Smt. Santosh Kaur, Kurukshetra V. ITO, W-3, Kuruksheta

ITA 1062/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4291 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 08-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: B S MONGA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Principle of natural justice; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 2(14)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, SMC, CHANDIGARH , BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1060/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SMT. MANJIT KAUR, W/O SHRI MAN SINGH, VILLAGE NAKHROJ PUR, P.O. JHANDOLA, DISTT.KURUKSHETRA VS. THE ITO, WARD-2, KURUKSHETRA ./PAN NO. FGXPK8978M / APPELLANT /RESPONDENT ./ ITA NO. 1061/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SMT. BALWINDER KAUR, W/O SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, VILLAGE NAKHROJ PUR, P.O. JHANDOLA, DISTT. KURUKSHETRA VS. THE ITO, WARD-1, KURUKSHETRA ./PAN NO. FHEPK3151C / APPELLANT /RESPONDENT ./ ITA NO. 1062/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SMT. SANTOSH KAUR, W/O SHRI TARA SINGH, VILLAGE NAKHROJ PUR, P.O. JHANDOLA, DISTT.KURUKSHETRA VS. THE ITO, WARD-3, KURUKSHETRA ./PAN NO. FKTPK1964H / APPELLANT /RESPONDENT ! /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI B.S. MONGA & SHRI ROHIT KAURA ' ! / REVENUE BY : SH. M.P. DWIVEDI, JCIT ITA NOS. 1060 TO1062-CHD-2018- SMT. MAJIT KAUR & OTHERS, KURUKSAHETRA 2 # $ % /DATE OF HEARING : 05.11.2019 &'() % / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.01.2020 / ORDER THE CAPTIONED APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE AS SESSEES AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 30.5.2018 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KARNAL [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)]. 2. SINCE IDENTICAL FACTS AND ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS, HENCE, THE SAME WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING D ISPOSED BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 3. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE , HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM ITA NO.1060/CHD/2018, WHICH READ AS UNDER:- ITA NO.1060/CHD/2018: 1. THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS AGAINST THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER AND WITHOUT DEALING WITH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, S TATEMENT OF PURCHASER, DEED WRITER, WITNESS OF SALE DEED, LAW A ND FACTS OF THE CASE, DULY SUBMITTED IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS B Y SIMPLY COPY PASTING THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A), HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORD ER OF AO IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,16,640/- AS UNEXPL AINED DEPOSITS IN BANK A/C IGNORING THE EVIDENCE AND STAT EMENTS OF SMT. PINKI RANI (PURCHASER OF LAND), SH. MADAN LAL CHUGH (DOCUMENT WRITER) AND SH. RAJ KUMAR (WITNESS TO THE SALE DEED) DULY RECORDED ON OATH BY THE TWO DIFFERENT IN COME TAX OFFICERS WITHOUT DOUBTING THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENU INENESS OF THE SAID STATEMENTS. ITA NOS. 1060 TO1062-CHD-2018- SMT. MAJIT KAUR & OTHERS, KURUKSAHETRA 3 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD AND DI SPOSED OFF. 4. FROM THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER O N ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASS ESSEE. IT WAS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT ALL THE THREE ASSE SSEES WERE CO-OWNERS IN THE LAND AGREED TO BE SOLD TO ONE SMT. PINKI RAN I W/O SHRI VIKRAM SINGH R/O VILLAGE AJRANA KALAN FOR A SUM OF RS. 1. 50 CORES AND AS PER AGREEMENT, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 65,50,000/- WAS RECEIV ED AT THE TIME OF ITS EXEMPTION AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 84.50 LAC S WAS RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF SALE DEED NO.391 DATED 21 .5.2009. IN THIS WAY, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 1.50 CORES WAS RECEIVED ON THE DATE OF SALE DEED I.E. 21.5.2009 AND THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS NO T CAPITAL ASSET WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF SECTION 2(14) OF THE ACT AND, THE REFORE, THE INCOME FROM THE SALE OF LAND WAS NOT CHARGEABLE TO CAPITAL GAINS TAX. 5. A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) I N ALL THE CASES REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSEES HAVE MADE DETAILED SUBMIS SIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD NOT DISCUSSED AN Y OF THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEES. ALL THE ORDERS OF THE CIT( A) ARE IDENTICAL AND NON-SPEAKING ORDERS. ITA NOS. 1060 TO1062-CHD-2018- SMT. MAJIT KAUR & OTHERS, KURUKSAHETRA 4 6. CONSIDERING THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE, TH E IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) ARE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTO RED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR DECISION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW B Y WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER AND AFTER GRANTING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEES TO PRESENT THEIR CASES. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SD/- ( / SANJAY GARG) / JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 29.01.2020 .. '+ ,- .- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. # / / CIT 4. # / ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. -01 2 , % 2 , 34516 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 15 7$ / GUARD FILE '+ # / BY ORDER, 8 ' / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR