HARBLAS SINGH,AMBALA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMBALA

ITA 749/CHANDI/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Shri Harblas Singh against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which confirmed the addition of Rs.58 lacs to his income for the assessment year 2015-16. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, citing non-response from the assessee regarding notices. The assessee contended that the amount was from the sale of agricultural land, and sought to adduce additional evidence under Rule 46A, which was not entertained by the CIT (Appeals). The Tribunal, upon reviewing the additional evidence, including the 'Jamabandi' and Sale Deed, found that the assessee had legitimate sources for the deposits and thus, the additions were unjustified.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 669263 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK VARDHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHIT BEC TOR
• Keywords: Set aside; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 749/CHD/2024 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Harblas Singh, 29/30, Parry Hotel, Bank Road, Ambala. Vs The ITO, Ambala. èथायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: BZWPS4348R अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent Assessee by : Shri Rohit Bector, CA Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 24.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26.06.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 14.05.2024 passed for assessment year 2015-16. 2. The assessee has taken seven grounds of appeal, however, his grievance revolves around two issues, namely, ld. ITA No.749/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2015-16 2 CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.58 lacs by rejecting his application for permission to adduce additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessment of the assessee was reopened for the reason that a sum of Rs.58 lacs was stated to be deposited in the Saving Bank Account with Axis Bank Ltd. The AO was of the view that inspite of repeated opportunities, assessee did not reply to the notices, hence he made an addition of Rs.58 lacs with the aid of Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. He also made an addition of Rs.1,10,499/- on account of interest income received by the assessee. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT (Appeals). He has filed an application for permission to adduce additional evidence. He has contended that alongwith his brother, he has sold agriculture land measuring 35 kanal for a consideration of Rs.88,94,000/-. The assessee has equal share, thus, he got roughly Rs.44,47,000/-. Out of that, Rs.35 lacs was received between 14.07.2014 to 16.09.2014 and this amount was deposited in the Axis Bank Ltd. The ITA No.749/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2015-16 3 source of deposit was sale proceed of the agriculture land. Some how, ld. CIT (Appeals) did not entertain the additional evidence and confirmed the additions. 5. Before us, ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the same. On the other hand, ld. DR contended that sufficient opportunities were given to the assessee. He failed to adduce any evidence in support of his case. 6. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. The assessee has filed an application for permission to adduce additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules. This Rule contemplates that parties to the appeal shall not be entitled to produce any evidence unless necessity is being felt by the Tribunal for deciding the appeal justifiably. In other words, parties to the appeal are not entitled to adduce any evidence but if Tribunal feel necessary, then it could ask the parties to submit evidence and it can entertain such evidence. A perusal of the papers would indicate that assessee sought to file copy of the ‘Jamabandi’ of village Sonda. A perusal of the ‘Jamabandi’ would indicate that assessee Shri Gurdev Singh S/o Shri Inder ITA No.749/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2015-16 4 Singh was having agriculture land alongwith other co-sharers. The assessee, thereafter, placed on record copy of the Sale Deed vide which agriculture land to the extent of 35 kanal was being sold by him and his brother. The Sale Deed Nos. are 135 dated 08.05.2014 and 139 dated 08.05.2014. Such Sale Deeds are being registered at Sub Registrar, Ghanaur. It is pertinent to observe that ‘Jamabandi’ is a document prepared by the State Revenue officials under Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. Once entries are being incorporated in the ‘Jamabandi’, then Revenue Authorities are not competent to rectify those entries. The parties have to approach the Civil Court and under decree of a Civil Court, ‘Jamabandi’ can be amended or rectified. Therefore, a ‘Jamabandi’ is a perse admissible document in the evidence. In other words, it does not require any other formal mode of proving. Though we are entertaining these documents for the first time, but the nature of documents is of such which do not require any further cross- verification. 6.1 It is further observed that quasi-judicial authorities are being respected not on account of their power to legalize ITA No.749/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2015-16 5 injustice on technical ground, but because they are capable of removing injustice and are expected to do so. We are of the view that ld. CIT (Appeals) ought to have not rejected the application of the assessee under Rule 46A for permission to adduce additional evidence. Even if sufficient opportunities are being granted by the AO, ld. CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that punishment in the shape of tax liability on an addition of Rs.58 lacs is far disproportionate than the negligence of the assessee in not prosecuting his defence before the AO, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that assessee was negligent. The ld. CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that being an agriculturist, it was practically not possible for the assessee to keep a tab on intricacies of Income Tax provisions. Therefore, we find that assessee has sufficient sources of deposits in the bank account out of sale proceeds of agriculture land. The assessee has further withdrawn the amount from this very account which was re- deposited. This factum is reflected from the bank statement itself which was available before the AO but both the authorities have failed to construe these documents in right ITA No.749/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2015-16 6 perspective. Therefore, we set aside both the orders and delete the addition. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 26.06.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT “Poonam” आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत/ CIT 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय आͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड[ फाईल/ Guard File सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar "