordinate Jaipur Benches in case of Shri Pappu Ram Saran vs ITO (supra) wherein it was held that where the cash was deposited on the very next day of entering into the sale deed, a direct nexus has been prima facie established between source of cash deposit and sale transaction and in absence of any contrary material brought on record, the explanation of the assessee regarding source of deposit cannot be disputed and the relevant findings read as under: “6. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The AO has made addition on account of cash deposit of Rs. 27,50,000/- in the bank account of the assessee on 09.04.2009. Since the assessee has not appeared before the AO nor made compliance to the various notices issued by the Assessing Officer, therefore, the assessment was completed ex-parte U/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee produced sale deed as well as bank account and also detailed submissions in respect of the source of cash deposit made in the bank account. The ld. C(IT(A) called for remand report wherein the AO has pointed out that the sale deed dated 08.04.2009 shows the sale consideration of Rs. 6,45,000/-. The ld. CIT(A) has consequently allowed the claim of the assessee only to the extent of Rs. 6,45,000/- as stated in the sale deed. The Bench has raised a query about the discrepancy in the name mentioned in the sale deed and the name of the assessee appearing in other records. The ld. AR has pointed out that the assessee Shri Pappu Ram is also known as @ Prabhu Ram. Thus, in the sale deed of the name of the assessee appearing as Shri Prabhu Ram. After verification of the record we are satisfied that the name appearing in the sale deed alias name of the assessee. The AO has also not disputed the fact that the assessee is one of the joint owners of the land which was sold vide sale deed 08.04.2009. We further note that the cash of Rs. 27,50,000/- was deposited in the bank account of the assessee with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kishangarh on 09.04.2009. The date of cash deposit is subsequent to the date of sale deed dated 08.04.2009 which prima facie shows that the source of cash deposit has a direct nexus with the sale transaction of the land sold by the assessee jointly with other coowners vide sale deed dated 08.04.2009. Though the sale deed shows the sale consideration of Rs. 6,45,000/- which is also the Stamp Duty Valuation however, once the assessee has brought on record the relevant facts as well as nexus between transaction of sale and deposit in bank account then only inference can be drawn from these facts and circumstances of the case is that the source of deposit of Rs. 27,50,000/- is the sale consideration of the land. The Assessing Officer has not brought anything contrary on the record during the remand proceedings such as examination of the purchaser. Therefore, in the absence of any contrary material the explanation of the assessee regarding source of cash deposit in the bank account cannot be disputed. This Tribunal in case of M/s OM Plantation vs. ITO (supra) has considered an identical issue in para 6 as under:- “6. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. The assessee purchased the land situated at Bhankrota, Jaipur vide two sale deeds both dated 11/8/2005 for a total consideration mentioned in the sale deeds at Rs. 1,76,34,000/-. However, the Assessing Officer received the report of the DDIT(Inv) alongwith the details of the cash deposits in the bank accounts of the sellers and their relatives and further an agreement to sell dated 11/5/2005 wherein the consideration @ Rs. 28,25,000/- per bigha was agreed upon between the parties and part consideration was stated to have been paid at the time of agreement in cash as well as in cheque. The Assessing Officer has computed the total purchase consideration by adopting the rate of Rs. 28,25,000/- per bigha as stated in the agreement to sell dated 11/5/2005. Though the said agreement is not signed by both the parties and it was signed only by the seller, however, we find that the details given in the agreement regarding the agricultural lands, its khasaras numbers as well as the part consideration of Rs. 15,50,000/- through a cheque No. 582863/- dated 10/6/2005 is not in dispute. The details of the said cheque also find place in the registered sale deed dated 11/8/2005. Thus, the contents of the agreement to the extent of part payment of consideration has been established by the sale deed dated 11/8/2005. Therefore, even if the said agreement is not enforceable in law due to the non-bearing of the signature of the assessee and further due to non-registration, the contents of the said agreement which has been proved and corroborated by the sale deed go to establish the existence of the agreement between the parties. Further the details of the cash deposited in the bank account of the sellers and their relatives has been reproduced by the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings at page No. 4 and 5 of the assessment order as under: Name of person Bank S.No Deposited Date Relation with the account No. . cash amount seller Smt. Dhapu Devi Meena 210501000 1. 32,74,000/- 12/08/2005 Seller of land 2. Sh. Dulharam Meena 1007813 1,50,000/- 14/05/2005 Do 10,00,000/- 12/08/2005 1,60,000/- 16/08/2005 3. Sh. Ballu Ram Meena 1007108 4,00,000/- 14/05/2005 Do 11,70,666/- 12/08/2005 4. Sh. Harphool Meena 1004534 11,70,667/- 12/08/2005 Do 5. Sh. Satendra Basanwal 1007978 14,00,000/- 12/08/2005 Son of Sh. Bagwataram Seller 6. Sh. Rajendra Kumar 1003946 1,50,000/- 12/05/2005 Do Meena 14,00,000/- 12/08/2005 7. Sh. Om Prakash 1004337 1,50,000/- 12/05/2005 Do Meena 14,00,000/- 12/08/2005 8. Sh. Ashok Kumar 1001168 14,00,000/- 12/08/2005 Do Meena 9. Sh. Rosha/ La/ Meena 1006877 1,50,000/- 12/05/2005 Grandson of Sh 14,00,000/- 12/08/2005 Bagwataram, Seller 10. Sh. Jagdish Pd. Meena 100131 7,50,000/- 12/08/2005 Son of Smt. Dhapu Devi Meena, Seller 11. Sh. Manna Lai Meena 1008064 7,15,800/- 12/08/2005 Son of Smt. Dhapu Devi Meena, Seller 12. Sh. Nemi Chand 1005293 7,50,000/- 12/08/2005 Son of Smt. Dhapu Meena Devi Meena, Seller 13. Smt. Sushila Meena W/o 210501000 7,50,000/- 12/08/2005 W/o- Sh. Prabhu Prabhu Dayal Meena 07726 Dayal Meena, S/o- Smt. Dhapu Devi Meena, Seller The dates of deposit of cash as well as cheques in the bank accounts of the sellers, their sons, grandsons and wife are clearly matching to the dates of agreement to sell and sale deed i.e. 11/5/2005 and 11/8/2005. All the deposits of cash in the bank accounts of these persons were made on the very next day of execution of agreement and sale deed respectively. In absence of any other source of income of the sellers, the only inference which can be drawn from the details of the bank accounts and particularly the deposits made on the particular dates which is just one day after the execution of the agreement to sell and sale deeds that the cash deposits in the bank accounts of the sellers and their relatives is only from the sale consideration received against the sale of agricultural lands in question. There is no other transaction either on those dates or in around those dates of deposits in the bank accounts other than the present transaction of sale of lands by the sellers. Further the Assessing Officer has reproduced the statements of the branch manager wherein the amounts were deposited as well as the relatives of the sellers who have confirmed the receipt of cash and deposit of the same in the bank account. Thus, we find that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer is not solely based on the statements recorded by the Investigation Wing but there was tangible material in the shape of the bank accounts statements, agreement to sell and sale deeds which are of course not in dispute. The only dispute raised by the assessee is regarding the photo copy of the agreement and its evidentiary value, however, it is not the issue of legal enforceability of the said agreement and the claim under the agreement but the contents of the agreement which are to the extent corroborated by the independent evidence being sale deeds and further the bank statements of the sellers cannot be denied on the technical ground of admissibility. Therefore, once the payment of cash is reflected from all these documents as well as statements of the parties then the technical objection raised by the assessee will not help the case of the assessee.” In view of the facts and circumstances of the case when the deposit of cash in the bank account is contemporaneous to the transaction of sale of land then in the absence of any contrary material the source explained by the assessee cannot be rejected. Hence, the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is deleted.”
In the instant case, we find that there was deposit of cash of Rs 79,00,000/- on 07/07/2009 the very same day on which the sale deed was executed and Rs 2,00,000/- was deposited on the next day, therefore a clear nexus has been established between source of such cash deposit and sale transaction so executed by the assessee. In absence of any contrary evidence brought on record in terms of statement of witnesses and comparative sale data of similar transaction undertaken at same/nearby location at a value different from what has been claimed by the assessee, the explanation so furnished by the assessee cannot be disputed. We are conscious of the fact that though the sale deed shows lower sale consideration of Rs 42,53,000/- which is also the Stamp Duty Valuation however, once the assessee has brought on record the relevant facts and documentation as well as nexus between transaction of sale and deposit in bank account has been established then in absence of any contrary evidence brought on record, only inference which can be drawn from these facts and circumstances of the case is that the source of deposit of Rs. 82,50,000/- is the sale consideration of the agriculture land.”
In the instant case, as well, as we have noted above, a clear nexus has been established between source of cash deposit and sale transaction so executed by the assessee and in absence of any contrary evidence brought on record in terms of statement of purchaser, witnesses and comparative sale data of similar transaction undertaken at same/nearby location at a value different from what has been claimed by the assessee, the explanation so furnished by the assessee cannot be disputed and the same is hereby found acceptable.