IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-3 NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No.-2749/Del/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2005-06) Naresh Chander, vs ITO, S/o-Sh.Sukh Pal, R/o-H.No.-437, Ward-2, Sector-7, Gohana, Sonepat. Sonepat. PAN-AQEPC2840A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh.R.K.Vashisth, Adv. Respondent by Ms.Anima Barnwal, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 21.07.2016 Date of Pronouncement 19.10.2016 ORDER present appeal has been filed by assessee assailing correctness of order dated 19.02.2015 of CIT(A), Rohtak pertaining to 2005-06 assessment year on various grounds. 2. relevant facts of case are that tax evasion petition in case of assessee was received by tax authorities and on account of failure to be represented ex-parte assessment order was passed, assessing income of Rs.31,50,000/- wherein addition of Rs.30 lakhs was made and salary income was estimated at Rs.1,50,000/-. relevant facts are extracted from assessment order:- TEP in case of Sh. Naresh Chand was received in this office. As per allegation labeled in TEP assessee signed agreement with SHri Krishan for purchase of land situated in Garhi Ujale Khan village of Gohana for consideration of Rs.83 lacs. As per agreement he paid Rs.15 lacs on 02.12.2004 and Rs.15 lacs on 28.02.2005 to Shri Krishan before witness Sh, Bansidhar. assessee was asked vide this office letter No.4666 dated 05.08.2010 letter No.7761 dated 06.10.2010 to furnish complete details of immovable/movable assets along with source of investment. He filed reply vide I.T.A .No.-2749/Del/2015 letter dated 25.11.2010 stated therein that he maintained bank account in OBC Karnal. He purchased residential plot of 270 sq. yard in 1999 for Rs.2.5 lacs. He maintained one wagon Car purchased in 2005 against loan. He further stated that he signed agreement with Shri Krishan for purchase of land situated in Garhi UJale Khan Vilalge of Gohana for consideration of Rs.83 lacs. He further stated that amount of Rs.83 lacs was paid by my father. But he did not produce any evidence regarding payment of Rs.83 lacs by his father. There has been no mentioned in agreement that assessee has signed agreement on behalf of his father. Hence contention of assessee regarding, payment of Rs.83 lacs by his father is absolutely without any evidence and therefore, rejected. 3. assessee was found to have been working on post of VLDA in office of Sub Divisional Officer Animal Husbandry Karnal. No return of income was filed by assessee in year under consideration as income was not taxable. Assailing addition assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) submitting that he was working on post of V.L.D.A. in G.V.H. Butana. relevant submissions extracted in impugned order as under:- 1. That I am working on post of V.L.D.A. in G.V.H. Butana and I was appointed in year 1988 for post of V.L.D.A. I do not purchase any property in my name or in name of my spouse and children. I purchased only plot in Sector-7, Gohana against sale consideration of Rs.2,36,000/- and I constructed house thereupon after obtaining house loan from ICICI Bank Ltd. vide loan account no. LBPNP00000350493 Application No. 7771446818 and except this I purchased Wagon-R Car bearing registration no. HR-1 IB/5400 and for that purpose I took car loan from Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gohana. Except above said plot and car, I have not purchased any other property. 2. I do not have any other income except income from salary. 3. I have not filed income tax return from assessment year 2005-06 because my total income was below than taxable income. I have two bank account, one is salary account with S.B.P. Gohana bearing account no. 55057744253 and another account bearing no. 015074 with O.B.C. Gohana, which has been closed by me. 4. I belongs to Joint Hindu Family. My grand-father Hardeva S/o Ram parsad was big landlord, who was having approximately 120 acre agriculture land and after consolidation, he had left owner of about 85 standard acre agriculture land. My father is elder son of his father i.e. my grand-father and is having 1/5 share in ancestral property comprised in Khewat no. 65/59, Khata no. 80, Rect. & Killa no. 23//8/2(2-8), 9(8-0), 10(7-8), 11/1(6-0), 24//15(8-0), 17(8-0), 18(8-0), 19(8-0), 20(8-0), 33//8(6- 14), 12(8-0), 15(7-4), 45//5(2-13), 7(3-18) situated in revenue estate of village Bali Brahmanan, Tehsil Gohana, Distt. Sonepat and in Khewat no. 68/77, Rect. & Killa no. 8//23(8-13), 24/1(3-0), ll//3/l(7-7), 4(7-7), 26//9(8-0), 11(8-0), 12(8-0), 33//13/2(6-0), 18(7-8), 19(8-0), 23(7-8), Page 2 of 5 I.T.A .No.-2749/Del/2015 39//18(8-0), 19(7-8), 23(7-8), Khewat no. 1194, Rect. & Killa no. 42//26(90-13), 43//3(6-16), 8(7-8), 45//3/2(3-10), 4(7-18), 5(2-13), 7(3-8), 93//6(8-0), 8/2(1-2), 13(8-0), 14(8-0), 24//20(8-0), 20(8-0), 22(8-0), 25//16(7-8), 26//9(8-0), 11(8-0), 12(8-0), 20(8-0), 21(8-0), 25//2(6-0), 31//16/2(3-16), 24(8-0), 25(7-12), 32//1(7-7), 33//23(7-8), 34(1(7-11) total measuring 93K-13M. 5. That I am just share holder in above said agriculture land being member of Joint Hindu Family and being legal heir of Sukhpal S/o Hardeva. 4. However, not convinced with explanation, CIT(A) confirmed addition holding as under:- 3. I have examined submissions made by assessee and facts on record. It is seen that at time of assessment proceedings for this year, assessee has stated that he had signed agreement for purchase of land at Garhi Ujale Khan, village Gohana with person called Shri Krishan for consideration of Rs 83 lakhs. assessee, by his own admission, stated that Rs 83 lakhs were paid by his father but no evidence of this was filed. sum of Rs 30,00,000/- being payments made on 04.12.2004 (Rs15,00,000) and 28.02.2005 (Rs 15,00,000) were added for AY 2005-06. assessee was unable to substantiate how agreement signed by him is not true. Moreover, no additional evidence has been furnished before me as per remand report of AO dated 16.01.2015. appellant has not been able to discharge his onus in proving that he was not party to said transaction. To state that his father made his "sign paper" and that his father entered into agreement with one Shri Krishan is not acceptable explanation. There was repeated non compliance before AO. Even before me, no new material has been placed on record to prove appellant's claim. I, therefore, confirm addition. 5. Both parties have been heard. In order to ascertain correctness of assertions made by parties before Bench, it is necessary to first address facts. It needs to brought on record as to what specific land as per agreement to sell has been purchased by assessee. Mere mention of village in document by itself does not form evidence that specific land was owned by way of purchase by assessee. In face of denial of assessee that signatures do not belong to him Revenue first needs to address status of specific land. Namely bring on record exact description of land and ascertain whether it has been purchased by assessee. In case alleged agreement to sell was never Page 3 of 5 I.T.A .No.-2749/Del/2015 acted upon even in that situation in face of denial of assessee that signature is not his Revenue will need to seek forensic examination of same by having expert s opinion on handwriting. fact that this is case of tax evasion petition wherein there is assertion of assessee that signature does not belong to him and assessee has argued that apart from Wagon-R car and construction of house after obtaining house loan from ICICI Bank Ltd. vide loan A/c No.LBPNP00000350493 on plot in Sector-7, Gohana there is no other property owned by assessee all facts which need to be addressed. . assessee may be called for to file sworn declaration under penalty of perjury to address his version of facts if need be before proceeding to seek forensic evidence addressing signatures etc. However, as far as impugned order is concerned it cannot be sustained as there is no discussion whatsoever on arguments recorded in said order. Once assessee says that signature does not belong to him and property refereed to has also not been purchased by him. Then, these basic facts and arguments have to be addressed and in order to proceed further and hold same as assessee s undisclosed income Revenue needs to demonstrate by way of evidences fallacies of assessee s claim. In absence of any discussion on relevant facts after hearing parties issue is restored back to AO to pass speaking order in accordance with law after giving assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard. 6. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. order is pronounced in open court on 19th October, 2016. Sd/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *Amit Kumar* Page 4 of 5 I.T.A .No.-2749/Del/2015 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT NEW DELHI Page 5 of 5 Naresh Chander v. ITO, Ward-2, Sonepat