Shri Chamann lal S/o. Shri Banarsi Dass, Muktsar V. The Income-tax Officer, Muktsar

ITA 163/ASR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6081 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 163(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 PAN: AASPL1880B SHRI CHAMANN LAL, S/O- SHRI VS. INCOME TAX OFFICE R, BANARSI DASS, MUKTSAR WARD II(2), MUKTSAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SH. TARSEM LAL, DR DATE OF HEARING: 24.04.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09.05.2014 ORDER 1) THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.12.2013 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), BA THINDA, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1) THAT THE WORTHY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) , HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2) THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3) THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABOVE, IT IS SUBMITTED THA T THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN COMPLETING THE EX-PA RTE ASSESSMENT AND PASSING THE ORDER U/S 147/148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 4) THAT FURTHER NOTWITHSTANDING ABOVE SAID GROUNDS, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,27,310/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ADOPTIN G THE LAND RATE MEASURING 17.5 MARLAS @ RS. 19,837/- PER MARLA ON T HE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENT (IN OTHER CASE) AGAINST THE LAND RA TE OF RS. 4,859/- PER MARLA ON THE BASIS OF WHICH, THE LAND WAS ACTUA LLY PURCHASED AS PER REGISTRATION DEED. 2 5) THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON SUSPICION AND GU ESS WORK WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE IN THE SHAPE OF AU THENTIC DOCUMENT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE LAND WAS PURCHAS ED. 6) THAT NO REASONABLE/SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFOR DED TO HEAR AND REPRESENT THE CASE. 7) THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD OR DISPOS ED OFF. 2) FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY ARE NOT DISPUTED BY LEARNED DR; THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO REPEAT T HE SAME FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3) NOTICE OF HEARING FOR 24.04.2014 WAS ISSUED TO T HE ASSESSEE BY RPAD IN SPITE OF THE SAME NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER IN DISPUTE, NOR FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. 4) KEEPING IN VIEW THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE, I AM OF TH E VIEW THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED TO ADJOURN THE PRESE NT APPEAL THEREFORE, I PROCEED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE EX-PARTE ASS ESSEE AFTER HEARING LEARNED DR. 5) AFTER HEARING LEARNED DR AND PERUSING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE MAIN C ONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPLETE D THE ASSESSMENT ON 30.11.2012 UNDER SECTION 144/147 OF THE ACT WITHOUT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING HIS CLAIM BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED GRO UNDS IN THE PRESENT 3 APPEAL THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE A DDITION OF RS. 3,27,310/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ADOPTIN G THE LAND RATE MEASURING 17.5 MARLAS @ RS. 19,837/- PER MARLA ON T HE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENT AGAINST THE LAND RATE OF RS. 4,859/- PER MARLA ON THE BASIS OF WHICH, THE LAND WAS ACTUALLY PURCHASED AS PER REGIS TRATION DEED. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED THE GROUND THAT THE ADDITI ON IN DISPUTE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY LEAR NED CIT(A) MERELY ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICION AND GUESS WORK AND WITHOU T CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE IN THE SHAPE OF AUTHENTIC DOCUMENT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE LAND WAS PURCHASED. 6) AFTER HEARING LEARNED DR AND PERUSING THE RELEVA NT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT A SIMILAR APPEAL I.E. ITA NO. 142(ASR)/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, VEER PAL GARG VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-II(2), MUKTSAR, CAME UP FO R HEARING BEFORE ME IN WHICH EXACTLY SIMILAR ISSUES ARE INVOLVED AND TH E ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS, ESPECIALLY REQUESTED FOR OPPORTUNI TY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE PERSONS, NAMELY, SH. RAJAN SATIA, BAWA YADWINDE R SINGH, S. SURJIT SINGH, SH. BALDEV RAJ AND SH. KISHORE CHAND ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF WHOM, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN PASSED. IN THE AFORESAID APPEAL, VIDE ORDER DATED 08.05.2014, I H AVE SET ASIDE THE SIMILAR ISSUES IN DISPUTE BY DIRECTING THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO GIVE 4 OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE PE RSONS, NAMELY, SH. RAJAN SATIA, BAWA YADWINDER SINGH, S. SURJIT SINGH, SH. BALDEV RAJ AND SH. KISHORE CHAND ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND CONFR ONT THE MATERIALS USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPU TE AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 7) IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ALSO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144/147 OF THE ACT WIT HOUT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT TIME TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING HIS CLAIM BEFORE HIM. SIMILARLY, THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HA S CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS, IN MY VIEW, THE IMPUGN ED ORDER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW BECAUSE IT IS CONTRAR Y TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 8) NO DOUBT, THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ALSO DISCUSSED THE ORDER OF I.T.A.T. AMRITSAR BENCH, AMR ITSAR, IN THE CASE OF M/S JUGRAJ GHANSHAM DASS, BATHINDA VS. INCOME TAX O FFICER, WARD-I(I), BATHINDA, BEARING ITA NO. 61(ASR)/2010, DATED 09.04 .2010 HAVING IDENTICAL FACTS IN WHICH THE SIMILAR ADDITION HAS B EEN DELETED AND THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO NOT FILED ANY APPEAL AGAINST TH E SAID ORDER BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. BUT IN MY VIEW, THE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING MUST BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLA IM BEFORE DECIDING ANY ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IN THE INTEREST OF JUST ICE, I CANCEL THE IMPUGNED 5 ORDER DATED 20.12.2013 AND SENDING BACK THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH UNDER T HE LAW AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIA TING HIS CLAIM. IF THE ASSESSEE WANTS TO CROSS-EXAMINE SH. RAJAN SATIA, BA WA YADWINDER SINGH, S. SURJIT SINGH, SH. BALDEV RAJ AND SH. KISH ORE CHAND ON THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE THEN THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY T O DO SO BY MAKING REQUEST TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. OTHERWISE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AT LIBERTY TO DECIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE AFRESH UNDER THE LAW A FTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 9) WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS/DIRECTIONS, THE APPEAL F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH MAY, 2014 SD/./- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 9 TH MAY, 2014 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: SHRI CHAMANN LAL, S/O- SHRI BANARSI D ASS, MUKTSAR 2. ITO, WARD II(2), MUKTSAR 3. THE CIT(A), 4. THE CIT, 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.