Shri Taranjit Singh, Ludhiana V. ACIT, C-II, Ludhiana

ITA 1486/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7300 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 25-03-2021
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 19-11-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHOK KHANNA
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Set aside
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BE NCH SMC CHANDIGARH !', # BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM ./ ITA NO. 1486/CHD/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI TARANJIT SINGH, S/O SHRI DALJIT SINGH, HOUSE NO. 63, VPO DAKHA, TEHSIL-MULLANPUR, DISTT. LUDHIANA. THE ACIT, CIRCLE II, LUDHIANA. ./ PAN NO: DWXPS7216E / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL, ADVOCATE ! / REVENUE BY : SHRI ASHOK KHANNA, ADDL. CIT ' # $/ DATE OF HEARING : 25.03.2021 %&'( $/ D ATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.04.2021 HEARING CONDUCTED VIA WEBEX $%/ ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 06.09.2019 OF CIT(A) -1, LUDHIANA PERTAINING TO 2011-12 ASSESSMENT YEAR IS ASSAILED O N THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACT ION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO REOPENING OF THE CASE U/S 14 8 AND ALSO THERE WERE NO REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. 2. THAT THERE WERE NO 'REASONS TO BELIEVE' FOR REOPENI NG THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THUS ID. CIT(A), HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ASS UMPTION OF JURISDICTION FOR REASSESSMENT. THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE WERE ONLY BASED ON PRESUMPTION/SUSPICION AND WERE THUS NOT VALIDLY INI TIATED. 3. NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABOVE FACTS, THE LD. CIT (A) HA S ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION RS. 45,14,200/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT S MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND IGNORING THE SUBMISSION S ALONGWITH EVIDENCES OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA 1486/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 2 OF 4 4. THAT THE ID. CIT(A), HAS ERRED IN NOT FULLY ALLOWIN G THE BENEFIT OF CASH IN HAND BEING AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE OUT OF THE WITHDR AWALS MADE FROM BANK FOR MAKING SUBSEQUENT DEPOSIT IN BANK. 5. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE DO CUMENTARY EVIDENCES SUBMITTED DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD OR DISPOSED OFF. 2. THE LD. AR ADDRESSING THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS SUBM ITTED THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE IS AN IL LITERATE AGRICULTURIST AND VARIOUS DOCUMENTS OF FERD AND JAMABANDI WER E RELIED UPON TO EXPLAIN THE DEPOSITS QUESTIONED BY THE DEPARTMENT I N HIS BANK ACCOUNT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REC EIVED AN ADVANCE OF RS. 40 LACS ON THE BASIS OF AGREEMENT TO SELL FO R HIS AGRICULTURAL LAND. SINCE THE TRANSACTION DID NOT ULTIMATELY FRUC TIFY, THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK WAS WITHDRAWN AND RETURNED BA CK TO THE SAID PARTY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE COPY OF THE AGREE MENT TO SELL WAS FILED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT(A) INVO KING RULE 46A OF THE ITAT RULES. THE CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED, CALLED FORTH FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE RE MAND REPORT CONSIDERED BY THE CIT(A) RECORDED IN PAGE 5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS REFERRED TO FOR CONSIDERATION. FOR READY REFER ENCE AND FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY, SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 'ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE - (I)COPY OF AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF PROPERTY: THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED COPY OF SALE AGREEMENT IN WHICH AGREEMENT FOR SELLING PROPERTY FOR RS.40,00,000/-IS SHOWN. EARLIER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE CASH RECEIPTS FROM THE BUSINESS OF DAIRY FARMING AND AGR ICULTURE INCOME BUT NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A DIFFERENT PLEA OF RECEIVING TH E AMOUNT FROM THE SALE AGREEMENT OF LAND. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH DOCUMENT IN SUPPORT OF HIS PLEA WHICH HE FAILED TO DO. FROM THIS IT APPEARS THAT WHEN ASSESS EE FAILED TO PROVE THE CASH DEPOSIT FROM DAIRY FARMING, HE IS TRYING TO JUSTIFY THE SAM E THROUGH CONCOCTED STORY OF CANCELLATION OF SALE AGREEMENT, WHICH IS NOWHERE IN ANY WAY RELATED TO HIS EARLIER ITA 1486/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 3 OF 4 STATED. IT SEEMS WHEN HE FAILED TO COLLECT ANY DOCU MENT IN RELATION TO HIS EARLIER STAND OF DAIRY FARMING, HE NOW PRODUCED A VERY DIFF ERENT AND NEW STORY OF SALE AGREEMENT. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM DIFFERENTIABLE FROM THE CASE U NDER CONSIDERATION. THUS, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DECIDED ON MERIT.' 3. IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ABOVE, IT WAS HIS LIMITED SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE REMAINED IGNORANT ABOUT THE FACT THAT HE WAS REQUIRED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE AO IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS I N SUPPORT OF THE DOCUMENT FILED. IT WAS FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD ENQUIRED FROM HIS COUNSEL WHO HAD ASSURED THE ASSES SEE THAT HE NEED NOT WORRY, THE COUNSEL WILL FOLLOW UP WITH THE ITO AND IF NEED BE APPEAR. HOWEVER, THE COUNSEL FAILED TO APPEAR B EFORE THE AO. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION, THE DOCUMENTS RE LIED UPON WERE DISCARDED BY THE AO AND IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS HIS LIMITED PRAYER THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE REMANDED BACK TO THE A O SO AS TO GIVE THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE SHORTCOM ING, IF ANY IN THE DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON AND APPEAR BEFORE THE AO. 4. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LD. DR DID NOT OPPOSE THE AFORESAID REQUEST. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS RECORD ED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ITSELF, THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWN TO BE AN ILLITERATE AGRICULTURIST AND THE PLEA THAT ON ACCOUNT OF IGNOR ANCE OR LACK OF PROPER COMMUNICATION, THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRE SENTED BEFORE THE AO IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. SINCE THE DOCUME NTS AND ITA 1486/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 4 OF 4 EVIDENCES RELIED UPON ARE RELEVANT AND CRUCIAL FOR DETERMINING THE ISSUE AND THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF HIS OWN IGNORA NCE/MIS- COMMUNICATION BY HIS EARLIER COUNSEL REMAINED DEPRI VED OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THESE. IN VIEW OF THESE FAC TS AS PLEADED AND ARGUED, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE IN THE INTE REST OF JUSTICE AND THE ISSUE IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A O WITH THE DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WI TH LAW. THE ASSESSEE, IN ITS OWN INTERESTS IS ADVISED TO ENSURE FULL AND PROPER PARTICIPATION BEFORE THE SAID AUTHORITY. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED AT THE TIME OF VIRTUAL HEARING ITSELF IN THE PRESEN CE OF THE PARTIES VIA WEBEX. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 05.04.2021. SD/- ( !' ) (DIVA SINGH) # / JUDICIAL MEMBER ' ( / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. / CIT4. ( )/ THE CIT(A)5. , , / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR