Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0652 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 5 month(s) 16 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
23-06-2016
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
DB
Next Hearing Date
20-06-2016
Assessment Year
2009-2010
Appeal Filed On
06-01-2015
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. (CAMP AT JALANDHAR) BEFORE SH. A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.16(ASR)/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 PAN: DBJPS-1071J SH. BACHAN SINGH URF VS. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GURBACHAN SINGH CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, V.P.O. SARMASTPUR. JALANDHAR. JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.15(ASR)/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 PAN: EOQPS8693R SH. GURNAM SINGH VS. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX , S/O PARGAT SINGH CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, V.P.O. SARMASTPUR. JALANDHAR. JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.87(ASR)/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 PAN: SH. PALWINDER SINGH VS. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TA X, S/O PARGAT SINGH CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, V.P.O. SARMASTPUR. JALANDHAR. JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANTS BY: S/SH. Y.K. SUD & S.S. KALRA, CAS RESPONDENT BY: SH. A.N. MISHRA, DR DATE OF HEARING: 20/06/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23/06/2016 ORDER PER A.D. JAIN, JM; 2 ITA NOS. 16, 15 & 87(A SR)/2015 AS SESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 THESE ARE THE THREE APPEALS OF DIFFERENT ASSESSEES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, AGAINST THE DIFFERENT ORDERS, EACH DATED 17.10.2014, PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), JALANDHAR. AS THE ISSUES INVOLVED I N ALL THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON, THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISP OSED OF BY THIS COMPOSITE ORDER, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO.16(ASR)/2015, WHIC H ARE SIMILAR IN OTHER TWO APPEALS, ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ISSUING A NOTI CE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON THE MATERIAL ON WHICH HE RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION WHICH DID NOT PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SUCH PROCEEDINGS THEREFORE SHOULD BE Q UASHED. 2. THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 IS INVALID SINCE IT IS ISSUED AFTER FORMATION OF BELIEF WHICH ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE A SSESSEE AND ALSO REFER TO THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME WITHIN THE MEANIN G OF SECTION 147(A) OF THE I.T.ACT WHICH HAS BEEN ABOLISHED W.E. F. 1.4.1989. 3. THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 HAS BEEN ISSUED T O ASSESS THE CAPITAL GAIN INCOME OF RS.3,14,16,437/- WHICH HAS N OT ARISEN TO THE ASSESSEE IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. HENCE, THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY HIM ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE AND SHOULD BE QUASHED. 4. THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FRAMED U/S 143(30 R EAD WITH SECTION 144 OF THE ACT AND NOT WITH 147 OF THE ACT THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. 5. THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS REQUIRED TO BE FRAMED U/ S 153C OF THE ACT AND THUS ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE AC T IS ILLEGAL, VOID ABINITIO. 6. THAT CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE CAPITAL GAIN INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.72,85,000/- AGAINST NIL INCOME WORKING GIVEN TO THE CIT(A). 7. THAT WHILE SUSTAINING THE CAPITAL GAIN STATED AB OVE THE CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY RESTRICTED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASS ESSEE U/S 54B AMOUNTING TO RS.2,15,62,656/- TO RS.1,01,45,000/- O N THE 3 ITA NOS. 16, 15 & 87(A SR)/2015 AS SESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 GROUNDS THAT THE VALUE OF LAND PURCHASED IS TO BE T AKEN AS PER THE REGISTRATION DEED AND NOT AS PER THE AGREEMENT TO S ELL UNDER WHICH THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION PAID FOR THE PURCHASE OF LA ND AMOUNTS TO RS.2,15,62,656/-. 8. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FAC TS AS PER ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE RELIED UPON THE ASSESSEE. HE CLEARLY OVER- LOOKED THE WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS BANK ACCO UNT AND CORRELATE THE SAME WITH THE AGREEMENT TO SELL FOR D ETERMINATION OF THE COST OF LAND PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. AS PER GROUND NO.5, THOUGH THE ASSESSMENT WAS RE QUIRED TO BE FRAMED U/S 153C OF THE ACT, IT HAS WRONGLY BEEN FRAMED U/ S 143(3) OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE, AS PER THE REC ORD, ARE THAT THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE JURISDICTION IN THIS MATTER INITIALLY LAY WITH THE ITO WARD-IV(2), JALANDHAR. VIDE ORDER DATED 13.06.2013 PASSED UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE ACT, IT WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALA NDHAR. THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED U/S 147 ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PAID TAXES ON CAPITAL GAIN INCOME OF RS.3,14,16,437/-, RECORDING THE FOLLOWING REASONS T O BELIEVE THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME: THERE IS INFORMATION IN MY POSSESSION THAT BACHAN U RF GURBACHAN SINGH S/O BISHAN SINGH, VPO SARMASATPUR, JALANDHAR HAS SOLD LAND MEASURING 811 MARLAS TO D.A.V. COLLEGE TRUST A ND MANAGEMENT SOCIETY, NEW DELHI FOR RS.3,44,67,500/- . THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME SHOWIN G THIS TRANSACTION FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. I HAVE REASON TO BELIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID THE TAX ON CAPITAL GAIN INCOME OF RS.3,14,16,437/- WHIC H HAS ESCAPEMENT ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. TO BRING TO TAX THE AFORESAID INCO ME NECESSARY APPROVAL TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT IS SOL ICITED AS PER SECTION 151(2) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 4 ITA NOS. 16, 15 & 87(A SR)/2015 AS SESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 4. NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON 24.04.2012 AND SERV ED ON 27.04.2012 ON THE ASSESSEE. NOTICE U/S 143(2) DATED 30.08.2013 AN D DETAILED SHOW CAUSE LETTER ALONG WITH NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 30.08.201 3 WAS ALSO ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE AO, THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AS A BEST JUDGMENT ASS ESSMENT, INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144 OF THE ACT, MAKING AN ADD ITION OF RS.3,14,16,437/-, AS UNEXPLAINED /UNDISCLOSED CAPITAL GAIN OF SALE OF LAND. THE LD. CIT(A), WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE A RGUMENTS OF THE AR DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS APPELLA TE PROCEEDINGS. THE COMMENTS OF THE AO DURING REMAND P ROCEEDINGS HAVE ALSO BEEN CONSIDERED. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,17,60,750/- HAD BEEN PAID TO 11 PERSONS FOR EVICTING THEM FROM THE IMPUGNED PIECE OF LAND BEFOR E THE TRANSACTION COULD BE FINALIZED FOR SALE. THE DETAILS REGARDING THE EVICTION MONEY PAID TO DIFFERENT PERSONS HAD BEEN SUBMITTED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND THE AO HAS VERIFIED THE CONTENTION S OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD TO BE CORRECT. SINCE THE SAID AMOUNT PAID AS EARNEST MONEY HAD TO BE PAID FOR ENSURING THE SMOOTH SALE O F THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY THE SAID AMOUNT HAS TO BE REDUCED FROM THE GROSS SALE CONSIDERATION TO WORK OUT THE NET SALE CONSIDERATIO N FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN. THE AO HAS COMMENTE D IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE INVESTED AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,15,62,656/- ON THE PURCHASE OF AGRIC ULTURAL LAND OUT OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY HIM BUT THE P ERUSAL OF REGISTRATION DEED SHOWS THAT THE AMOUNT PAID IS ONL Y RS.1,01,45,000/-. THE AR WITH REFERENCE TO THIS FAC T MADE SUBMISSION THAT AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THE REGISTRATIO N DEED SHOULD BE IGNORED AND THE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMEN T TO SELL SHOULD BE TAKEN AS AMOUNT INVESTED IN THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON BLE MADHYA PRAESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. AJIT SING H KHAJANCHI (2007) 211 CTR (MP) 403. I HAVE PERUSED JUDGMENT RELIED U PON BY THE AR AND IT IS QUITE APPARENT THAT FACTS OF THE CASE DO NOT SUPPORT THE INTERPRETATION OF AR IN THIS REGARD. THE ISSUE IN T HE SAID CASE WAS THAT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE OWNER OF PROPER TY FOR THE 5 ITA NOS. 16, 15 & 87(A SR)/2015 AS SESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 PURPOSES OF SECTION 54 OR NOT AND WHETHER REGISTRAT ION WAS IN EVIDENCE OF PURCHASE OR THERE COULD BE OTHER EVIDEN CES OF PURCHASES AS WELL. THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION AT THIS POINT OF TIME AS AGREEMENT TO SELL WITHOUT REGISTRATION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS EVIDENCE OF PURCHASE BUT A SITUATION WHERE REGISTRA TION DEED RECORDS THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT AN AMOUNT LESS THAN PRICE AGREED TO BE PAID AS RECODED IN THE AGREEMENT TO SELL, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF PURCHASES AND EVERY CONSEQUENTIAL L EGAL REQUIREMENT THE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THE REGISTRATI ON DEED WOULD BE TREATED AS SALE CONSIDERATION. THE AR HAS FURTHE R DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C WHEREIN STAM P VALUATION AUTHORITY AND NOT BY AMOUNT AS MENTIONED IN THE REG ISTRATION DEED. THE AR HAS HIGHLIGHTED THE CORRECT PROVISION BUT IN TERPRETED IT WRONGLY TO MEAN THAT REGISTRATION DEED SALE CONSIDE RATION COULD BE IGNORED FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 54B IT HAS BEEN LOST SIGHT THAT SECTION 50 HAD BEEN SPECIFICALLY ENACTED TO PLUG TH E LOOPHOLE REGARDING UNDER STATEMENT IN THE REGISTRATION DEED VIS-A-VIS THE MARKET PRICE AS DETERMINED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHOR ITY AND THE VALUE ADOPTED FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES CANNOT BE TA KEN TO BE THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION IN THE HANDS OF THE PURCHASE R WHICH MEANS THAT AS FAR AS THE PURCHASER IS CONCERNED, THE VALU E AS RECORDED IN THE REGISTRATION DEED IS SACROSANCT. THE APPLICATIO N OF SECTION 50C IS PURELY MEANT TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSES OF C OMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN. THIS DOES NOT IN ANY WAY BELITTLE THE IMPORTANCE OF REGISTRATION DEED WHICH IS ONLY DOCUMENT THAT CERTI FIES THE SALE CONSIDERATION FOR TRANSFER OF PROPERTY RIGHTS PASSE D ON FROM SELLER TO THE BUYER. THE DOCUMENTS LIKE AGREEMENT TO SELL ARE ONLY MEANT TO ENSURE THE SMOOTH COMPLETION OF TRANSACTION OF PURC HASE AND SALE OVER A PERIOD OF TIME AND CANNOT BE SUBSTITUTED FOR FINAL DOCUMENT I.E. REGISTRATION DEED. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT INV ESTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND TO BE CO NSIDERED U/S 54 WOULD BE RESTRICTED TO SALE CONSIDERATION AS RECODE D IN THE REMAND REPORT. 8. FURTHER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD WORKED OUT THE RESULTANT CAPITAL GAIN ON THE BASIS OF FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981 AT RS.2923/- PER MARLA. HOWEVER, NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE SAID CLAIM HAD BEEN FILED. THE AR WAS THEREFORE, REQUIRED TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAI M ON THE ISSUE. THE AR VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 14.10.2014 SUBMITTED HIS ARGUMENTS AS UNDER: KINDLY REFER TO THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IN THE ABOVE CASE AND ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING YOUR HONOURS HAD DI RECTED THE 6 ITA NOS. 16, 15 & 87(A SR)/2015 AS SESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY THE VALUE ADOPTED AT RS.20 LAC S AS ON 1.4.1981 FOR WORKING OUT THE INDEXATION. IN THIS CONTEXT, IT IS SUBMITTED AS UNDER: THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED BY ASSESSEE AS ON 1.4.1981 FOR WORKING OUT INDEXATION HAS BEEN RS.20 LACS WHICH GI VES A RATE PER MARLA @ RS.2923/- AS ON 1.4.1981 (RS.20,00,000/684) . TO JUSTIFY THE LAND RATE AS ON 01.04.1981 @ RS.2923/- PER MARL A KINDLY FIND ENCLOSED THE CERTIFICATE OF LMBARDAR OF THE VILLAG E WHICH INGTER LIA STATES THAT THE LAND RATE PER ACRE OF LAND AT VILL. SAMSATPUR WAS RS.4,50,000/- TO RS.5,00,000/- PER ACRE. IF WE TAKE THE VALUE AT RS.5,00,000/- PER ACRE THE PER MARLA VALUE COMES TO RS. 3125/- (RS.5,00,000/160). HE HAS FURTHER MENTIONED IN THE CERTIFICATE THE FOLLOWING FACTS: I) THAT THE LAND FALLS ON THE MAIN G.T.ROAD, NATIONAL HIGHWAY NO. 1, I.E. JALANDHAR PATHANKOT ROAD. II) THAT LOCATION IS 12 TH MILE STONE FROM JALANDHAR. III) KISHAN GARH CHOWK IS 1 KM FROM THE PRESENT LOCATION . IV) THE MAIN HOSHIARPUR ROAD PASSES FROM THE BACK AND T HE DISTANCE FROM THE PLACE IS 1 KM APP. AND V) THE D.A.V. UNIVERSITY HAS BEEN SET UP BECAUSE OF LO CATIONAL ADVANTAGE. THAT TO SUPPORT THE ABOVE VERSION OF THE CERTIFICAT E YOUR HONOURS ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THE RATE FIXED BY T HE ITAT (ASR0 BENCH OF THE LAND SITUATED ON MAIN HOSHIARPUR ROAD IN THE CASE OF BASANT METAL & RAVI KUMAR JAIN IN ITA NOS. 553 & 560 OF 2011 DATED 06.08.2012 WHOSE DISTANCE FROM TH E ASSESSEES LOCATION IS ABOUT 1 KM. THE RATE ADOPTED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE FRONT WAS @ RS.6000/- PER MARLA AND O N THE BACK @ RS.4000/- PER MARLA WHICH WAS U0PHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL AS PER COPIES OF BOTH ORDERS ENCLOSED HERE WITH. EVEN IF AVERAGE IS TAKEN (6000 + 4000), THE RATE WORKS O UT AT RS.5000/- PER MARLA AS AGAINST RS.2923/- ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS REQUESTED TO BE ACCEPTED BEING O N MUCH LOWER SIDE. THE AFORESAID RATE AND VALUATION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO DURING HIS REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND HIS REPORT IS CLE AR ON THE SUBJECT. 7 ITA NOS. 16, 15 & 87(A SR)/2015 AS SESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 9. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE AR ON THE ISSUE AND IT IS SEEN THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ADOPTED AT RS .2923/- PER MARLA IS BASED UPON THE REPORT OF THE LOCAL REVENU E AUTHORITY WHICH IS QUITE LOGICAL AND RECORDS VARIOUS FACETS OF THE IMPUGNED LAND AND ITS RELATED VALUATION ON THE GIVEN DATE. THE AR HAS ALSO BROUGHT ON RECORD THE VALUATION ADOPTED IN RESPECT OF SIMILAR LAND IN RESPECT OF PARTICULARS CASE HEARD BY THE HONBLE ITAT AMRITSA R WHEREIN THE VALUATION AT RS.5,000/- PER MARLA HAS BEEN CONSIDER ED. IN VIEW OF THESE INDISPUTABLE FACTS, THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE APPELLANT AT RS.2923/- PER MARLA AS ON 01.04.1981 IS REASONABLE AND THEREFORE ACCEPTABLE. THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE COMES TO NIL. 5. BEFORE US, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE FOLLOW ING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN FILED, WHICH HAVE BEEN REITERATED IN THE ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE: THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH TOOK PLACE IN THE PREMISES OF NEERAJ PURI S/O YOG RAJ PURI ON 3.4.2012 AND DURING THE SEARCH NUMBER OF SALE DEEDS AND POWER OF ATTORNEY AND BANK ACCOUNTS RELATING TO MR. NEERAJ PURI AND OTHER PARTIES WERE FOUND BY THE DEPARTMENT AND A SALE DEED EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO RECOVERED FROM TH E PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON I.E. MR. NEERAJ PURI AND THE MENTIO N OF THIS SALE DEED IS AVAILABLE IN THE APPRAISAL REPORT OF SEARCH AVAILAB LE ON PAGE 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK ON PAGE 16,36, 38 & 47 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH MAY KINDLY BE REFERRED TO. THUS, IT IS VERY CLEAR FROM THE APPRAI SAL REPORT THAT THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE CAME INTO THE KNOWLE DGE OF THE DEPARTMENT IN SEARCH PROCEEDING OF MR. NEERAJ PURI GROUP. AFTER THE SEARCH A DETAILED APPRAISAL REPORT WAS PREPARED BY THE ADI AND HE RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED TH ESE SALE DEEDS AND THEREFORE ON PAGE 14 OF THE PAPER BOOK IN PARA 1.7 OF THE APPRAISAL REPORT THE ADI HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE FOLLOWING TABLE GIVES THE PARTICULARS OF VARIO US ASSESSEES OF THIS SUB GROUP, WHO MAY BE COVERED U/S 153C OR U/S 147/148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 UPON THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO. IN THE MEANWHILE THE ADI REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE CONCERNED AO I.E. RAMJI DASS ITO IV(2) RANGE IV, JALANDHAR AND THE IT O RECORDED THE REASONS FOR ISSUING A NOTICE U/S 148 COPY OF THE RE ASONS RECORDED IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO.152 OF THE PAPER BOOK. AFTER R ECORDING THE REASONS A 8 ITA NOS. 16, 15 & 87(A SR)/2015 AS SESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 NOTICE U/1 48 WAS ISSUED ON 24.04.2012 AND SERVED O N THE ASSESSEE ON 27.04.2012 AS IS CLEAR FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREAFTER THE COMPLETE APPRAISAL REPORT WAS MADE B Y THE ADI AND PERUSAL TO THE APPRAISAL REPORT THE JURISDICTION OF CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TRANSFERRED BY AN ORDER U/S 127 DATED 13.06.2013 AV AILABLE ON PAGE 109 TO 115 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND NAME OF THE ASSESSEE A PPEARS AT SL. NO.16 AT PAGE NO.111 WHEREIN JURISDICTION OF CASE WAS TRANSF ERRED FROM IV(2) TO THE CENTER CIRCLE-1 JALANDHAR WHERE THE CASE OF THE SEA RCH PERSON MR. NEERAJ PURI WAS BEING CONDUCTED. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSTT OF THE ASSESSEE WA S INTENDED TO BE FRAMED U/S 153C ALONGWITH THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT OF SEARCHED PERSON MR. NEERAJ PURI. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT IN THE O RDER PASSED BY THE CIT U/S 127 SUCH SEARCH RELATED CASES WERE TRANSFERRED TO CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR. FROM THE FACTS STATED ABOVE IT IS ESTABLISHED ON RE CORD THAT THE SALE DEEDS EXECUTED BY 47 PERSONS WHOSE CASES WERE TRANSFERRE D U/S 127 BY CIT TO CC-!. THE ASSESSEE WOULD LIKE TO CHALLENGE THE VERY JURISDICTION OF ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S 148 ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT IS SETTLE D LAW THAT WHERE ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS OR MATERIAL IS FOUND AT THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON THEN THE ACTION AGAINST SUCH PERSON LIES U/S 153C OF THE ACT DEEMING HIM AS A PERSON SEARCHED AND ASSESSMENT COULD ONLY BE FRAMED U/S 153C AND NOT U/S 143(3) R.W.S.147. BUT IT IS STRANGE THAT IN THIS CASE THE ASSTT. IS F RAMED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144 WHICH HAS NO EXISTENCE IN THE EYES OF LAW. NOW THE MUTE QUESTION ARISES THAT UNDER SUCH CIRCUM STANCES CAN THE ASSESSMENT BE FRAMED ON THE BASIS OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 WHEREAS THE ASSESSMENT WAS TO BE FRAMED U/S 153C? IN THIS REGA RD YOUR KIND ATTENTION IS DRAWN TOWARDS THE JUDGMENT OF THIS VER Y AMRITSAR BENCH DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. ARUN KUMAR KAPOOR RE[PORTED IN 140 TTJ 249 COPY AVAILABLE ON PAPER BOOK PAGE 103. THE BEN CH HAS CONCLUDED THAT REASSESSMENT U/S 147 ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINA TING MATERIAL AGAINST ASSESSEE FOUND IN SEARCH OF THIRD PARTY AND FORWARD ED TO AO OF ASSESSEE BY THE SEARCH OFFICER WAS ILLEGAL AND VOID ABINITIO AND IN SUCH A SITUATION ASSTT. COULD BE MADE ONLY U/S 153C WHICH SPECIFICAL LY OUSTED THE APPLICATION OF SS. 147/148. EVEN OTHERWISE IN THE CASE OF OTHER ASSESSES WHO WE RE ALSO TRANSFERRED BY THE CIT ALONGWITH THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 127 TO THE CC-I THE ASSTT. ORDERS PASSED IN SUCH CASES HAVE BEEN PASSED U/S 153C OF THE ACT. 9 ITA NOS. 16, 15 & 87(A SR)/2015 AS SESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 COPIES OF SUCH ORDERS ARE AVAILABLE ON PAGES 77 TO 100 OF THE PAPER BOOK. A CLEAR FINDING IN SUCH ASSTT. ORDERS HAS BEEN GIVE N BY THE SAME AO THAT SINCE THE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE ASSESSEE WERE F OUND FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SH. NEERAJ PURI PROP. OF BHAGWATI AGRI CULTURE FARMS JALANDHAR DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. NOTICE U/S 1 53C OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 WERE ISSUED. IN VIEW OF THE SAME AS A MATTER OF CONSISTENCY THE SAME AO COULD NOT HAVE RESORTED TO TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS ONE U/S 153C WHI CH IS A CORRECT ACTION IN THE CASE OF OTHER ASSESSES AND THE OTHER U/S 147/14 8 AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. (A) THE BENCH OF ITAT MUST FOLLOW THE JUDGMENT OF CO-OR DINATE BENCH DELIVERED EARLIER. IN CASE OF DISAGREEMENT THE MATT ER MUST BE REFERRED TO THE LARGER BENCH. I) ACIT VS. VICTORY AQUA FARM LTD. (20130 280 CTR (SC) 32 II) S.S. ROOP LAL & ANOTHERS VS. LT. GOVERNOR AIR 2000( SC)594 (B) CONSISTENT VIEW TAKEN IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE ON QUESTIONS COURT WILL NOT TAKE DIFFERENT VIEW WITHOUT VERY CONVINCING REASONS . III) CIT VS. EXCEL INDUSTRIES LTD. & MAFAT LAL (P) LTD.( 2013) 358 ITR (SC) 295. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ASSESSME NT FRAMED BY THE AO U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144 IN PURSUANCE OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 6. THUS, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE SEARCH HAVING BEEN CONDUCTED ON THE PREMISES OF SH.NEERAJ PURI AND NOT ON THOSE OF THE ASSESSEE, DURING WHICH SEARCH PROCEEDINGS IT WAS, THAT THE SA LE DEED EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE CAME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEPARTMENT, T HE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS WRONGLY FRAMED BY INVOKING THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, WHEREAS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FRAMED U/S 153C O F THE ACT. RELIANCE HAS 10 ITA NOS. 16, 15 & 87(A SR)/2015 AS SESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 BEEN PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, AMRITSAR B ENCH, IN THE CASE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. ARUN KUMAR KAPOOR, 140 TTJ 249 (ASR). IT HAS FURTHER BEEN CONTENDED THAT OTHERWISE, THE SALE DEEDS EXECU TED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVING BEEN FOUND IN THE PREMISES OF SH. NEERAJ PURI ALONG WITH OTHER 47 PERSONS AND THE CASES OF THOSE OTHER PERSONS HAVING BEEN TRANSF ERRED U/S 127 OF THE ACT, TO CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS, IN THE CASES OF THOSE OTHER PERSONS HAVING BEEN PASSED U/S 153C OF THE ACT, THERE WAS N O REASON FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO SINGLE OUT THE PRESENT ASSESSEE AND T O PROCEED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, COUNTERING THE ABOVE CONTENT IONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. DR HAS CONTENDED THAT THIS IS SUE OF INVOCATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT HAS BEEN RAIS ED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FIRST TIME ONLY BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH IS NOT M AINTAINABLE; THAT THIS ISSUE IS NOT EMANATING FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER; THAT THE REA SONS RECORDED DO NOT TALK OF ANY SEARCH HAVING BEEN CONDUCTED; THAT THE ASSES SMENT DOES NOT REFER TO ANY SUCH SEARCH; THAT THE BELIEF OF ESCAPEMENT OF I NCOME, AS FORMED BY THE AO, WAS NOT FORMED ON THE BASIS OF ANY SUCH SEARCH, BUT WAS FORMED ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION IN THE POSSESSION OF THE AO; THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD SOLD LAND MEASURING 811 MARLAS TO D.A.V. COLLEGE TRUST AND MA NAGEMENT SOCIETY, NEW DELHI, FOR RS.3,44,67,500/-; THAT THE ASSESSEE IS B ASING HIS GRIEVANCE ON THE APPRAISAL REPORT (APB 1 TO 76); THAT THIS APPRAISAL REPORT DOES NOT HAVE ANY RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER TO THE CASE OF THE PRESENT ASS ESSEE AND IT CANNOT BE LED IN 11 ITA NOS. 16, 15 & 87(A SR)/2015 AS SESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE; AND THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAS PROPERLY BEEN FRAMED BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. 8. SINCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN ALLEGED TO BE DIRECTLY APPLICABLE, LET US SEE THESE PROVISIONS. S ECTION 153C(1) OF THE ACT READS AS FOLLOWS: NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 139 , SECTION 147 , SECTION 148 , SECTION 149 , SECTION 151 AND SECTION 153 , WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT.(A) ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER V ALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BELONG S; OR (B) ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED PERTAIN ING OR PERTAINS TO OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN, RELATES TO A PERSON OTHER THAN T HE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A, THEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS S EIZED OR REQUISITIONED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION O VER SUCH OTHER PERSON AND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED AGAINST EACH SUCH O THER PERSON AND ISSUE NOTICE AND ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME OF THE OTHER PERSON I N ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A , IF, THAT ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED HAVE A BEARING ON THE DETERMINATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A . 9. IN ARUN KUMAR KAPOOR (SUPRA), A SEARCH WAS CON DUCTED IN THE CASE OF T. DURING THE COURSE OF THAT SEARCH, CERTAIN INCR IMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE ALLEGEDLY SEIZED. THE DCIT INTIMATED THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE ABOUT SEIZURE OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE DURING SEARCH AND ENCLOSED COPY OF THOSE DOCUMENTS, REQUESTING HIM TO TAKE APPROPRI ATE ACTION UNDER SECTIONS 153C/148 OF THE ACT. THE ITAT HELD THAT THE LD. CI T(A) HAD CORRECTLY OBSERVED THAT THE ONLY THE PROVISION IN WHICH ANY ASSESSMENT COULD BE MADE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS SECTION 153C R. W.S. 153; THAT IT WAS ALSO APPARENT FROM THE RECORD THAT THAT THE OFFICER AT DELHI HAD MENTIONED IN HIS LETTER THAT NECESSARY ACTION MAY BE TAKEN AS PER LAW UNDER SECTIONS 12 ITA NOS. 16, 15 & 87(A SR)/2015 AS SESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 153C/148; THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C WERE CLEARLY APPLICABLE WHEN SECTION 153 SUPERSEDES THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTIO NS 147 & 148 OF THE ACT; THAT THEREFORE, THE NOTICE U/S 148 AND THE PROCEEDINGS U /S 147 WERE ILLEGAL AND VOID AB INITIO, SINCE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 153C, SECTIONS 147/148 STAND OUSTED; AND THAT SINCE THE PROCEDURE PROVIDED U/S 153C HAD NOT BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE AO, THE ASSESSMENT HAD BECOME INVAL ID AND THE LD. CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN QUASHING THE REASSESSMENT ORDER . 10. NO DECISION CONTRARY TO ARUN KUMAR KAPOOR (SU PRA) HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE US. 11. THE ONLY OBJECTION RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO DO NOT MAKE MENTION OF ANY SEARCH OR OF ANY APPRAISAL REPORT AND THAT THE ASSESSMENT, AS MADE B Y THE AO UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 148, IS FULLY JUSTIFIED, NOT CALLING FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. 12. IN MANISH MAHESHWARI VS. ACIT & ANR., 289 ITR 341 (SC), IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT IF THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT IS NOT FOLLOWED, BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WOULD BE ILL EGAL. NOW, IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT ARE EXACTLY IN PARI MATERIA WITH THOSE OF SECTION 158BD. THEREFORE, BE SIDES THE FACT THAT SECTION 153C(1) ITSELF HAS CLEARLY OUSTED THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTIONS 147/148, WHERE CONDITIONS ARE CONDUCIVE FOR THE APPLICABILITY OF S ECTION 153C, AS RIGHTLY TAKEN NOTE OF IN ARUN KUMAR KAPOOR (SUPRA), SECTION 153 C ECLIPSES, NAY, OBLITERATES THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 153C/148 IN GIVEN CIRC UMSTANCES. IN THE PRESENT 13 ITA NOS. 16, 15 & 87(A SR)/2015 AS SESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 CASE, THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL QUA THE ASSESSEE C AME TO LIGHT ONLY IN THE SEARCH CONDUCTED ON THE PREMISES OF SH. NEERAJ PURI . IT IS TRUE THAT THE REASONS RECORDED (REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE) TO REOPEN THE COM PLETED ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE DO NOT MAKE MENTION OF EITHER THE SEARCH C ONDUCTED ON THE PREMISES OF SH. NEERAJ PURI, NOR OF THE APPRAISAL REPORT IN THAT CASE. THE REASON RECORDED IS THAT THE INFORMATION WAS IN THE POSSESS ION OF THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE. NOW, OBVIOUSLY, IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THA T THIS INFORMATION CAME TO THE AO FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTME NT. IN THIS REGARD, THE APPRAISAL REPORT IN THE CASE OF SH. NEERAJ PURI BEC OMES ALL RELEVANT. THOUGH PRODUCTION THEREOF AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN OPPOSED BY THE DEPARTMENT, WE FIND THAT TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AT HAN D, AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT MAY BE OBSERVED THAT THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESS MENT FRAMED U/S 148 OF THE ACT, OUGHT, IN FACT, TO HAVE BEEN FRAMED, RATHER, U NDER SECTION 153C, IS A PURE QUESTION OF LAW. THOUGH, THE DEPARTMENT SAYS THAT T HIS ISSUE DOES NOT EMANATE FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE, AS DISCUSSED IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS, MAKES IT AMPLY CLEAR THAT IT IS AN ISSUE DIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. THER EFORE, WE ARE ALLOWING THIS ISSUE TO BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME. COMING BACK TO THE APPRAISAL REPORT, A COPY OF THIS APPRAISAL REPORT IS AT PAGES 1 TO 76 O F THE PAPER BOOK. THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE FINDS MENTION AT PAGE 10 OF THE SAID R EPORT IN THE DETAILS OF THE ASSESSEES TABULATED TO BE COVERED U/S 153C OF THE A CT. AGAINST THE REMARKS COLUMN OF THE SAID TABLE, AGAINST THE NAME OF THE A SSESSEE, IT HAS BEEN 14 ITA NOS. 16, 15 & 87(A SR)/2015 AS SESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 OBSERVED THAT THIS PERSON IS THE PRINCIPAL OWNER OF THE LAND SOLD TO DAVCTMS BY SH. NEERAJ PURI. IN THE CHART SHOWING DETAILS OF REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED, AS APPENDED IN THE APPRAISAL REPORT, AT SL. NO.15 (APB 36), THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE SOLD ABOUT 33 KANALS LAND SITUAT ED AT VILL. SARMASTPUR, DISTT. JALANDHAR, VIDE REGISTRY NO.663/1 DATED 17.0 9.02008, FOR RS.2,80,50,000/- PAYING STAMP DUTY OF RS.23,25,600/ - THROUGH HIS GPA, BHAGWATI AGRICULTURE FARM THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR, SH. NEERAJ PURI. THEN UNDER ITEM NO.23 OF THIS VERY CHART, THE ASSESSEE IS SHO WN TO HAVE SOLD LAND MEASURING 1 KANAL 4 MARLAS, SITUATED AT VILL. SARMA STPUR, DISTT. JALANDHAR, VIDE REGISTRATION NO.798/1 DATED 22.10.2008, FOR A SUM OF RS.10,20,000/-, PAYING STAMP DUTY OF RS.81,000/-. FURTHER, IN THE CHART SHOWING ACTUAL PAYMENT MADE TO THE PRINCIPAL OWNER OF THE LAND VI S--VIS REGISTRY AMOUNT, APPENDED AS ANNEXURE-II TO THE APPRAISAL REPORT, UN DER ITEM NO.15/15, BHAGWATI AGRICULTURE FARM THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR, SH. NEERAJ PURI, AS GPA OF THE ASSESSEE, IS SHOWN TO HAVE MADE ACTUAL PAYMENT OF RS.3,27,15,000/-. 13. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, FINDING THE APPRAIS AL REPORT TO BE OF UTMOST RELEVANCE FOR THE ISSUE AT HAND, WE DIRECT THIS APP RAISAL REPORT TO BE TAKEN ON RECORD BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, TO FACILITATE A JUST DECISION. 14. NOW, IT IS EVIDENCE FROM THE APPRAISAL REPORT I N THE CASE OF SH. NEERAJ PURI, AS NOTED HEREINABOVE, THAT THE SALE DEED OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND ONLY DURING THE SEARCH IN THE CASE OF SH. NEERAJ PURI. T HAT BEING SO, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT ARE DIRECTLY APPLICABLE. TO REITERATE, THE HONBLE 15 ITA NOS. 16, 15 & 87(A SR)/2015 AS SESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE OF MANISH MAHESHWARI ( SUPRA), HAS LAID DOWN THAT IF THE PROCEDURE IN SECTION 158BD IS NOT FOLLOWED, BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WOULD BE ILLEGAL. IT IS IRREFUTABLE TH AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT ARE IN PARI MATERIA WITH THOSE OF SECTION 158BD. THEREFORE, AS TAKEN NOTE OF, IF THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN SECTIO N 153C IS NOT FOLLOWED AND RECOURSE IS NOT TAKEN TO SECTION 158BD, THE SAME WO ULD BE BAD IN LAW. ARUN KUMAR KAPOOR (SUPRA) IS ALSO TO THE SAME EFFECT. I N ACCORDANCE THEREWITH, WE HOLD THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 OF THE ACT, AS RI GHTLY CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE, IN VIEW OF THE P RESENCE OF SECTION 153C, WHICH OBLITERATE TO THE OPERATION OF THE PROVISION S OF SECTIONS 147/148 OF THE ACT, IN GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH EXIST IN THE CA SE OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE ALSO. 15. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THOUGH VIDE ORDER DATED 17 .10.2014, THE RELEVANT PORTION WHEREOF HAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE PRECEDI NG PORTION OF THIS ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, VIDE ORDER DATED 10.11.2014, THE SAID EARLIER APPEAL ORDER WAS RECTIFIED BY PASS ING THE FOLLOWING RECTIFICATION ORDER: THE AO IS DIRECTED TO SUBSTITUTE ABOVE FIGURE OF C APITAL GAIN AT RS.72,85,000/- INSTEAD OF RS.3,14,16,437/-. 15. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, FINDING THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE JUSTIFIED, THE SAME IS ACCEPTED. THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 148 OF THE ACT IS QUASHED. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 16 ITA NOS. 16, 15 & 87(A SR)/2015 AS SESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 17. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN I TA NO.15(ASR)/2015, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, IN THE CASE OF SH. GUR NAM SINGH. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS APPEAL ARE EXACTLY SIMILAR, A S DECIDED BY US, HEREINABOVE, IN ITA NO.16(ASR)/2016 IN THE CASE OF SH. BACHAN SINGH, THEREFORE, OUR OBSERVATIONS IN ITA NO.16(ASR)/2015 SHALL, MUTATIS MUTANDIS, EQUALLY APPLY TO ITA NO.15(ASR)/2015. THUS, THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 18. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN I TA NO.87(ASR)/2015, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, IN THE CASE OF SH. PAL WINDER SINGH. AS PER THE REGISTRY, THERE IS DELAY OF 55 DAYS IN FILING THE A PPEAL. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ALONG WITH THE APPEAL, WHICH IS ALSO ACCOMPANIED BY AN AFFIDAVIT, STATING THEREIN, THAT THE APPEAL WAS SENT BY SPEED POST ON 3.1.2015 AS THE LAST DATE OF THE SAME WAS 11 TH JANUARY, 2015. THE ASSESSEE, SH. PAWINDER SINGH DID NOT HAVE THE P AN, AS IS CLEAR FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THEREFORE, THE REQUISITE FEE O F RS.10,000/- COULD NOT BE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK, AS THE SYSTEM, WITHOUT PAN DOES NOT ACCEPT ANY TAX OR OTHER PAYMENT. FACED WITH SUCH A PECULIAR SITUATION THE ASSESSEE ATTACHED A DEMAND DRAFT OF RS.10,000/- AS APPEAL FEE WITH THE AFORESAID APPEAL. THE APPEAL WAS RECEIVED BACK BY THE ASSESSEE WITH A C OVERING LETTER DATED 7.1.2015 OF THE ASSTT. REGISTRAR, SHOWING INABILITY TO ACCEPT THE DRAFT AND THE SAME WERE SENT BACK. THEN, THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR PAN AND AS AND WHEN THE 17 ITA NOS. 16, 15 & 87(A SR)/2015 AS SESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 PAN WAS ALLOTTED, THE ASSESSEE IMMEDIATELY DEPOSITE D THE APPEAL FEE OF RS.10,000/-. 19. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE CONTENTS OF THE APPLICATI ON FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS VIS ITED WITH SUFFICIENT CAUSE PREVENTING HIM FROM FILING THE APPEAL IN TIME. ACCO RDINGLY, THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL IS CONDONED AND WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE SAME. 20. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS APPEAL AR E EXACTLY SIMILAR, AS DECIDED BY US, HEREINABOVE, IN ITA NO.16(ASR)/2016 IN THE CASE OF SH. BACHAN SINGH. THEREFORE, OUR OBSERVATIONS IN ITA NO.16(AS R)/2015 SHALL MUTATIS MUTANDIS EQUALLY APPLY TO ITA NO.15(ASR)/2015. THU S, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 21. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS ARE ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23/06/ 20 16. SD/- SD/- (T.S. KAPOOR) (A.D. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER /SKR/ DATED: 23/06/2016 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEES: I) SH. BACHAN SINGH URF, (II)SH. GU RNAM SINGH AND (III) SH. PALWINDER SINGH, VILL. SARMASTPUR, DISTT. JALANDHAR. 2. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR. 3. THE CIT(A), JLR 4. THE CIT, JLR 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR. 18 ITA NOS. 16, 15 & 87(A SR)/2015 AS SESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10
Other Referred Cases
-
Laws Referred To
-
1:1 Consultation with family dentist -Your Smile Deserves the Best Care!
₹250
Consultation on Entity Formation
₹0
1:1 Consultation on Salary Structuring
₹1
Assignment of Registered Trademark
Mehul₹500
Sales Forecasting Sheet
₹100
Budget 2026: 5 Major Personal Tax Changes Every Taxpayer Must Know
Team Counselvise - February 05, 2026
Why Lacoste Won a 20-Year Trademark Battle Against Crocodile ?
Team Counselvise - March 10, 2026
Why Meesho got ₹1,500 Crore Tax Demand ?
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026