N.K. Shahi, Advocate for the Assessee. Arvind Sudershan, JCIT for the Revenue.

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 23.10.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Patiala [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’].

2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the A.O. by sustaining the addition of cash deposit of Rs. 1,35,96,000/- in appellant's bank account whereas the appellant has specifically filed a disclaimer during assessment proceedings that cash found in her bank account does not belong to her and that it was her husband who deposited the money in her bank account after selling his agricultural land.

2. The Ld. CIT (A) has wrongly dismissed the additional evidence filed under Rule 46A (of Income Tax Rules, 1962) of a sale deed of agricultural land executed by the husband of the appellant for cash consideration of Rs.48,77,500/- the amount which was deposited by him in appellant's bank account.

3. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal before it is finally heard.

3. The brief facts relating to the issue are that the assessment in this case was reopened u/s 147 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) read with section 148 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) (in short 'the Act') on the basis of information received by the Assessing Officer regarding the cash deposit of Rs. 18,96,000/- in the bank account of the assessee. However, during the assessment proceedings, a total cash amount of Rs. 1,35,96,000/- was found deposited in the bank account of the assessee. On being asked to explain in this respect, the assessee informed to the Assessing Officer that the said amount was out of the sale proceeds of the land sold by her husband namely Shri Surjit Singh S/o Shi Piara Singh. It was explained that her husband Shri Surjit Singh entered into an agreement with Shri Prahlad Singh on 22.1.2011 to sell total 37 kanals of his land situated at village Kandhipur in Tehsil Bassi Pathana, Distt Fatehgarh Sahib @ Rs. 29,90,900/- per acre (8 kanals). Thereafter, the land was sold on 3.3.2011. The Assessing Officer, however, did not get satisfied with the above explanation of the assessee on the ground that there were no signatures of the purchaser on the alleged agreement to sell dated 22.1.2011. Further, the assessee could not produce the copy of the sale deed of the said land. He, therefore, made the impugned additions.

4. Being aggrieved by the above order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, the assessee furnished copy of the sale deed before the Ld. CIT(A) as additional evidence. The Ld. CIT(A) called for the remand report on the said evidence furnished by the assessee. After considering the remand report and submissions of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) reiterated that there was no signatures of the purchaser on the agreement to sell produced by the assessee, hence, the same could not be relied upon. The Ld. CIT(A) further noted that even the alleged purchaser mentioned in the agreement to sell is different to that as mentioned in the sale deed. He noted that the agreement to sell allegedly was executed with some Parhlad Singh, whereas, the purchaser mentioned in the sale deed were namely Gurjant Singh, Shri Jujhar Singh and Balbir Kaur. The Ld. CIT(A) further noted that even the assessee could not produce the evidence of ownership over land in question of her husband namely Shri Surjit Singh. Further, that the address mentioned of the seller in the sale deed was different to that of the assessee. He, therefore, confirmed the additions so made.

5. Being aggrieved by the above order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has come in appeal before us.

6. We have heard the rival contentions of the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not properly appreciated the evidence produced by the assessee. That the assessee was not asked by the Assessing Officer to prove the ownership of the husband of the assessee of the land in question. Copy of the sale deed could not be produced earlier during the assessment proceedings because the original sale deed was with the purchaser, whereas, the husband of the assessee and the only son of the assessee were living abroad. It has been further pleaded that the assessee had duly furnished her evidence stating the entire facts.

That no contrary evidence was available on record. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that the assessee is ready and willing to produce the relevant evidence so as to show that the land situated in village Kandhipur was owned by husband of the assessee namely Shri Surjit Singh S/o Piara Singh and that the same was sold by her husband only. Regarding the another question raised by the lower authorities that no evidence / affidavit / statement of the husband of the assessee has been produced on the file that the amount was deposited by him into the bank account of the assessee out of the sale proceeds of the land, the Ld. counsel has submitted that no such explanation was sought by the lower authorities. The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that the assessee had made a categorical request to the Assessing Officer to summon the alleged purchasers named in the ‘agreement to sell’ as well as in the ‘sale deed’ to verify the contention made by the assessee. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the above contention of the assessee.

7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that in this case proper verification of the facts is needed to arrive at a correct conclusion. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for assessment afresh. The Assessing Officer is directed to consider the submissions made by the assessee, receive in evidence the documents furnished by the assessee and to verify the facts after summoning the purchasers named in the agreement to sell and sale deed and, thereafter, to make the assessment in accordance with law. Needless to say that the Assessing Officer will give proper opportunity to the assessee to present her case.

With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 19.10.2020.

Sd/- Sd/-

( N.K. SAINI) ( SANJAY GARG)

Vice President Judicial Member

Dated : 19. 10.2020