Sh. Harinder Singh, Ludhiana V. ITO, W-VII(1), Ludhiana

ITA 1277/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5100 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 31-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KIRAN DESH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 131; 148; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI. SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL, MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1277/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SH. HARINDER SINGH VS. THE ITO S/O SH. RANJIT SINGH WARD-VII(1), 76-M, SOUTH CITY LUDHIANA LUDHIANA PAN NO. BGCPS4376Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. SUDHIR SEHGAL DEPARTMENT BY : SH. KIRAN DESH PANDE DATE OF HEARING : 02/01/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14/03/2018 ORDER PER DR. B.R.R.KUMAR, AM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-3, LUDHIANA DT. 18/12/2014. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-3, LUDH IANA HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,72,82,855/- ON ACC OUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN ACQUISITION OF LAND FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON T HE BASIS OF HIS EARLIER ORDERS FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 & 2008-09 AND WHICH ORDERS OF THE CIT (A) WERE REVERSED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH, CHA NDIGARH IN ITA NOS. 505 & 506/CHD/2014 VIDE ORDER, DATED 18.12.2015. 3. THAT THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION BY THE CIT (A) IS NOT CORRECT BECAUSE, SIMILAR ADDITIONS WERE MADE IN ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 & 2008-09 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WHICH WERE CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (A), BU T, SUCH ADDITIONS WERE DELETED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH AND T HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF MAKING THE ADDITION AND CONFIRMATION BY THE CIT (A) IN THE ABOVE SAID YEAR ARE SAME AS IN ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 & 2008-09. 2 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE SHRI H ARINDCR SINGH ALONGWITH SURESH KUMAR KHANNA AND SAHIBJIT SINGH DIRECTORS, O F M/S BASERA REALTORS PVT. LTD. HAD ENTERED INTO AGREEMENTS FOR THE PURCHASE O F LAND IN VILLAGE JHANDE, TEH. & DISTT. LUDHIANA DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RE LEVANT TO THE ASSTT. YEAR 2007-08 AS PER DETAILS GIVEN BELOW:- 3 4. THE ISSUE INVOLVED FOR THE A.Y. IN QUESTION IS THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,72,82,855/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE ACQUISITION OF LAN D. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE. 6. BEFORE US LD. DR RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE COOR DINATE BENCH OF ITAT, CHANDIGARH IN ITA NO. 505 & 506/CHD/2014 DT. 18/12/ 2015 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PRE AND POST ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E; 2006-07 & 2008-09. FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER O F ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: BOTH THE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE COMMON ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-II LUDHIANA DATED 24.02.2014 FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND 2008-09. 2. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE ASSESSEE CHALLEN GED THE RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND ADDITION OF RS. 93,63,000 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN P URCHASE OF LAND. 3. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THE ASSESSEE SIMILAR LY CHALLENGED THE RE- OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND ADDITION OF RS. 1,28,36,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLA INED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND AND ALLEGED ADDITION OF RS. 2,98,39,000/- ON A CCOUNT OF PROFIT OF SALE OF ALLEGED RESIDENTIAL PLOTS. ITA 505/2014 ( A.Y. 2006-07) 5. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT AS PER IN FORMATION RECEIVED FROM DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, LUDHIANA DATED 30.09.2011, IT HAS BEEN REVEALED THAT SHRI HARINDER SINGH ALONGWITH SHRI SURESH KUMAR KHANNA A ND SHRI SAHIBJIT SINGH, DIRECTORS OF M/S BASERA REALTORS P.LTD. HAD ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND IN VILLAGE JHANDE, TEHSIL & DISTRICT LUDHIA NA DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, DETAILS OF SAME ARE NOTED AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE DATE OF AGREEMENTS ARE 3 0.01.2006 AND 05.10.2005. THE AGREEMENT DATED 30.01.2006 IS ALLEGED TO HAVE B EEN ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE SELLERS S/SHRI INDERJIT SINGH, JASBIR SINGH, SO NS OF SHRI GURMEET SINGH, AMARJOT SINGH S/O SHRI SURINDER SINGH, SHRI MANOHAR SINGH S /O SHRI HARNEK SINGH AND THE PURCHERS ARE SHRI HARINDER SINGH (ASSESSEE), SHRI S URESH KHANNA WITH HALF SHARE EACH. THE AGREEMENT DATED 05.10.2005 IS EXECUTED B ETWEEN THE SELLERS SMT. HARJINDER KAUR, SHRI BALWINDER SINGH AND SHRI BHUPI NDER SINGH WITH THE PURCHASERS SHRI SAHIBJIT SINGH S/O SHRI AMARJIT SINGH AND SHRI HARINDER SINGH (ASSESSEE) IN EQUAL SHARES. THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION IS ALSO NOTED AT P AGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, OBSERVED THAT ASS ESSEE WAS HAVING HALF SHARE OF INVESTMENTS MADE IN THESE PROPERTIES WHICH FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2006-07 WORKED OUT TO RS. 93,63,000/-. 6. AS PER AGREEMENT TO SELL EXECUTED ON 05.10.2005, SMT. HARJINDER KAUR, SHRI BALWINDER SINGH AND SHRI BHUPINDER SINGH HAD AGREED TO SELL THEIR LAND MEASURING 4 BIGHAS 8 BISWAS 16 BISWASI I.E. 13476 SQ.YDS. IN VILLAGE JHANDE, LUDHIANA TO SHRI HARINDER SINGH, ASSESSEE AND SHRI SAHIBJIT SINGH DI RECTOR OF M/S BASERA REALTORS P.LTD. @ RS. 47.80 LACS PER ACRE I.E. 4840 SQ. YDS. THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER THIS AGREEMENT WORKED OUT TO RS.1,96,91,711/-. THERE IS ANOTHER AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 30.01.2006 IN TERMS OF WHICH, SHRI INDER JIT SINGH & SHRI JASBIR SINGH, SONS 4 OF SHRI GURMEET SINGH, SHRI AMARJOT SINGH AND SHRI MANOHAR SINGH HAD AGREED TO SELL THEIR LAND MEASURING 11 BIGHAS (PUKHA) I.E. 33 400 SQ. YDS. TO THE ASSESSEE SHRI HARINDER SINGH AND SHRI SURESH KHANNA ANOTHER DIREC TOR OF M/S BASERA REALTORS P.LTD. IN EQUAL SHARES @ RS. 81 LACS PER ACRE I.E. 4840 SQ. YDS. THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THIS PROPERTY WORKED OUT AT RS. 5, 59,46,000/-. THUS, TOTAL COST OF ACQUISITION OF BOTH THE LANDED PROPERTIES WORKED OU T TO RS. 7,56,37,711/- IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE'S HALF SHARE OF INVESTMENT COMES TO RS . 3,78,18,855/-. IT IS FURTHER NOTED ON THE BACK SIDE OF BOTH THESE DOCUMENTS, AS AFORESAID, THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE PURCHASERS AND ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE SELL ERS OF THE LANDS HAVE BEEN RECORDED DATE-WISE. THE FIGURES OF TOTAL PAYM ENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND OTHERS IN DIFFERENT ACCOUNTING YEARS HAVE BEEN COMPILED, WHICH ARE GIVEN YEAR-WISE IN THE AFORESAID CHART. THE ASSESSEE'S H ALF SHARE IN THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ACQUISITION OF LANDS AS PER THESE DOCUMENTS ABOVE, DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 UNDER APPE AL WORKED OUT TO RS. 93,63,000/-. 7. IT WAS NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED RETUR N OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THEREFORE, REASONS WERE RECORDED UNDER SECTION 148 FOR RE- OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BUT NO RETURN HAS BEEN FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INC OME TAX ACT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DID NOT COMPLY WITH OTHER STATUTORY NOTICES. THE SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 131 WERE ISSUED FOR PERSONAL ATTENDANCE OF THE ASSESSEE BUT ASSESSEE, INSTEAD OF APPEARING BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED FOR COPY O F THE REASONS RECORDED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. SINCE NO RETURN WAS FILED BY ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE WAS NOT SUPPLIED THE REASONS FO R RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENTS. THE ASSESSEE, LATER ON INTIMATED THAT RETURN HAS BEEN FILED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ON 05.02.2013. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE ASKED FOR COPY OF T HE REASONS. THE ASSESSEE, FOR THE FIRST TIME, ON 01.03.2013, APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED REGARDING THE INVESTMENTS, I F ANY MADE BY HIM IN THE ACQUISITION OF LANDS INDIVIDUALLY OR IN PARTNERSHIP WITH OTHERS IN FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE RELEVANT QUESTIONS PUT TO HIM AND REPLIES GIVEN BY HIM HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED AT PA GE 5-6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT HE HAS N OT DONE ANY TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES WITH M/S BASERA REALTORS P.LTD. DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND HAS NOT DONE A NY TRANSACTION. HE HAS DENIED TO HAVE PURCHASED ANY PROPERTY WITH THE AFOR ESAID PARTIES. HE HAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT HE CAME TO KNOW FROM HIS COUNSEL WHO WAS ATTENDING THE PROCEEDINGS AND AFTER GOING THROUGH THE COPIES OF T HE SAME AGREEMENTS, HE EXPLAINED THAT HIS NAME HAD BEEN MISUSED WITHOUT HI S CONSENT AND KNOWLEDGE. HE HAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT REGISTRY WAS NOT DONE IN HIS NAME THOUGH HIS NAME IS WRITTEN IN THE AGREEMENT. THIS WOULD SHOW THE IN TENTION OF OTHER PARTY WHO WAS MANIPULATING THE AGREEMENTS. HE HAS EXPLAINED THAT SINCE M/S BASERA REALTORS P.LTD. ARE IN SIMILAR LINE OF BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES IN LUDHIANA AND HE HAS INTRODUCED SHRI SURESH KUMAR KHANNA, DIRECTOR OF M/S BASERA REALTORS P.LTD. AND OTHER DIRECTORS SHRI SAH IBJIT SINGH AND SHRI RUPINDER DEEP SINGH, LAND-OWNERS, SHRI MANOHAR SINGH AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS, THEREFORE, HE HAS NOT MADE ANY INVESTMENTS. 8. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN VIEW OF THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS DENIED HAVING ENTERE D INTO ANY AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND WITH M/S BASERA REALTORS P.LTD. OR DIRECTORS BUT THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE IN NOT COOPERATING WITH THE DEPARTMENT IS CLEAR THAT HE WAS AVOIDING TO ATTEND THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT SHRI MANOHAR S INGH AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS WERE ACQUAINTED WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THAT IS WHY T HEY DECIDED TO SELL THEIR LAND. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE INTRODUCED THEM TO THE DI RECTORS OF M/S BASERA REALTORS P.LTD. THE ASSESSEE WAS, THEREFORE, ASKED TO EXPLA IN INVESTMENT IN A SUM OF RS. 93,63,000/- THROUGH THESE TWO AGREEMENTS IN QUESTIO N. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED STATEMENT OF SHRI MANOJAR SINGH, ONE OF TH E SELLERS OF THE LAND ON DATED 07.03.2013 AND RELEVANT PORTION IS REPRODUCED IN TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER IN WHICH HE HAS EXPLAINED THAT HE, ALONGWITH OTHER CO-OWNERS HA VE SOLD AGRICULTURE LAND TO THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI SURESH KHANNA IN EQUAL SHARES AT VILLAGE JHANDE AND ALSO 5 EXPLAINED THE SALE CONSIDERATION. HE, HOWEVER, DID NOT REMEMBER AS TO HOW MANY SALE DEEDS WERE REGISTERED IN THIS BEHALF. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO RECORDED STATEMENT OF SHRI GURMIT SINGH, ANOTHER OW NER OF THE LAND ON 07.03.2013 IN WHICH ALSO HE HAS CONFIRMED TO HAVE SOLD THE LAN D TO THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI SURESH KHUMAR KHANNA FOR A CONSIDERATION. THE ASSES SING OFFICER, ACCORDINGLY, NOTED THAT FROM THE STATEMENTS OF SHRI MANOHAR SING H AND SHRI GURMIT SINGH, IT IS CLEAR THAT THEY HAVE ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 05.10.2005 AND 30.01.2006, COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN SUPPLIED TO ASSE SSEE THAT THEY HAVE SOLD THE LAND TO THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECTOR OF M/S BASERA REA LTORS P.LTD. THE ASSESSEE, ON RECEIPT OF THE COPIES OF STATEMENTS OF SHRI MANOHAR SINGH AND SHRI GURMIT SINGH REQUESTED FOR PROVIDING OF OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXA MINE THEM WHICH WAS AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR 18.03.2013. THE ASSESS EE WAS ASKED TO CROSS-EXAMINE THESE TWO SELLERS ON 18.03.2013 AT 11.30 AM. HOWEV ER, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ATTEND PROCEEDINGS ON THE DATE SO FIXED. THE COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE TURNED UP AT 6.20 PM ON 18.03. 2013. THEREAFTER, NO REQUEST WAS MADE TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE SELLERS. 9. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT IN POST SE ARCH ENQUIRIES BY DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, LUDHIANA, THE DIRECTORS OF M/S BA SERA REALTORS P.LTD. CAME FORWARD AND DISCLOSED THAT INVESTMENTS IN ACQUISITI ON OF LAND AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, HAD BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEIR COMPANY IN EQUAL SHARES OF 1/2 AND ALSO DISCLOSED TOTAL PROFIT DERIVED BY THEM ON SALE OF RESIDENTIAL PLOTS CRAVED OUT OF THE SAID LAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE , NOTED THAT SINCE 50% PROFIT HAS BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE COMPANY, THEREFORE, BALANCE 5 0% PROFIT BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE. 14. ON MERITS, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRE D TO PB-2 WHICH IS AGREEMENT DATED 05.10.2005, PB-18 WHICH IS COPY OF THE AGREEM ENT DATED 30.01.2006. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AGREEME NT DATED 30.01.2006 HAS NOT BEEN SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT CONTAINED SIGNATURE OF SHRI RUPINDER DEEP FOR SHRI HARINDER SINGH. HE HAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT ADMITTEDLY, AGREEMENT DATED 30.01.2006 IS NOT SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE. DURING T HE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS, LD. DR WAS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THIS FACT FROM THE AGREEMENT IN QUESTION AND LD. DR, AFTER GOING THROUGH AGREEMENT IN QUESTION ALSO CONFIRMED THIS FACT THAT THE AGREEMENT DATED 30.01.2006 IS SIGNED BY SHRI RUPINDER DEEP FO R SHRI HARINDER SINGH. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO DOCUMENT WAS FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT ASSESSEE M ADE ANY INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTIES. THESE AGREEMENTS WERE RECOVERED FROM THE DIRECTORS OF M/S BASERA REALTORS P.LTD. THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON 01.03.2013, COPY OF WHICH IS P LACED ON RECORD IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE DENIED TO HAVE MADE ANY INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTIES ALONGWITH M/S BASERA REALTORS P.LTD. HE HAS ALSO DENIED ANY TRAN SACTION OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. HE HAS EXPLAINED THAT ONE OF THE AGREEME NT HAS HIS NAME BUT HIS NAME HAS BEEN MISUSED WITHOUT HIS CONSENT AND KNOWL EDGE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN HIS STATEMENT, ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT HE WAS A COMMISSION AGENT DEALING IN REAL ESTATE. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE ONLY EXPLAINED TO HAVE INTRODUCED THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO THE DIRECTORS OF M/S BASERA REALTORS P.LTD. HE HAS REFERRED TO PB-3 PAGE 14-2 1 WHICH ARE THE SALE DEEDS OF PROPERTIES IN QUESTION WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MA DE BY CHEQUE BY PURCHASERS AND ASSESSEE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THES E PROPERTIES. HE HAS REFERRED TO PB-1-17 WHICH IS THE COPY OF THE FULL AND FINAL AGREEMENT WHICH CONTAINS THE STAMP OF M/S BASERA REALTORS P.LTD. HE HAS, THEREF ORE, SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE TRANSACTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT BY M/S BASERA REALTOR S P.LTD. AND SIGNATURES OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN FORGED AND FABRICATED. ON THE A GREEMENT DATED 05.10.2005 AND ADMITTEDLY OTHER AGREEMENT DATED 30. 01.2006 DID NOT CONTAIN SIGNATURES OF THE ASSESSEE. PB-1/41 IS THE REPORT OF HANDWRITING EXPERT DATED 18.03.2013 WHICH WAS FILED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER IN WHICH THE HANDWRITING EXPERT ON COMPARISON OF SIGNATURE ON AGREEMENT DATE D 05.10.2005 AND SIGNATURES OF THE ASSESSEE WITH BRANCH MANAGER OF A XIS BANK, LUDHIANA HAS OPINED THAT BOTH THESE SIGNATURES ARE NOT IN THE H ANDWRITING OF ONE AND THE SAME PERSON AND THE DISPUTED SIGNATURES IS PRODUCT OF COPIED FORGERY. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING O FFICER HAVE NOT CONSIDERED 6 REPORT OF HANDWRITING EXPERT IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO CONTRADICT THE REPORT OF THE H ANDWRITING EXPERT. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED EXPLANATI ON OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE ASSESSEE DID NOT TAKE ANY ACTION AGAINST THE PERSON S WHO HAVE FORGED THE SIGNATURES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) W ITHOUT ANY VALID REASON, REJECTED THE REPORT OF HANDWRITING EXPERT. PB-3 PA GE 22 TO 27 ARE COPES OF JAMABANDI OF THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION WOULD PROVE THAT AFTER SALE OF THE PROPERTIES, THE MUTATIONS HAVE BEEN DONE IN THE NAM ES OF THE PURCHASERS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE THEORY OF 50% INVESTME NT IN PROPERTY MADE BY ASSESSEE AND 50% BY M/S BASERA REALTORS P. LTD. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE CASE OF M/S BASERA REALT ORS P.LTD. HAS BEEN SET ASIDE BY CIT CENTRAL, LUDHIANA UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME T AX ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 21.02.2012 AND ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO CO NSIDER THE ENTIRE INVESTMENTS IN THE CASE OF COMPANY. 14(I) THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEE DINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3)/263 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 25.03.2013 A SSESSED THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF M/S BASERA REALTORS P.LTD., COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THIS CASE IS FILED AT PAGE 133 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE HA S FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT M/S BASERA REALTORS P.LTD. PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE ITA T, CHANDIGARH AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT IN ALL TH ESE ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THEIR APPEALS HAVE BEEN DISMISSED VIDE ORDER DATED 30.01. 2014. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FILED AT PAGE 189 OF THE PAPER BOOK. T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT SINCE DEPARTMENT HAS ASSE SSED THE ENTIRE INVESTMENTS IN THE HANDS OF M/S BASERA REALTORS P.LTD., THEREFORE, DISPUTED ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE DELETED. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE STATEMENT OF SHRI MANOHAR SINGH AND GURMIT SINGH WERE RECORDE D AT THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO OPPORTUNITY HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO CROS S-EXAMINE THEM BECAUSE WHEN THE COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE ASSES SING OFFICER DURING DAY TIME, HE WAS INTIMATED THAT BOTH THESE PERSONS HAVE NOT APPEARED AND THEN LATER ON, IN THE EVENING IT CAME TO KNOWLEDGE OF TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CLOSED THE PROCEEDINGS. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THESE PERSONS SHRI MANOHAR SINGH AND GURMIT SINGH F ILED AFFIDAVIT BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 26.03.2013 RETRACTING FROM THE EARLIER S TATEMENTS MADE AND AFFIRMING THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT ENTERED INTO ANY AGREEMENT TO SELL AND HAS NOT SIGNED IN THEIR PRESENCE. THEY HAVE CONFIRMED TO HAVE DEALT WITH M/S BASERA REALTORS P.LTD. ONLY. COPIES OF THEIR AFFIDAVITS ARE FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THESE SELLERS S/SHRI MANOHAR SINGH AND GURMIT SINGH ARE PARTY TO THE AGREEMENT DATED 30.01 .2006 WHICH DID NOT CONTAIN SIGNATURES OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THEIR STATEM ENTS ARE NOT ADMISSIBLE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE NO SALE DEED HAVE BEEN EXECUTED IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE OF ANY OF THE PROPERTIES, THER EFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO PROVE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ANY INVESTMENT IN THE ALLEGED TRANSACTIONS. 15. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE AGREEMENTS IN QUESTION WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE CASE OF DIRECTORS OF M/S BASERA REALT ORS P.LTD. WHICH CONTAINED SPECIFIC INFORMATION ABOUT INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM DCIT, CENTRA L CIRCLE, LUDHIANA, THEREFORE, SUCH INFORMATION WAS SUFFICIENT FOR RE-OPENING OF T HE ASSESSMENT BECAUSE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN OF INCOME TO EXPLA IN ANY INVESTMENTS IN THE PROPERTY. HE HAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT RE-OPE NING WAS VALIDLY DONE IN THE MATTER. AS REGARDS MERITS, LD. DR RELIED UPON ORDE RS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT STATEMENTS OF TWO OF THE OWNERS/SELL ERS WERE RECORDED BY ASSESSING OFFICER I.E. S/SHRI MANOHAR SINGH AND GUR MIT SINGH AND THEIR COPIES WERE SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH THEY HAVE CONFIRM ED TO HAVE ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT TO SELL WITH THE ASSESSEE AND OTHERS. TH EREFORE, ADDITION WAS RIGHTLY MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE ASSESSEE FAILED TO CROSS-EXAMINE BOTH THESE SELLERS BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE L D. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THOUGH PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 HAVE BEEN COND UCTED IN THE CASE OF M/S BASERA REALTORS P.LTD. BY THE DEPARTMENT BUT ASSESS EE HAS 50% SHARE IN THE ENTIRE 7 TRANSACTION WHICH IS CONSIDERED BY ASSESSING OFFICE R IN THEIR REGULAR ASSESSMENTS. THEREFORE, ADDITION HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 16. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ENTIRE CASE IS REVOLVING AROUND THE TW O AGREEMENTS IN QUESTION DATED 05.10.2005 AND 30.01.2006. THESE AGREEMENTS WERE RECOVERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE CASES OF DIRECTORS OF M/S B ASERA REALTORS P.LTD. NO DOCUMENT WAS FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSES SEE TO PROVE THAT ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENTS IN THESE PROPERTIES UNDER REFERENC E. THE COPIES OF BOTH THE AGREEMENTS ARE FILED IN PAPER BOOK. THE AGREEMENT DATED 05.10.2005 IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO BETWEEN SMT. HARJINDER KAUR SHRI BALWINDER SINGH AND SHRI BHUPINDER SINGH, SELLERS AND SHRI SAHIBJIT SINGH, O NE OF THE DIRECTOR OF M/S BASERA REALTORS P.LTD. AND STATED TO BE WITH 50% SHARE OF ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WHEN APPEARED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 01.03.2013 AT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN RECORDED ON OATH. COPY OF THE STATEMENT IS PLACED ON RECORD AND RELEVANT QUESTIONS ARE ALSO REPRODUCED I N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENT WHILE ANSWERING THE QUEST IONS WITH REFERENCE TO THE AGREEMENT IN QUESTION HAS SPECIFICALLY DENIED TO HA VE DONE ANY TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WITH THESE PERSONS AND WITH M/S BASERA REALTORS P.LTD. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APP EALS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DENIED HIS SIGNATURES ON THE AGREEMENT IN QUESTION AND STATED THAT THOUGH HIS NAME CONTAINED ON THE AGREEMENT BUT HIS NAME HAS BE EN MISUSED WITHOUT HIS CONSENT. HE HAS EXPLAINED THAT HIS NAME HAS BEEN MA NIPULATED AND THAT HE DID NOT DO ANY JOINT TRANSACTION WITH M/S BASERA REALTO RS P.LTD. HE HAS EXPLAINED THAT HE HAS INTRODUCED THE DIRECTORS OF M/S BASERA REALT ORS P.LTD. TO THE SELLERS AS A COMMISSION AGENT ONLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID N OT APPRECIATE THE ENTIRE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE. T HE ASSESSEE, IN ORDER TO SUPPORT HIS STATEMENT, HAS FILED REPORT OF HANDWRITING EXPE RT DATED 18.03.2013 BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER. COPY OF THE SAME IS FILED AT PAG E 41 OF THE PAPER BOOK IN WHICH HANDWRITING EXPERT HAS EXAMINED THE SIGNATURES OF T HE ASSESSEE ON THE AGREEMENT DATED 05.10.2005 AND COMPARED THE SAME WI TH THE ATTEMPTED SIGNATURES OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SIGNATURES AVAI LABLE WITH THE BRANCH MANAGER OF AXIS BANK, LUDHIANA. THE HANDWRITING EXPERT IN HIS OPINION HAS STATED THAT BOTH THE SIGNATURES ARE NOT IN THE HANDWRITING OF ONE AN D THE SAME PERSON AND THE DISPUTED SIGNATURE IS A PRODUCT OF COPIED FORGERY. ON THE FACE OF THE REPORT OF THE HANDWRITING EXPERT, IF ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NO T SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER TO SOME GOVERNMENT AGENCY OR AUTHORIZED HANDWRITING EX PERT/FSL FOR COMPARISON OF SIGNATURES OF THE ASSESSEE BUT ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT CONDUCT ANY PROPER INVESTIGATION IN THE MATTER AND HAVE NOT OBTAINED T HE REPORT OF ANOTHER HANDWRITING EXPERT ON THE MATTER IN ISSUE. THUS, T HE EVIDENCES AND MATERIAL ON RECORD CLEARLY PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DISPUTED TH E SIGNATURE ON THE AGREEMENT DATED 05.10.2005 SINCE BEGINNING AND HAS PRODUCED S UFFICIENT MATERIAL ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY HIS EXPLANATION THAT HIS SIGNATURES HAVE BEEN FORGED BY SOME PERSON. SINCE, ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE FACT AS TO WHO HAS FORGED THE SIGNATURE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS AGREEMENT, NON ACTION BY ASSES SEE AGAINST THE FORGERY WOULD NOT BE RELEVANT CRITERIA IN INCOME TAX PROCEE DINGS TO REJECT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. 16(I) IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED HERE THAT THE AGREEMEN T DATED 05.10.2005 HAS BEEN EXECUTED BY THE SELLER SMT. HARJINDER KAUR, SHRI BA LWINDER SINGH AND SHRI BHUPINDER SINGH BUT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED ANY OF THE SELLERS IN ORDER TO PROVE THE GENUINE SIGNATURES OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS AGRE EMENT. EVEN ANOTHER CO- PURCHASER AS PER AGREEMENT, SHRI SAHIBJIT SINGH WAS ALSO NOT EXAMINED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD. THE WITNESSES TO THE AGREEMENT HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN ORDER TO PROV E THAT ASSESSEE GENUINELY ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT IN QUESTION. THESE FACTS C LEARLY SHOW THAT THERE WERE NO BASIS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO HOLD THAT ASSESS EE HAS GENUINELY ENTERED INTO THE AGREEMENT DATED 05.10.2005. 16(II) AS REGARDS AGREEMENT DATED 30.01.2006 IS CO NCERNED, ADMITTEDLY THE SAME IS NOT SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS AGREEMENT IS S IGNED BY SHRI RUPINDER DEEP, ONE OF DIRECTOR OF M/S BASERA REALTORS P.LTD. FOR SHRI HARINDER SINGH. THE 8 STATEMENT OF SHRI RUPINDER DEEP SINGH WAS NOT RECOR DED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IT IS NOT PROVED ON RECORD IF SHRI RUPINDER DEE P SINGH WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SIGN THIS AGREEMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ON THIS AGREEMENT DATED 30.01.2006 HAS RECORDED STATEMENT OF SHRI GURMIT SI NGH AND SHRI MANOHAR SINGH IN ORDER TO PROVE THE SAME TO BE A GENUINE AGREEMENT. THESE TWO PERSONS IN THEIR STATEMENT DID NOT SAY IF ASSESSEE SIGNED THESE AGRE EMENTS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SIGN THIS AGREEMENT, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF MAKING ANY INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THIS AGREEMENT. THEREFORE, STATEMENTS OF SHRI MANOHAR SINGH AND SHRI GURMIT SINGH WOULD NOT BE RE LEVANT TO PUT THE ASSESSEE UNDER LIABILITY TO PAY THE TAXES. FURTHER, LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE DATE TIME WHEN COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE APP EARED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THEIR CROSS EXAMINATION, THE COUNSEL FO R ASSESSEE WAS TOLD THAT THESE PERSONS HAVE NOT APPEARED YET. THE ASSESSEE ALSO F ILED THEIR AFFIDAVITS BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 26.03.2013 IN WHICH THEY HAVE CONFIRMED THAT THEY DID NOT KNOW THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSEE HAS NOT SIGNED THE A GREEMENT IN THEIR PRESENCE. THEY HAVE EXPLAINED THEY HAVE ENTERED INTO TRANSACT ION WITH M/S BASERA REALTORS P.LTD. ONLY. ON THE FACE OF THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAIN ED IN THESE AFFIDAVITS OF SHRI MANOHAR SINGH AND SHRI GURMIT SINGH, THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW SHOULD HAVE CALLED FOR THESE PERSONS AGAIN IN ORDER TO ELICIT THE TRUT H FROM THEM. THEREFORE, ON THE FACE OF CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS MADE BY THESE PERS ONS, IT WOULD NOT BE SAFE TO RELY UPON THEIR STATEMENTS PARTICULARLY WHEN THE AG REEMENT IN QUESTION IS NOT SIGNED BY ASSESSEE. THUS, THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CONNECT THE ASSESSEE WITH THE EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL IN QUES TION. 17. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED COPIES OF SA LE DEEDS IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT THROUGH THESE AGREEMENT TO SELL AND THE SALE DEEDS HAVE BEEN EXECUTED BETWEEN THE SELLERS AND ONE MR. DEEPAK CHAUHAN, VEENA JINDAL, VIJAY JAIN ETC. AND ALL THE PAYMENTS ARE MA DE THROUGH CHEQUES. THEREFORE, THE COPIES OF SALE DEED WOULD DISCLOSE T HAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT A PARTY TO ANY OF THE TRANSACTIONS OTHERWISE THE SALE DEED OF 50% AS ALLEGED BY REVENUE DEPARTMENT SHOULD BE EXECUTED IN THE NAME OF THE AS SESSEE AS WELL. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED COPIES OF THE JAMABANDI OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WHICH SHOWS THAT AFTER THE SALE OF PROPERTIES IN QUESTION , MUTATION HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE NAME OF PURCHASERS AND THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CONTAIN IN ANY THE JAMABANDI. THIS FACT WOULD ALSO STRENGTHEN THE CAS E OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT PARTY TO ANY OF THE AGREEMENT IN Q UESTION AND DID NOT MAKE ANY INVESTMENT. 18. FURTHER, THE CASE OF ASSESSING OFFICER HAD BEEN THAT ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENTS IN THESE PROPERTIES HAVING HALF SHARES OF INVESTMENT I.E. 50% OF THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION. 50% TRANSACTION WAS CONSIDERED AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE CASE OF M/S BASERA REALTORS P.LTD. AND THEIR DI RECTORS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ORDERS IN THE CASE OF THE COMPANY AND LA TER ON, THE ORDERS IN THE CASE OF THE COMPANY HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE BY THE CIT UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER ENTIRE INVESTMENTS/PASSING OF THE CONSIDERATION FOR PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTIES IN THE HANDS OF M/S BASERA REALTORS P.LTD.. M/S BASERA REALTORS P.LTD. FILED APPEAL BEFORE ITAT CHANDIGARH AGAINST THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND THEIR APPEALS HAVE BEEN DISMISSED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PURSUANCE TO T HE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 AGAIN HAD TAKEN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN T HE CASE OF M/S BASERA REALTORS P.LTD., COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS FI LED AT PAGE 133 OF THE PAPER BOOK IN WHICH AGAIN, SAME FACTS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERE D AND ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT CONTENTION OF THE COMPANY THAT 50% OF TH E SHARES BELONG TO SHRI HARINDER SINGH, ASSESSEE BECAUSE M/S BASERA REALTOR S P.LTD. HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY EVIDENCE OF 50% SHARES OF ASSESSEE FOR THE PURP OSE OF MAKING THE ADDITION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, MADE ENTIRE ADDIT ION OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE CASE OF M/S BASERA REALTORS P.LTD. THUS, REV ENUE DEPARTMENT HAS TAKEN A VERY CLEAR AND SPECIFIC STAND ON THE IDENTICAL FACT S THAT THE ENTIRE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY THROUGH THESE AGREEMENTS IN QUESTION RELATE TO M/S BASERA REALTORS P.LTD. THEREFORE, NO ADDITION COULD BE MAD E IN THE HANDS OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE OTHERWISE, IT WOULD ALSO AMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION. 9 19. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IN THE LIGHT O F THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 93,63,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOS ED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF THE LAND IN QUESTION THROUGH THESE AGREEMENTS. THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE AND ADDITION OF RS. 93,6 3,000/- IS DELETED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. SINCE THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE PART OF THE COMPOSITE TRANSACTIONS SPREAD OVER PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALLOWED FOR TWO YEARS, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CHANG E IN THE MATERIAL FACTS OR ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD BY THE PARTIES , THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14/03/2018. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 14/03/2018 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR