SH.SUKHDEEP SINGH, JALANDHAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

ITA 14/ASR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8397 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 28-08-2019
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 07-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMAR PAL ME ENA LD
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHRAY SARNA LD
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 69; 6; 144; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIB UNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSA R BEFORE SH. B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A ND SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.14/ASR/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2015-16 SH. SUKHDEEP SINGH S/O DHIR SINGH H.NO.317, NEW MOTI NAGAR MAQSUDAN, JALANDHAR [PAN:BWIPS 1122A] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), JALANDHAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. ASHRAY SARNA (LD. CA) RESPONDENT BY: SH. AMAR PAL MEENA (LD. DR) DATE OF HEARING: 28.08.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09.10.2019 ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM: THE INSTANT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGA INST THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2018 IMPUGNED HEREIN PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-1, JALANDHAR U/S 250(6) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT). 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS PASSED AN ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22.12.2017 U/S 144 OF THE ACT AS EX-PARTE AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.58,61,000/- (CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.41,86,000/- AND RS.16,75,000/- IN ASSESSEE'S BANK ACCOUNT S MAINTAINED WITH HDFC BANK AND AXIS BANK LTD. RESPECTIV ELY) BY TREATING THE SAME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND ADDED U/S 6 9 R.W ITA N0.14/ASR/ 2019 (A. Y: 2015 -16 ) SUKHDEEP SINGH VS . ITO 2 SECTION 115BB(E) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSMENT WAS CHALLENGED B EFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO THOUGH ALLOWED THE ADDITIONAL EV IDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, AFFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 7.2 AS PER THE DETAILS SUBMITTED, SH. DHIR SINGH, FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD AGRICULTURAL LAND ON 21.10 .2013 FOR RS.10,00,000/- AND ANOTHER AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR RS.23,05,000/- ON 28.10.2013. AS PER COPY OF SALE D EEDS, THE SALE CONSIDERATION HAVING BEEN RECEIVED BY THE SELLERS BEFORE THE DATE OF REGISTRY. DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2013-14, THERE WAS NO OTHER SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OR ANY OTHER DECLARED SOURCE OF I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, TO EXPLAIN THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE B ANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. AS PER COPY OF ACCOUNT ST ATEMENTS OF HDFC AND AXIS BANK ACCOUNTS ARE MAINTAINED IN TH E NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. TO EXPLAIN, THESE DEPOSITS, T HE LD. COUNSEL HAS FILED A ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF CASH IN HA ND OF THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE CASH HAND STATEMENT, THE ASSES SEE WAS HAVING OPENING CASH IN HAND OF RS.29,66,560/- BASICALLY ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF TWO AGRICULTURAL LA ND PROPERTIES SOLD BY THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN IF THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS BELIEVED, THEN ON 03 .04.2014, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH WITHDRAWALS OF RS.2,90,0 00/- FROM AXIS BANK. ON 16.04.2014, THERE IS CASH DEPOSI T OF RS.1,15,000/- IN AXIS BANK. THERE IS WITHDRAWAL OF CASH AND THEN THERE ARE DEPOSITS OF CASH INTO THE BANK A CCOUNT, THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN REPEATED A NUMBER OF TIMES DU RING THE YEAR AS EXPLAINED BY CASH STATEMENT FILED BY LD. CO UNSEL DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. IF THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING HUGE CASH-IN-HAN D, THEN THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT FOR THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE WITHDRAWALS OF AMOUNTS TIME AND AGAIN FROM THE BANK ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSITS REPEA TEDLY INTO HIS BANK ACCOUNTS. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE TH AT CASH DEPOSITS WERE MADE OUT OF EARLIER SALE PROCEEDS OF LAND AND CASH WITHDRAWALS IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. THERE IS NOT HING TO ITA N0.14/ASR/ 2019 (A. Y: 2015 -16 ) SUKHDEEP SINGH VS . ITO 3 CORROBORATE THE PLEA OF EXCEPT THE STATEMENT FILED DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS BY THE APPELLANT. SINCE THE ASSE SSEE HAS FAILED TO FILE ANY COGENT AND LOGICAL EXPLANATI ON IS SUPPORT OF THE CASH DEPOSITS MADE INTO HIS BANK ACC OUNTS, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IS CONFIRMED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 8. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.4 IS GENERAL IN NATURE. 9. AS A RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMI SSED. 3. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE INSTANT APPEAL ON THE FOLLOWI NG GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE CIT(A) JA LANDHAR, DATED 25.10.2018, IS AGAINST THE LAW AND FACTS OF T HE CASE. 2. T HAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, HONBLE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.58,61,000/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT AS INCOME FROM UN DISCLOSED SOURCES ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK WITHOU T CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND WIT HOUT OBSERVING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 3. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE, HONBLE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.58,61,000/- IGNORING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT CASH BALANCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CASH DEPOSITS IN H IS BANK ACCOUNTS. 4. IN NUTSHELL THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD TWO AGRICULTURAL LANDS/PROPERTIES AND DEP OSITED THE CONSIDERATION AMOUNT IN JOINT ACCOUNT IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO JOINT ACCOUNT HOLDER AND THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE'S FATHER ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE TO APPROPRIATE THE SALE AMOUNT AND CONSEQUENTLY T HE ASSESSEE CIRCULATED THE MONEY IN ITS SEPARATE ACCOUNT MAINTA INED WITH HDFC BANK. FURTHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE MAKING ADD ITION DID NOT GIVE ANY ADVANTAGE OF THE CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ITA N0.14/ASR/ 2019 (A. Y: 2015 -16 ) SUKHDEEP SINGH VS . ITO 4 WHEREAS FROM THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT IT CLEARLY REFLECTS T HAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT CASH BALANCE AT ALL THE TIMES T HE CASH DEPOSIT BEING MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THOUGH, THE LD. CIT( A) HAS CONSIDERED THE AFORESAID FACTS HOWEVER OPINED WITH REGA RD TO THE SALE OF THE PROPERTIES BY THE ASSESSEES FATHER THAT DURING TH E FINANCIAL YEAR: 2013-14 THERE WAS NO OTHER SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OR ANY OTHER DECLARED SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, TO EXPLAIN THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT AS PER DETAILS SUBMITTED, SH. DHIR SI NGH, FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD AGRICULTURAL LAND ON 21.10.2013 FOR RS.10,00,000/- AND ANOTHER AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR RS.23 ,05,000/- ON 28.10.2013. AS PER COPY OF SALE DEEDS, THE SALE CONSIDERA TION HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE SELLERS BEFORE THE DATE OF REGISTR Y. 5. WE HAVE PERUSED THE TRANSLATED SALE DEEDS WHEREFROM IT DOES NOT REFLECT THAT ASSESSEES FATHER HAS RECEIVED THE CONSIDERA TION AMOUNT PRIOR TO THE FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND AS THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT HIS FATHER ALLOWED HIM TO USE CO NSIDERATION AMOUNT EXCLUSIVELY. AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 14 4 OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION JUSTICE W OULD BE MET, IF THE CASE BE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECISION AFRESH WHILE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SALE DEEDS E XECUTED BY THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE JOINT ACCOUNT MAINTAINED B Y THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FATHER AND CONFIRMATION FROM THE ASSESSEES FATHER QUA TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE CASH F LOW STATEMENT, CONSEQUENTLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REMAND THE CASE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECISION AFRESH. ITA N0.14/ASR/ 2019 (A. Y: 2015 -16 ) SUKHDEEP SINGH VS . ITO 5 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STA NDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09/1 0/2019. SD/- SD/- (B.R.BASKARAN) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JU DICIAL MEMBER DATED: 09/10/2019. /PK/ PS. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THEN CIT(APPEALS) 5. SR DR, I.T.A.T. AMRITSAR 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER