Case Law Details
Mujtaba Hussain Ahmed Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad)
Undoubtedly, the assessee had sold his ancestral agricultural land admeasuring 1 acre and 25 guntas by way of a registered sale deed dt.23.03.2019. Incidentally, on the date of sale of land, SST Team intercepted the assessee and found cash with him and when the assessee was asked to explain the source of cash, the assessee had submitted that the cash was received by them (He and his siblings) on account of sale of land. Subsequently, during the assessment proceedings, the assessee had undertaken to produce the sale deed registered on 23.03.2019 which was mentioned in Para 2 of the assessment order. Subsequently, rectification deed was also got registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Banswada on 01.04.2019 whereby the value of the property was duly mentioned at Rs.26 lakhs. In the said rectification deed, the purchaser had paid the deficit stamp duty for sale of agricultural land and also agreed to pay Rs.26 lakhs as sale consideration towards buying the land. The above undisputed facts were already available with the Revenue authorities during the assessment / appellate proceedings, however, the authorities below have not examined the purchaser and the siblings of the assessee to contradict the same. The assessee not the purchaser were examined during the assessment proceedings.
As a matter of fact, at the time of seizure, the assessee was examined and the assessee had given an explanation that the cash was received by him along with other siblings on account of sale of agricultural land. In my considered opinion, once the assessee has disclosed the source of the cash on account of sale of agricultural land, then it is the bounden duty of the lower authorities to examine the purchaser and ask the purchaser to disclose the source of the cash. The above said act was necessary in the light of the mandatory provision mentioned under section 269ST / SS which requires that land for more than the specified limit shall not be purchased / sold by way of cash. In the present case, no action was initiated by the Assessing Officer for violation of provisions under section 269SS/269ST till date, against the seller and purchaser.
In the present case, the assessee has explained the source of the cash and has also disclosed the identity of the person from whom the cash was received. However, it is for the Assessing Officer to bring evidence by way of examining the purchaser or otherwise by bringing any cogent evidence about the capacity and creditworthiness of the purchaser thereby contradicting the assessee. However, no contradiction has been brought on record. In fact, as mentioned hereinabove, the addition was made by the Assessing Officer on account of cash received u/s 68 of the Act and the assessee had discharged the onus of proving three requirements of law, then no addition can be made in the hands of assessee. However, once the assessee has explained the source of cash, identity and other facts, which are required for charging u/s 68 of the Act, nothing can be pleaded in the hands of the assessee. In my opinion, the addition made in the hands of the assessee is required to be deleted. Accordingly, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) is deleted.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
