Sh. Parminder Singh, V. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar

CO 31/ASR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7934 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R L CHHANALIA
• Keywords: Document seized; Retraction; Condonation of delay; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.631(ASR)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 PAN :ACMPS6748R ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, VS. SH. PARMINDER SING H, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR. 35, GOPAL NAGAR, KAPURTHALA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.31(ASR)/2012 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO.631(ASR)/2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 SH. PARMINDER SINGH, VS. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME-TAX, 35, GOPAL PARK, KAPURTHALA. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALA NDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY:SH. R.L. CHHANALIA, DR ASSESSEE BY: SH. SURINDER MAHAJAN, CA DATE OF HEARING:08/11/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:22/11/2012 ORDER PER BENCH ; THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARISES FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-1, LUDHIANA, DATED 05.10.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: ITA NO.631(ASR)/2011 C.O. NO.31(ASR)/2011 2 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FAC TS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2.05 CRORE WHI CH WAS THE AMOUNT SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 132(4) AND SUBSEQUENTLY RETRACTED IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE S URRENDER MADE WAS ADMITTEDLY VOLUNTARILY AND WITHOUT ANY PRESSURE . 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACT S WHILE NOT CONSIDERING THE MOST GUIDING AND GOVERNING VERD ICT OF THE APEX COURT, AS RELIED UPON IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, BEING THAT IN THE CASE OF THIRU JOHN VS. SUBRAMHAMANAYUM (AIR 1977 (SC) 1727) WHICH ASSERTS, INTER-ALIA THAT A PARTYS ADMISSION IN THE BEST EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PARTY. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACT S ON THE ISSUE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO RETRACT O N THE SURRENDER AT ANY POINT OF TIME AND IN THAT WHETHER THE PROVIS ION OF SECTION 132(4) DOES NOT PROVE TO BE A REDUNDANT ONE. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE G ROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE APPEAL S HEARD AND DISPO SED OFF. 5. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE SET -ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. BE RESTORED. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED C.O. AGAINST REVENUE S APPEAL AND HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , LD. CIT(A)-1, LUDHIANA, HAS RIGHTLY DELETED ADDITION OF RS.2,05,0 0,000/- BY HOLDING THAT ADDITION MADE BY THE AO SUFFERS FROM S ERIOUS LIMITATION IN TERMS OF LACK OF EVIDENCE & DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A)-1, LUDHIANA, HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN DISMISSING GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 WHEREIN ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THAT ASSESSMEN T FRAMED IS WITHOUT ASSUMPTION OF VALID JURISDICTION. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A)-1, LUDHIANA, HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN DISMISSING GROUND OF APPEAL ITA NO.631(ASR)/2011 C.O. NO.31(ASR)/2011 3 NO.2 WHEREIN ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THAT ASSESSMEN T FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT IS ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW & WITH OUT ASSUMPTION OF VALID JURISDICTION. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT REQUESTS FOR LEAVE TO ADD OR ANNEX ANY OTHER GROUNDS OF CROSS-OBJECTION BEFORE THE SAME ARE HEAR D OR DISPOSED OFF. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS IN THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE THAT AN ADDITION OF RS.2.05 CRORES WAS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF RETRACTION OF SURRENDER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDING S. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION VIDE PARAS 12 TO 15 FOR THE RE ASONS MENTIONED IN THE ORDER. 4. THE LD. DR, SH. R.L. CHHANALIA, ADDL. CIT, RELI ED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SH. SURINDER MAHAJAN, CA RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WHO HAD PASSED A WELL REASONED AND SPEAKING ORDER SPECIFICALLY VIDE PARA 12 (PAGE 32), PARA 14 (PAGE 38) AND PARA 15 (PAGE 39) OF HIS ORDER. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VIDE WRITTEN SUBMISSION STATED THAT STATEMENT AND SUBSEQUENT LET TER OF SURRENDER WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSE UNDER TREMENDOUS STRESS, PRESS URE, CONFUSION AND NERVOUS STATE OF MIND, AS THE ASSESSEE WAS SUFFERIN G FROM DIABETES AND KIDNEY PROBLEM. HE FURTHER STATED THAT AFTER UNDERG OING TREATMENT THE ASSESSEE RECONSIDERED THE WHOLE MATTER AND RETRACTE D FROM HIS STATEMENT VIDE ITA NO.631(ASR)/2011 C.O. NO.31(ASR)/2011 4 LETTER DATED 10 TH OCT., 2008. AN AFFIDAVIT FOR THIS PURPOSE WAS ALSO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RETRACTION WAS MADE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,05,00,000/- SINCE THE SAME WAS MADE WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. T HE AO VIDE LETTER DATED JANUARY 1, 2009 MENTIONED THAT THE RETRACTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN VIEW OF THE STATEMENT MADE BY HIM. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FILED A DETAILED REPLY MENTIONING THAT THE ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF CONFESSIONAL STATEME NT. THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON A NUMBER OF CASE LAWS ALSO IN SUPPORT OF HIS CON TENTION THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE UNLESS AND UNTIL THERE IS ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT HE HAS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE, ON BEING CONFRONTED WITH THE DOCUMENTS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH SURRENDER WAS OBTAI NED AND LATER ON RETRACTED BY HIM, EXPLAINED THE SAME IN DETAIL VIDE LETTER DATED 10 TH DEC., 2009 BUT THE AO DID NOT AGREE WITH THE RETRACTION M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE TERMED THE SAME AS AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND TUTORED AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.2,05,00,000/-. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT A STATEMENT ONCE RETRACTED LOSES ITS EVIDENTIARY VALUE AND CANN OT BE RELIED UPON FOR DRAWING ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INDEPENDENT AND UNCORROBORATED EVIDENCE REGARDI NG UNDISCLOSED INCOME, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF CON FESSIONAL STATEMENT U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT, EVEN THOUGH THERE MAY NOT BE ANY EVIDENCE OF COERCION ITA NO.631(ASR)/2011 C.O. NO.31(ASR)/2011 5 BEING EXERCISED BY THE SEARCH PARTY, THERE MAY NOT BE ANY DURESS ALSO, BUT EXISTENCE OF CONFUSION CANNOT BE RULED OUT. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER STATED THAT ONCE THE RETRACTION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSES SEE, THE ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE FRAMED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AND EVIDENCE AVA ILABLE ON RECORD. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON TH E FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: I) ITO VS. VIJAY KUMAR KESAR (2010) 327 ITR 497 (C HATTI HC) II) KAILASBHEN MANHARLAL CHOKSHI VS.CIT (2010) 328 ITR 411 (GUJ) III) CIT VS. BHUVANENDRAN & OTHERS (2008) 303 ITR 235 (M AD) IV) CIT VS. P.V. KALYANASUNDARAM (2006) 282 ITR 259 (MA D) V) VINOD SOLANKI VS. UNION OF INDIA (2010) 228 CTR (AR T.) 44 VI) INSTRUCTION NO.F.NO.286/57/2002-IT(INV.-II), DT. 3 RD JULY, 2002 BY THE CBDT VII) CIRCULAR F.NO.286/2/2003/IT (INV) DATED 10.03.2003 BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) THAT SUBSEQUENT LETTER FOR SURRENDER WAS GIVEN UNDER IMMENSE STRESS, PRES SURE CONFUSION AND NERVOUS STATE OF MIND. THE ASSESSEE WAS SUFFERING F ROM DIABETES AND KIDNEY PROBLEM. AFFIDAVIT WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE THE LD. CI T(A), WHICH IS A MATTER OF RECORD AT PB 38 TO 41 & 42 TO 63. WE HAVE PERUSED THE SAID ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH IS A WELL REASONED AND SPEAKING ORDER AND RELEVANT PARAS FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: ITA NO.631(ASR)/2011 C.O. NO.31(ASR)/2011 6 12. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DETAILED APPRECIATION OF JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ON THE ISSUE OF RETRACTION FROM DISC LOSURE MADE IN SEARCH/SURVEY, IT BECOMES ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT ASS ESSEE CAN RETRACT IF HE IS ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE STATEMENT WAS MADE UND ER A MISTAKEN BELIEF OF FACT OR LAW. THE AO IN THE EVENT OF SUCH A VALID RETRACTIONS REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH AS A MATTER OF FACT AND EVIDE NCE THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME ASSESSED WAS EARNED BY THE ASSES SEE AND THE SAME CAN BE DONE BY MARSHALLING ALL THE EVIDENCE IN HIS POSSESSION EITHER ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS FOUND AND SEIZED DURING T HE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION OR ON THE BASIS OF FURTHER INVESTI GATION CARRIED OUT. IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE, HAVING MADE THE RETR ACTION SUBMITTED DETAILED EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS DOCUMENT S SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION SO AS TO DISCHARGE THE O NUS CAST UPON HIM N THE MATTER AND THE A.O. IN THIS SCENARIO WAS DUTY BOUND TO CONSIDER THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND BRING ON RECOR D ANY REASONS TO DISPROVE THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS HOWE VER SEEN THAT THE AO HAS NOT BOTHERED TO EVEN MENTION THE EXPLANATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED WITH REFERENCE TO EACH AND EVERY DOCU MENT AND IN FACT ON THE ISSUE OF ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT HE HAD NOT B EEN CONFRONTED WITH DOCUMENTS ON WHICH ADDITIONS OF RS.2.05 CRORES HAD BEEN MADE, THE AOS STAND IS THAT ASSESSEES COUNSEL APPEARED ON 2 2/5/2009, 28/9/2009, 15/6/2009, 20/8/2009, 8/10/2009 AND THE CASE WAS DISCUSSED THREADBARE AND ALL THESE DOCUMENTS WERE V ERY MUCH IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE AS THESE HAD BEEN SEIZED FROM HIM ONLY AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CLAIM THAT SAME WE RE NOT CONFRONTED. THE COMMENTS OF THE AO CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE AO FA ILED IN HIS DUTY TO CONFRONT ANY DOCUMENT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS AS HE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT SP ECIFICALLY AS TO WHEN AND IN WHAT FORM THE DOCUMENTS WERE CONFRONTED . THE AO IN FACT HAS OPINED THAT JUST BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE ATTE NDED THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED FROM HIM ONLY, THE SAME WERE IN HIS KNOWLEDGE AND THEREFORE THESE ARE DEEME D TO HAVE BEEN CONFRONTED. I DONT AGREE WITH THIS STRANGE WAY OF CONFRONTING THE DOCUMENTS AS IT WOULD MEAN THAT IN THE CASE OF DOCU MENTS FOUND/SEIZED DURING SURVEY/SEARCH OPERATION, THE SA ME DONT NEED TO BE CONFRONTED BEFORE MAKING ADVERSE CONCLUSIONS A S THE SAME ARE SEIZED FROM THE ASSESSEE ONLY. IT IS THEREFORE CLEA R THAT THE AO HAS CLEARLY FAILED ON THIS ACCOUNT. AS AGAINST THIS THE ASSESSEE ON HIS OWN SUBMITTED DETAILED EXPLANATION FOR VARIOUS DOCUMENT S WHICH WERE USED TO MAKE THE DISCLOSURE DURING SEARCH, SO AS TO HIGHLIGHT AND ITA NO.631(ASR)/2011 C.O. NO.31(ASR)/2011 7 PROVE THAT THE DOCUMENT SEIZED DID NOT LEAD TO DETE RMINATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENT DURING SEARCH. EVEN DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE A PPELLATE REITERATED THE SAME FACTUAL SUBMISSIONS ON THE SEI ZED PAPERS AND THE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT CHOSE TO HIGHLIGHT ONLY THE FACT OF DISCLOSURE MADE DURING SEARCH OPERATION BUT DID NOT BRING ON R ECORD ANY EVIDENCE OR ANY OPINION TO REBUT THE FACTUAL EXPLAN ATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. 14. THE PERUSAL OF EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASS ESSEE WITH REFERENCE TO THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED AS DETAILED ABOVE SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE APART FROM EXPLAINING THE DOCUMENTS ALSO S UGGESTED TO THE AO THAT HE COULD PROCEED TO ISSUE SUMMONS U/S 131 O R CONDUCT ANY ENQUIRIES TO VERIFY THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE DOCUMEN TS SEIZED AND ALSO TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DOCUMENT AS HE WAS NEITHER A BUYER NOR A SELLER. FOR INSTANCE IN C ASE OF DOCUMENTS AT PAGE NO.30 TO 40 OF ANNEXURE AI THE PAYMENT OF R S. 20 LACS HAD BEEN MADE BY ICICI BANK CHEQUE AND THE AO COULD HAV E VERY WELL INVESTIGATED FROM WHICH ACCOUNT THE SAID PAYMENT HA D BEEN MADE. THE AO HOWEVER CONDUCTED NO ENQUIRIES IN THE FACE O F CATEGORICAL AND VERIFIABLE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT MEANT THAT NO EFFORTS WERE MADE TO JUSTIFY THAT THE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED ON THE SEIZED PAPERS IN FACT BELONGED TO ASSESSEE. HERE, I T WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO REFER TO THE CBDTS INSTRUCTION NO.2 86/57/2002- IT(INV.) DATED 3 RD JULY, 2002 WHICH READS AS UNDER: STATEMENT U/S 132(4) SHOULD BE CAREFULLY RECORDED TO COLLECT AND MARSHAL THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES. DISCLOSURE OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN STATEMENT U/S 132(4) WITHOUT PROPER EVID ENCE IN SUPPORT THEREOF SHALL BE ADVERSELY VIEWED. THESE IN STRUCTIONS HAVE BEEN ISSUED DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE BOARD HAS OBSERVED THAT THERE ARE NUMBER OF CASES WHERE DISCLOSURES AR E TAKEN U/S 132(4) WHICH ARE SUBSEQUENTLY RETRACTED AS THEY ARE ESTIMATED, ADHOC AND NOT SUPPORTED BY PROPER EVIDENCE OR MATER IAL. 15. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DETAILED FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THAT THE AO HAS MADE NO BASIS TO MAK E AN ADDITION OF RS.2.05 CRORES APART FROM DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE AS SESSEE U/S 132(4) DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. IT HAS ALSO BEEN CLEARLY HIGHLIGHTED THAT THE IMPUGNED STATEMENT WAS GIVEN U NDER A MISTAKEN ITA NO.631(ASR)/2011 C.O. NO.31(ASR)/2011 8 BELIEF OF FACT AND UNDER STRESS AND THEREFORE THIS CONFESSION BY ITSELF WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN EVIDENCE FOR DETERMIN ING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD EITHER BY LEADING SOME INDEP ENDENT EVIDENCE BASED UPON SEIZED RECORD/POST SEARCH INVESTIGATION OR BY POINTING OUT ANY INCONSISTENCY IN THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY T HE ASSESSEE ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. AS SUCH THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO SUFFERS FROM SERIOUS LIMITATION IN TERMS OF LACK OF EVIDENCE AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 7. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, SINC E THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE WELL REASONED AND SPEAK ING ORDER, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN HIS ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, ALL THE GROUN DS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 8. NOW, WE TAKE UP C.O. NO. 31(ASR)/2012. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. DR MR. R.L. CHHANALIA, RAISED PREL IMINARY OBJECTION THAT THE C.O. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TIME BARRED AND LATE BY 143 DAYS AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR LATE FILING OF THE C.O. HAS NOT BEEN PLAC ED ON RECORD. THEREFORE, THE LD. DR PRAYED NOT TO ADMIT THE C.O. FILED BY THE AS SESSEE. 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AN AP PLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, WHICH FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: ITA NO.631(ASR)/2011 C.O. NO.31(ASR)/2011 9 RE: APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING CROSS OBJECTIONS. 1. THAT COPY OF FORM NO.36 FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT WAS NOT RECEIVED BY ME AND I BECAME AWARE OF FILING OF APPE AL BY THE DEPARTMENT WHEN THE SAME WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. I A PPLIED FOR CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF FORM NO.36 & SAME WAS RECEIV ED ON 12.09.2012 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS WERE FILED ON 26.09 .2012. CROSS OBJECTIONS HAVE BEEN FILED WITHIN TIME. 2. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO MY ABOVE SUBMISSIONS T HAT COPY OF FORM NO.36 FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT WAS NOT RECEIVED BY ME AND ONLY ON BECOMING AWARE OF THE FILING OF THE APPEAL, I APPLIED FOR CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTME NT AND CROSS OBJECTIONS HAVE BEEN FILED WELL IN TIME EVEN OTHERW ISE I WOULD MOST HUMBLY PRAY THAT DELAY IN FILING OF CROSS OBJE CTIONS IF ANY BE CONDONED SINCE I WAS TOTALLY IGNORANT & UNAWARE ABOUT FILING OF APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT. 3. THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO INTENTIONAL OR WILLFUL DE LAY ON MY PART SINCE CROSS OBJECTIONS HAVE BEEN FILED IMMEDIATELY ON RECEIPT OF CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTME NT. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I WOULD MOST HUMBLY PRAY THAT DELAY IF ANY IN FILING OF CROSS-OBJECTIONS BE CONDONED & OBLIGE. YOURS FAITHFULLY, SD/- PARMINDER SINGH S/O SANT SINGH, R/O 35, GOPAL PARK, KAPURTHALA. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR LATE FILING OF THE C.O. WHICH IS LATE BY 143 DAYS, SINCE EACH DAY DELAY HAS TO BE EXPLAINED, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ITA NO.631(ASR)/2011 C.O. NO.31(ASR)/2011 10 DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION MST KATIJI & OTHERS REPORTED IN (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) AND THE FACTS BEFORE US, AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE, THE C.O. OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ADMITTED. THEREFORE, THE C.O. OF THE ASSESSEE I S DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE I N ITA NO.631(ASR)/2011 AND C.O. NO.31(ASR)/2012 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22ND NOVEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 22ND NOVEMBER, 2012 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: SH. PARMINDER SINGH, 35, GOPAL PARK, KAPURTHALA. 2. THE ACIT. CC-I, JLANDHAR. 3. THE CIT(A), JALANDHAR. 4. THE CIT, JALANDHAR. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.