Raghuvir Singh, V. Income Tax Officer, Bareilly

ITA 115/LKW/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1773 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PINKI MAHAWAR
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVINDRA AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH SMC , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 115/LKW/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 RAGHUVIR SINGH VILLAGE CHATARPUR, RUDRAPUR UDHAM SINGH NAGAR, UTTRAKHAND V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3) BAREILLY T AN /PAN : CNIPS8951F (APP ELL ANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI RAVINDRA AGRAWAL, C.A. RESPONDENT BY: SMT. PINKI MAHAWAR, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 21 08 201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMEN T: 31 08 201 8 O R D E R PER P ARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, J.M : THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), BAREILLY DATED 28/11/2016 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. THE ORDER IS BAD IN LAW SINCE THE VERIFICATION LETTER OR NOTICE U/S 148 WAS NOT SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 3. LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 11,89,233/ - TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. ITA NO.115/LKW/2017 PAGE 2 OF 4 4. THE ORDER OF LD. AO IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE SINCE THE ASSESSEE'S MAIN SOURCE OF INCOME IS FROM AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AND THE INVESTMENT W AS MADE FROM THE SAVINGS MADE FROM THE SAME. 5. THE ASSESSEE RESERVES RIGHT TO ADD/ AMEND ANY ONE OR MORE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2 . IN THIS CASE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 144/147 OF THE ACT WITH A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT ISSUED TO THE ASS ESSEE. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES , ON THE BASIS OF POSTAL EVIDENCE , H AS STATED IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ORDERS THAT THE SAID NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 W AS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS ALSO WHERE HE HAS OBSERVED AND HELD AS FOLLOWS: - IT IS SEEN THAT AS PER 'SALE DEED' THE ASSES SEE MADE THE PAYMENT OF RS.33, 00,000 / - TO THE SELLER WITH TWO O THER SHARE HOLDERS. ON THIS COUNT THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT DENIED THE FACTS. THE TOTAL PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE 'ASSESSEE RS.35,72,720/ - (RS. 33, 00,000 SALE CONSIDERATION + RS. 2,67,700 STAMP DUTY + 5,020 / - REGISTRATION CHARGES + KATIB FEES NO KNOWN ) WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE STATED THE TOTAL PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE AT RS.35, 67,700 / - ).THE ASSESSEE ARRANGED RS.30, 00,000 / - FROM THE ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM M/S SAGA TOWNSHIP LIMITED, DELHI AGAINST SALE OF 3.772 HECTARE LAND SITUATED AT VILLAGE JAYNAGAR, GADARPUR, UDHAM SINGH NAGAR (DETAILS AS PER AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF PROPERTY. THERE IS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD REGARDING M/S SAGA TOWNSHIP PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI'S ISSUE. THUS FROM WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IT IS CLEAR THAT THE A P PE L LANT HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE, TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDITION AS MADE BY THE AO DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. THE ADDITION AS MADE BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED. ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE .APPELLANT STAND DISMISSED. ITA NO.115/LKW/2017 PAGE 3 OF 4 3 . WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE RECORDS, ANALYSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND WE FIND THAT IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED BEFORE US THERE IS A CERTIFIED COPY OF REGISTERED AGREEMENT TO SELL IN FAVOUR OF SAGA TOWNSHIP PV T. LTD.; WHEREAS ON PERUSAL OF THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER WE FIND THAT THIS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS NOT PLACED BEFORE HIM SO THAT HE CAN ASCERTAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THEY AR E READY TO PLACE THIS EVIDENCE I.E. COPY OF REGISTERED AGREEMENT TO SELL IN FAVOUR OF SAGA TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD. , DELHI BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND ARGUE THE CASE ON MERIT PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY IS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, ACCEPTI NG THE PRAYER OF THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN RELATION TO SAGA TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD., DELHI A ND AT THE SAME TIME WE ALSO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THEMSELVES ALONG WITH NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IMMEDIATELY ON RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT LD. CIT(A) SHALL ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFTER PROVIDING REASONA BLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. S ERVICE OF NOTICE IS DISPENSABLE . 4 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 / 0 8 / 201 8 . SD/ - SD/ - [ T.S. KAPOOR ] [PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHU RY ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 31 ST AUGUST , 201 8 JJ: 2108 ITA NO.115/LKW/2017 PAGE 4 OF 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT 5 . DR