Hardyal Singh, Ludhiana V. ITO, W-1, Jagraon

ITA 1539/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2022 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 10-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: NIKHIL GOYAL SHRI ASHOK GOYAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

, .. , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BE NCHES, SMC CHANDIGARH !', # $ BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. /CHD/201 ASSESSMENT YEAR : SHRI HARDYAL SINGH S/O SH. KARAM SINGH, VPO GUREH,TEH- JAGRAON, LUDHIANA (PUNJAB). THE ITO, WARD-1, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB !'# PAN NO:CRNPS8479P !$ APPELLANT %&!$ RESPONDENT '()*' ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL GOYAL, SHRI ASHOK GOYAL , CA + )*' REVENUE BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH , -)(.# DATE OF HEARING : 14/08/2019 /012)(.# DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.09.2019 %&/ ORDER PER DIVA SINGH: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESS EE ASSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 14/09/2018 OF CI T(A)-3 TO LUDHIANA PERTAINING TO 2010 11 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEALS)-3, LUDHIANA IN LAW AS WE LL AS ON FACTS HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING LEGALITY AND VALIDITY OF INITIA TION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT BY T HE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEALS)-3, LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEGALITY AND VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSE D BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT DISPOSING OFF THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF THE APPELLANT REGARDING INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND IS SUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT SPECIFICALLY RAISED BEFORE HIM DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ITA-1539/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 2 OF 6 3. THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEALS)-3, LUDHIANA IN LAW AS WE LL AS ON FACTS HAS ERRED IN CONFORMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. AS SESSING OFFICER AT RS. 10,00,000/- WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT OF THE APPELLA NT U/S 143(3) R.W.S..147 OF THE ACT. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEALS)-3, LUDHIANA HAS FAILED T O APPRECIATE AND CONSIDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, S UBMISSIONS MADE AND EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE HER PROPERTY AND CORRECTLY. 5. THAT LD. CIT (APPEALS)-3, LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN REJ ECTING THE EXPLANATIONS GIVEN AND EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE HER DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLANT PROCEEDING IN AN IN AN ARBITRARY AND SUMM ARY MANNER WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE SAME OR REBUTTING THE SAME WI TH ANY COGENT MATERIAL. SO MUCH SO MANY CONTENTIONS / FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS)-3, LUDHIANA ARE AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AND EVI DENCE OF THE APPELLANT APPARENT OF RECORD. 6. THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEALS)-3, LUDHIANA HAS ERRED NOT APPRECIATING THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT AT RS. 10,00,000/- AGAINST SALE PROCEEDS OF CROPS PARTICULARLY WHEN THE LD. ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS HIMSELF ACCEPTED AND ASSESSED THE NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME O F THE APPELLANT AT RS. 5,00,465/-. 7. THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEALS)-3, LUDHIANA HAS ERRED NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFF ICER WITHOUT ALLOWING ANY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND WITHOUT ISSUING ANY SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND THUS ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY HER BY VIOLATING THE PRIN CIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 8. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, EVEN OTHERW ISE ALSO THE LD. CIT (APPEALS)-3, LUDHIANA HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT ALLO WING THE RELIEF OF RS. 5,00,000/- TO THE APPELLANT IN AN ARBITRARY AND PER VERSE MANNER PARTICULARLY WHEN WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT SHE HAS HERSELF SPECIFICALLY HELD THAT THE APPELLANT CAN BE GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF HAVING AG RICULTURAL INCOME AT RS. 5 LACS BUT THE BENEFIT OF THE SAME WAS DENIED BY STATING T HAT LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY GIVEN THE SAME AT THE TIME COMPLETION OF AS SESSMENT WHERE IT IS QUITE APPARENT ON RECORD THAT NO/ SUCH BENEFIT WAS ALLOWE D BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE APPELLANT BY TAKING INDEPENDENT GROUND OF A PPEAL BEFORE HER HAS ARGUED AT LENGTH THAT NO BENEFIT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME HA S BEEN ALLOWED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE APPELLANT. 9. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD OR DISPOSED OFF. ITA-1539/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 3 OF 6 2. ALTHOUGH VARIOUS GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE ARGUMENTS WERE A DVANCED ONLY QUA THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,00,000/- MADE BY THE A.O . WHICH HAD BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN APPEAL. 3. BOTH THE PARTIES WERE HEARD. 4. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE FACT OF THE PRESENT CASE THE DEPOSITS OF RS. 10,00, 000/- WERE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN OBC, JAGRAON. THE ASSESSEE AP PARENTLY DID NOT EXPLAIN THESE WITH EVIDENCES BEFORE THE A.O. HO WEVER IN THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE FILED VARIOUS EVIDENCES EXPLAINING THE DEPOSITS. THESE EVIDENCES WERE OBJECTED TO BY THE A.O. THE LD. CIT(A) THOUGH ULTIMATELY ADMITT ED THE EVIDENCES HOWEVER DISCARDED THE SAME FOR VARIOUS REASONS NAME LY THAT THOUGH CERTAIN COPIES OF FORM J WERE FILED HOWEVER THE EVI DENCES OF LAND CULTIVATED ON BEHALF OF THE OTHER COULD NOT BE FILE D. HE ALSO CONSIDERED THE COPIES OF ACCOUNT OF KACHA AARTIA TO BE NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THE CLAIM OF LAND CULTIVATED. THE LD . AR ASSAILING THE CONCLUSION INVITED ATTENTION TO THE DOCUMENTS FILE D AT SL.NO. 8 WHICH WERE COPIES OF J FORMS FOR SALE OF CROPS CONF IRMED BY KACHA AARTIA; SL.NO. 9 WHICH WAS CERTIFICATE OF AGRICULT URE LAND TAKEN ON THEKA;, SL. NO. 10 COPIES OF JAMABANDIS OF AGRICULT URE LAND TAKEN ITA-1539/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 4 OF 6 ON THEKA CERTIFIED BY THE OWNER OF LAND. ALONGWITH THESE ATTENTION WAS ALSO INVITED TO THE EVIDENCE FIELD AT SL. NO. 1 1-13 WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS UNDER: 11. COPY OF E-FILED ITR OF COMMISSION AGENT (KACHA AA RTIA) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011) 12. COPY OF CONFIRMATION OF CASH PAID BY COMMISSION AGENT (KACHA AARTIA) DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 AGAINST SALES OF CROPS 13. COPY OF ABSTRACT OF CASH BOOK OF COMMISSION AGE NT (KATCHA AARTIA) ON THE DATES OF PAYMENT OF CASH TO THE APPELLANT. 4. RELYING ON THESE, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITED WERE FULLY EXPLAINABLE. 5. THE LD. CIT-DR CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES FILED B EFORE THE CIT(A) WHICH APPEARED TO NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED I N THE APPROPRIATE CONTEXT PRAYED FOR A REMAND BACK OF THE ISSUE. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE EVIDENCES NEED TO BE VERIFI ED AND IT WOULD NOT BE PROPER FOR HIM TO ADDRESS THESE WITHOUT VERI FICATION. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS HIS PRAYER THAT THE ISSUE BE REMANDED TO THE AO. 6. I HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT IN THE FAC TS OF THE PRESENT CASE THE RETURN WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPON SE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE IT APPEA RS HAS REMAINED SANGUINE WITH THE BELIEF THAT THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCE D ON FACTS ARE ITA-1539/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 5 OF 6 ALLOWABLE. HOWEVER IT IS SEEN THAT THE NAVE BELIE F THAT ARGUMENTS DE-HORSE EVIDENCE IS SUFFICIENT WAS MISPLACED. IN THE EYES OF LAW, THE ARGUMENTS ON FACTS NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE SUPPO RTED BY FACTS AND EVIDENCES. IT IS SEEN THAT SUPPORTING DOCUMENT S WERE FILED AT THE APPELLATE STAGE. COPIES OF FORM J HAVE BEEN F ILED. IN CASE THE EVIDENCE NOTICED WAS STILL REQUIRED TO BE CORROBORA TED WITH MORE EVIDENCE, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DIRECTED THE ASS ESSEE TO MAKE GOOD THE REQUIREMENTS. EVEN OTHERWISE, IT IS SEEN THAT THESE EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN DISCARDED ON THE BASIS OF GENER AL OBSERVATIONS WITH CONTRADICTION IN PARA 5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THESE CANNOT BE UPHELD. ACCORDINGLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE PRAYER OF THE PARTIES BEFORE THE BENCH, THE ISSUE IS REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF A.O. WITH THE DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCO RDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. WE HAVE NOTED THAT COPIES OF FORM-J HAVE BEEN PLACE D ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) ALONGWITH OTHER ACCO MPANYING EVIDENCES AS BRIEFLY DISCUSSED ABOVE. IT IS APPROPR IATE TO ALSO DIRECT THAT IN CASE THE REVENUE IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE EV IDENCES FILED ARE STILL NOT SUFFICIENT OR COMPLETE, THEN THE SHORTCOM ING, IF ANY IS NECESSARILY TO BE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO ENABLE HIM WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE GOOD THE SHORTFALL/DEF ICIENCY, IF ANY, NOTICED BY THE AO IN THE EVIDENCES ON RECORD AND AF FORD AN EFFECTIVE ITA-1539/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 6 OF 6 OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNC ED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH SEPTEMBER,2019. SD/- !', ( DIVA SINGH) # $ / JUDICIAL MEMBER AG/POONAM 0'3 ) %(45 6'5( / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !$ / THE APPELLANT 2. %&!$ / THE RESPONDENT 3. , 7( / CIT4. , 7( ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. 58 %(: , . : , ;<=> / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. = ?- / GUARD FILE 0'3 , / BY ORDER, @ + / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR