IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC-II, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3303/DEL/2015 Assessment year : 2009-10 Mrs. Sunita Dabas, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H-4, Arya Apartments, Ward 21(1), Sector 15, Rohini, New Delhi. Delhi 110 085. PAN: AHWPD 8092J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Rajesh Khurana, CA Respondent by : Shri S.K. Jain, Sr.DR Date of hearing : 14.09.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 21.09.2016 ORDER This appeal is preferred by assessee against order dated 18.03.2015 of CIT(Appeals)-13, New Delhi on solitary ground that CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts by confirming additions to tune of Rs.24,92,000 ignoring personal appearances of depositors and non-disputable admission of facts before CIT(Appeals). 2. facts in brief borne out from record are that assessee has declared business income on account of cable network services. Return of income for AY 2009-10 was processed u/s. 143(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"] initially and later on scrutiny assessment ITA No. 3303/DEL/2015 Page 2 of 6 was passed and income was assessed at RS.26,86,790 against declared income of Rs.1,94,790. 3. Through AIR information, AO noticed that assessee has deposited sum of Rs.19 lakhs in Indian Bank, Rohini, Delhi, and accordingly she was asked to explain source of deposits. In response thereto, it was stated on behalf of assessee that she has received advances for sale of agricultural land situated in Gurgaon, out of which cash was deposited in bank. In support of her contentions, she has filed 3 receipts of said advances. 4. AO noticed that no agreement for sale was executed between purchaser and seller and present owner of land is brother of assessee. Though AO has issued summons for appearance, brother of assessee did not appear before AO. He accordingly treated deposits of Rs.24,92,000 as unexplained cash deposits u/s. 68 of Act. 5. assessee preferred appeal before CIT(Appeals) with submissions that assessee has furnished complete details of receipt as advance from prospective buyers. transactions are not made with related parties and assessee has explained source in hands of depositors by producing them before tax authorities. statement of prospective buyer, Shri Baljit Singh s statement was also recorded by AO. deposition of Shri Sultan Singh was also filed ITA No. 3303/DEL/2015 Page 3 of 6 before CIT(Appeals). It was further contended that assessee was joint owner in agricultural land and later on she has relinquished her rights in agricultural land in favour of her brother, Shri Raj Hans Kataria, who has taken responsibility to settle dues/liability of advances received by assessee with prospective buyers. 6. CIT(Appeals) was not convinced with explanation of assessee and he confirmed additions. relevant observations of is extracted hereunder for sake of reference:- 4.3 reason given by AO, submission of appellant and enquiry conducted by my Ld. predecessor CIT(A)-XXII in this case are considered. During appellate proceeding, appellant introduced another name, Sultan Singh from whom about Rs.15,00,000/- was claimed to have received. Similarly, other amounts were claimed to have received from Baljeet Singh and Dayanand. It is also submitted that appellant's brother Mr. Raj Hans Kataria finally settled advance received from these persons for sale of agricultural land which appellant never had ownership or possession. There is also no agreement to sale without which it cannot be expected that potential buyer will advance such large amount in cash. In support of her explanation, appellant could submit only hand written statement from Sultan Singh dated 14.12.2013 which does not even verify signature of person giving statement. receipts of cash submitted during assessment proceedings are only self serving which has no signature of person making payment. Despite lot of opportunity given by AO, appellant failed to produce any documentary evidence or personal deposition of evidences. Thus, at appellate stage, such evidences cannot be accepted u/r 46A irrespective of its evidentiary value. Such cash transactions cannot be accepted as legal channel even if theory of agricultural land and agriculturist buyer or seller is propounded. location of event in Gurgaon or Rohini and in year of 2008 that cannot be considered as so remote place in country where ITA No. 3303/DEL/2015 Page 4 of 6 transacting parties can be expected to be unaware of banking channels and requirement of legal documents in transfer of property. In these facts and circumstances of case, in absence of cohesive and plausible explanation as well as reliable documentary evidence, addition made is confirmed and ground of appeal is dismissed. 7. Aggrieved, assessee has preferred this appeal before Tribunal with submission that assessee has furnished complete details of receipt of advances from prospective buyers. Though assessee has produced prospective buyer who has admitted in his statement with respect to payment of advances, but deposition of prospective buyers was not accepted by revenue authorities. Since assessee has placed all relevant material to explain source of deposits, it should have been accepted by revenue. 8. ld. DR, on other hand, besides placing reliance upon order of CIT(Appeals) has contended that no sale of agreement was executed between assessee and prospective buyers and in present times nobody will make huge advances of Rs.19 lakhs without executing sale agreement. Moreover, till date this amount was not returned back to prospective buyers. Except oral statements, no documentary evidence is placed on record by assessee. 9. Having carefully examined orders of lower authorities in light of rival submissions, I find that though assessee has claimed that she has received cash from aforesaid prospective buyers, but no sale agreement has been executed, which is quite unrealistic as no one gives ITA No. 3303/DEL/2015 Page 5 of 6 such huge amount of Rs.19 lakhs as advance towards purchase of agricultural land, even without having executed sale agreement. assessee has projected story that sale could not be materialized by assessee, therefore she relinquished her rights in favour of her brother, who has taken responsibility of settling dues. But no evidence has been placed on record in this regard. statements of concerned persons who are involved in this transaction could not be recorded by revenue authorities in order to testify their testimony. assessee has placed only statement of Shri Baljit Singh, though other prospective buyers are also involved who have made advances to assessee. Even brother of assessee was not examined. Only his confirmation was filed. In light of these evidence, I am of view that this issue requires further verification. Accordingly, I set aside order of CIT(Appeals) and restore matter to file of Assessing Officer with direction to examine all concerned people who are involved in this transaction and also verify whether advances received by assessee was finally returned back to prospective buyers or dues are settled in some other mode. I also direct assessee to produce concerned people before AO to establish her case that in fact assessee has received advances on account of sale of agricultural land, out of which cash was deposited in bank. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 3303/DEL/2015 Page 6 of 6 Pronounced in open court on this 21st day of September 2016. Sd/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV ) Judicial Member New Delhi, Dated, 21st September, 2016. /DS/ Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, New Delhi. Assistant Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi. Sunita Dabas v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-21(1), New Delhi