Sh Prem Chand Sharma, Ferozepur V. The Income Tax Officer, Ferozepur

ITA 143/ASR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5597 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 19-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

ITA NO.143(ASR)/2016 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 PAGE - 1 - OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR (SMC) BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 143 (ASR)/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 PAN: ARDPS2308H PREM CHAND SHARMA PROP. M/S PREM KARYANA STORE, KUMAR MANDI, FEROZEPUR. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 (2), FEROZPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SH. RAHUL DHAWAN, (D. R.) DATE OF HEARING: 19.04.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16/05/2017 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILIN G THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 07.01.2014 OF CIT (A) BAT HINDA, PERTAINING TO ASST. YEAR 2009-10 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELO W. 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED ON FACTS AND LAW IN CONFIRMING THE INCOME OF RS. 8,67,360/- ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE O RDER U/S 144 AS AGAINST RETURNED FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DECLARING THE INCOME OF RS. 1 ,43,210. 2. THAT THEREFORE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND LAW IN REJECTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED AND AMOUNT ADVANCED WITHOUT PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED ON FACTS AND LAW IN REJECTING THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE . 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD OR DISPOSED OFF. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS PLACED ON RECORD ON BEHALF OF THE LD. AR PLEADING MEDICAL REASONS. HOWEVER S INCE THE APPEAL COULD BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD IT W AS CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE TO REJECT APPLICATION MOVED AFTER HEARING THE LD. SENIOR DR. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION RETURNED AN INCOME OF RS. 1,43,210/- BY WAY OF FILING A RETURN ON 15.05.2009. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUN D TO HAVE ADVANCED A PRONOTE OF RS. 1 LACS AND ADVANCED RS. 4 LACS TOWARDS SHOP NO. 112P, BAZAR NO.7, FEROZEPUR TO SMT. KANTAN RANI AND ALSO FOUND TO HAV E DEPOSITED RS. 2,09,000/- IN CASH ON VARIOUS DATES IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT N O. 10362010007960 MAINTAINED WITH ORIENTAL BANK OF COMME RCE, MLM SR. SEC. SCHOOL BRANCH, FEROZEPUR CANTT ACCORDINGLY HE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSE SSING OFFICER, THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY AN ORDER U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 196 1. ITA NO.143(ASR)/2016 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 PAGE - 2 - OF 3 4. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY THE ISS UE WAS CONSIDERED AND DISCUSSED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: 5. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, A PERFUNCTORY EXP LANATION WAS GIVEN TO THE EFFECT THAT THE APPELLANT SOLE HIS AGRICULTURAL LAN D ON 30 TH OF JULY, 2007 FOR RS. 4 LAKHS, WHICH AMOUNT WAS PURPORTED TO BE IN CIRCULAT ION AND INCOME O THE SAME AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,13,015/- WAS STATED TO HAVE ALRE ADY BEEN ASSESSED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. IT WAS PLEADED THAT SOME K IND OF SET OFF BE GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT WITH REGARD TO THE AVAILABILITY OF MONEY PURSUANT TO THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. 6. THE AFORESAID EXPLANATION FAILS TO SATISFY THE Q UERY REGARDING THE SOURCES OF FUNDS FROM WHICH ADVANCES WERE MADE AND DEPOSITS EFFECTED IN THE APPELLANTS BANK ACCOUNT. THE APPELLANT, CLEARLY, DOESNT SEEM TO HA VE ANY EXPLANATION FOR THE ALLEGATIONS OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONFIRMED AND SUSTAINED. 5. THE LD. SENIOR DR RELIED UPON THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE CIT (A) AND VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE ORDER MAY BE UPHELD AS TH E ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HAS MADE ONLY GE NERAL ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER WITHOUT SUPPORTING EVIDENCES. 6. I HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. I FIND ON A READING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE FAILED TO ADDRESS WHAT IS T HE NATURE OF THE ASSESSEES INCOME. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RE TURNED AN INCOME OF RS. 1,43,210 HOWEVER THE SOURCE OF THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN A DDRESSED IN THE ORDERS. THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE EX PARTE WHEREIN THE ADDITION WAS MADE SO PRESUMABLY THE OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT THERE BUT THE FACTS RELATABLE TO THE INCOME DIS CLOSED ALSO IT IS NOTICED HAVE NOT BEEN MENTIONED. THE ASSESSEE IT IS SEEN HAS AS SAILED THE ADDITIONS BEFORE THE CIT(A) CONTENDING THAT THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS AND ADVA NCES WAS SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLD FOR RS. 4 LAKHS AND THIS AMOUNT WAS STATED TO BE IN CIRCULATION. IT HAS ALSO BEEN ARGUED THAT INCOME OF THE S AME HAS ALREADY BEEN ASSESSED IN ASST. YEAR 2008-09. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT NO DOUBT THE ONUS WAS ON THE TAX PAYER TO SUPPORT IT S CASE HOWEVER THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM EITHER BY CALLING FOR THE RECORD OF EARLIER ASSESSMENTS FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BY DIRECTING THE ASSESSEE TO PLACE FULL FACTS WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES ON RECORD SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASCERTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). IT SHOULD NOT BE IGNORED THAT IN THE DEVE LOPING SOCIO RURAL AND AGRARIAN ECONOMY BASED POPULATION THE MARGINAL TAX PAYER S AT TIMES MAY NOT HAVE ADEQUATE EXPOSURE TO TAX LITIGATION AND MAY BONAFIDE LY BELIEVE THAT MERE MENTIONING OF CORRECT AND TRUE FACTS WELL KNOWN TO HIM MAY BE SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE OF THE LAW. IT IS FOR THE TAX AUTHORITIES TO ENS URE THAT THE POPULATION IS ENCOURAGED TO BE TAX COMPLIANT BY SPECIFICALLY INFORMING T HE MARGINAL TAX PAYER TO COME UP WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES. THIS LIMITED EX ERCISE TO GO THE EXTRA MILE FOR A CITIZEN TO MY MIND WILL GO A LONG WAY TO AD DRESS THE PERCEIVED CALLOUSNESS OR HIGH HANDEDNESS OF AN OTHERWISE DILIGENT TAX ADJUDICATOR, WHO AT TIMES DUE TO OVER WORK OR PRE-OCCUPATION WITH HIGH P RESSURE CASES ITA NO.143(ASR)/2016 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 PAGE - 3 - OF 3 UNKNOWINGLY MAY END UP MISHANDLING THE TAX PAYER BY HIS BRUSQUE APPROACH, THUS UNINTENTIONALLY PUSHING HIM TOWARDS THE ARMS OF THE DUBIOUS TAX DODGERS WHO THRIVE ON THE CONFUSIONS; IGNORANCES ALIENATION AND FEAR S OF THE HONEST TAX PAYERS AND THUS, DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTE TO INCREASING THE NUMBERS OF TAX DEVIANT POPULATION. A STITCH IN TIME SAVES NINE IS THE APT AND M OST APPROPRIATE PROVERB WHICH APPROPRIATELY SUMS UP THE NEEDS AND REQ UIREMENTS OF THE TAX ADMINISTRATION WHICH MANY A TIMES IS FACED WITH THE DILEMMA TO PROCEED HARSHLY WITH PERCEIVED OBDURACY. IT MAY NOT BE OUT OF PLACE TO SUGGEST THAT THE TAX DEPARTMENT SELECTS AND APPOINTS AT THE FIRST LEVEL OF INTERACTION WITH THE MARGINAL TAX PAYERS PERSONS WHO ARE SENSITIZED TO THE FE ARS AND IGNORANCES OF THE TAX POPULATION AND ARE TRAINED TO HELP AND ENCOURAG E THEM TO BE TAX COMPLIANT. KEEPING THE LONG TERM AIMS OF THE STATE AND ITS CITIZENS AS THE CENTRAL THEME IN ADMINISTRATION SAID EXERCISE TO MY MIND IS THE NEED OF THE HOUR TO ADDRESS THE GRASS ROOT ALIENATION OF THE ECONOM ICALLY MARGINALIZED CITIZENS FROM THE STATE. 6.1 ADVERTING TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IT IS NOTE D THAT THE CLAIMS PUT FORTH IN GOOD FAITH APPEAR TO BE ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO S UPPORTING EVIDENCES AND ARE CAPABLE OF BEING DEMONSTRATED DESPITE THE LAPSE OF T IME. ACCORDINGLY IT IS DEEMED APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER BA CK TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW PERMITTING THE ASSESSEE TO PLACE EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. 6.2 IT IS HOPED THAT THE OPPORTUNITY SO PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE IN GOOD FAITH IS NOT ABUSED AND IS UTILIZED BY MAKING FULL AND PROPER COM PLIANCE BEFORE THE CIT(A). IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT IN THE EVENTUALITY OF ABUSE OF THE TRUST REPOSED, THE LD. CIT(A) WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL PLACED AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH MAY 2017 SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER /GP/SR.PS/AG(CHD) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: 2. THE ACIT, 3. THE CIT(A), 4. THE CIT, 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER