Sh. Param Paul Singh, Chandigarh V. DCIT (Intl. Taxation), Circle, Chandigarh

ITA 198/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1223 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHR MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Revised return; Capital Gains
• Section: 271(1)(c); 201; 139(1); 69; 148; 54; 144; 154; 139

Judgement Text

, B IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH B BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIALMEMBER ITA NO. 198/CHANDI/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 SHRI PARAM PAUL SINGH HOUSE NO.2234, SECTOR-45C, CHANDIGARH V. DCIT, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CHANDIGARH T AN /PAN : CCGPS 5900 R (APP ELL ANT) (RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY: SHRI TEJMOHAN SINGH, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SHR MANJIT SINGH, CIT - DR DATE OF HEARING: 23 0 5 201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04 0 6 201 9 / O R D E R PER S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ARISES AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-43 , NEW DELHI PASSED IN CASE NO.186/2016-17, INVOLVING PROCEEDING S U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE PLEADS THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIVE GR OUNDS IN THE INSTANT APPEAL:- 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING AN ADDITION O F RS.2,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IN UT TER DISREGARD OF THE EXPLANATIONS RENDERED WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUST IFIED. 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS FURTHER ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S SECTI ON 54 OF THE ACT WHILE COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS RESULTING IN AN A DDITION OF ITA NO.198/CHD/2018 PAGE 2 OF 8 RS.40,11,896/- WHICH IS LEGALLY ALLOWABLE AND AS SU CH THE ORDER PASSED INS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 3. THAT THE REASON GIVEN FOR NOT ALLOWING THE DEDUCTI ON ONLY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED THE RETURN IS NOT TENABLE IN ASMUCH AS THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A CLAIM BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AND IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ARRIVE AT THE CORR ECT TAXABLE INCOME AND AS SUCH THE ORDER IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 4. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED A HOUSE AT ENGLAND AS WELL AS IN INDIA UTILIZING THE ENTIRE SALE PROCEEDS WHICH WAS SUFFIC IENT TO ALLOW DEDUCTION US 54 OF THE ACT AND AS SUCH THE ORDER PASSED IS AR BITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 3. THE ASSESSEES FORMER GRIEVANCE CHALLENGES CORRE CTNESS OF THE CIT(A)S ACTION RESTRICTING THE UNEXPLAINED INVOLVE MENTS ADDITION OF RS.4 LAC MADE IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT / RE-ASSESSMEN T FRAMED ON 22.12.2016 TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2 LAC IN THE LOWER A PPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE ASSESSEE IS VERY F AIR IN NOT DISPUTING THE BASIC FACT OF THE ASSESSEES CASH DEPOSITS IN N RO BANK ACCOUNT. THIS TAXPAYER PLEADED BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY THA T THE SAID SUM INVOLVED RS.5 LAC REALIZED FROM PROPERTY SALE(S) AN D RS.2 LAC EACH FROM SALE OF HOUSEHOLD ITEMS AND CASH EARLIER WITHDRAWN; RESPECTIVELY. THERE IS NO QUARREL BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER ACCEPTED THE FIRST HEAD OF RS.5 LAC. HE THEREAFTER CONCLUDED THA T THE LATTER TWO HEAD(S) INVOLVING RS.2 LAC EACH HAD NOT BEEN EXPLAI NED BY WAY OF COGENT SUPPORTIVE MATERIAL. HE THEREFORE INVOKED SE C. 69 OF THE ACT TO ADD THE AMOUNT OF RS.4 LAC RELEVANT TO THE LATTER T WO HEADS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH INVESTMENT(S). THE CIT(A) RESTRICT S THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.2 LAC QUA THE THIRD AND LAST HEAD OF CASH EARLIER WITHDRAWN AND RE-DEPOSITED AT THE ASSESSEES BEHEST . 4. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RI VAL CONTENTIONS. THE ASSESSEES ONLY GRIEVANCE QUA THE INSTANT ISSUE IS THAT BOTH THE AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN DECLINING HIS CO RRESPONDING EXPLANATION TO HAVE WITHDRAWN CASH SUMS EARLIER FOL LOWED BY RE-DEPOSITS ITA NO.198/CHD/2018 PAGE 3 OF 8 MADE IN THE NRO BANK ACCOUNT. THE REVENUES CASE ON THE OTHER HAND IS THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD SUPPORTING T HE ASSESSEES CASE INVESTMENTS. WE FIND NO REASON TO EXPRESS OUR AGREE MENT WITH EITHER OF THE TWO PARTIES STAND IN ENTIRETY. THE FACT REMAI NS THAT ASSESSEE IS AN NRI WHO HAD PURCHASED AND SOLD THE CAPITAL ASSET(S) IN QUESTION IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. THERE IS RELIABLE PRESUMPTI ON THEREFORE THAT HE MUST HAVE WITHDRAWN SOME CASH AMOUNTS FOR HIS CORRE SPONDING CASH REQUIREMENTS. HE HAS NOT FILED ON RECORD THE WITHDR AWALS DETAILS SUGGESTING EXACT FIGURES. WE THEREFORE ARE OF THE V IEW THAT LARGER INTEREST OF JUSTICE WOULD BE MADE IN CASE THE IMPUG NED ABOVE RS.2 LAC IS RESTRICTED TO RS.1 LAC ONLY IN THE GIVEN FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES. THE ASSESSEE GETS PART RELIEF WITH A RIDER THAT OUR INS TANT ESTIMATION SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS A PRECEDENT. 5. NEXT COMES THE LATER ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF AS SESSEES SEC. 54 DEDUCTION CLAIM. RELEVANT CASER RECORDS COMPRISI NG OF THE ASSESSING OFFICERS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 02.12.2016, VALUA TION REPORT DATED 30.10.2008 PERTAINING TO THE CAPITAL ASSET SOLD, CH ARTERED ACCOUNTANTS CERTIFICATE DATED 10.12.2008 DECLARING THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE PAID THE REQUISITE TAXES, COPY OF PHOTOGRAPH, MAP, PURCHASE DOCUMENTS, BANK STATEMENT INDICATING TRANSFER OF THE AMOUNT IN ISSU E, LOAN PAPERS REGARDING HOUSE PURCHASED IN LONDON, YET ANOTHER PU RCHASE DEED DATED 11.11.2008 INVOLVING RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN MOHALI PU NJAB ETC. ALONGWITH OTHER RELEVANT PARTICULARS OF SEC. 154 RECTIFICATIO N ETC.; STAND PERUSED. 6. THERE IS NO DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES ABOUT TH E ASSESSEE HAVING SOLD HIS RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN CHANDIGARH ON 21.10.208 FOR RS.70,27,360/- AS AGAINST COST OF ACQUISITION AMOUN TING TO RS.6,18,750/- INCURRED IN JANUARY, 1995. HE INVESTED AN AMOUNT OF RS.12,96,000/- FOR PURCHASING MOHALI RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ON 11.11.200 8. THERE IS FURTHER NO QUARREL THAT HE HAD NOT FILED HIS RETURN AT THE FIRST INSTANCE REGARDING ITA NO.198/CHD/2018 PAGE 4 OF 8 ASSESSMENT OF CAPITAL GAINS AMOUNTING TO RS.4,44,98 2/-IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FORMED REASO NS TO BELIEVE IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE ASSESSEES T AXABLE INCOME LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IN THESE CIRC UMSTANCES. HE ISSUED SEC. 148 NOTICE DATED 30.03.2016 TO THIS EFF ECT. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN EITHER IN RESPONSE TO SEC. 148 NOTICE OR IN CONSEQUENTIAL RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE APPEARS TO HAVE FILED A COMPUTATION SHEET CLAIMING SEC. 54 DEDUCTION ON ACC OUNT OF RE- INVESTMENT OF CAPITAL GAINS IN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY . THE ASSESSING OFFICER QUOTED HON'BLE APEX COURTS DECISION IN GOETZ INDIA LTD. VS. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEES DE DUCTION CLAIM IN ABSENCE OF REVISED RETURN OR THAT FILED IN RESPONSE TO SEC. 148 NOTICE; COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. HE THEREFORE DISALLOWED / AD DED THE IMPUGNED DEDUCTION. 7. THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION AS UNDER:- 4.8 IT IS SEEN FROM THE REPORT OF THE A.O. AND THE FACTS QUOTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54(F) IN THE ASSESSEES CASE HAS TO BE PERMITTED WITH REF ERENCE TO THE FACT THAT NO RETURN WAS FIELD BY THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. HAS CONTENDED THAT NO DEDUCTION WAS ELIGIBLE TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 54 SINCE NO RETURN WAS FIELD. THE A.O. STATES T HAT THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN GOETZE I NDIA PVT. LTD. CLEARLY STATES THAT THE A.O. CAN ENTERTAIN ANY CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OR EXEMPTION ONLY THOUGH THE REVISED RETU RN AND NOT THROUGH ANY OTHER DOCUMENT OR LETTER. IN THE PR ESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN AND THEREFORE THE ONLY CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION HAS BEEN MADE THROUGH THE COMPU TATION SUBMITTED TO THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 ONLY REQUIRED INVESTMENT T O BE MADE IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSES AND AS AN ALTERNATIVE, REQUIR E AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAINED TO BE SUBMITTED IN THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF RETURN. THE ASSESSEES ARGUM ENT IS THAT SINCE THE JURISDICTIONAL PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE JAGRITIKUMAR VS CIT HAS HELD THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION U/S 54 THE DUE DATE REFERRED TO SUB SECTI ON 2 OF THAT SECTION HAS TO BE READ AS THE DATE TILL WHICH LATE RETURN CAN BE FIELD. IF THAT JUDGEMENT IS TAKEN INTO ACCOU NT, EVEN THE ASSESSEE HAD THE TIME UPTO 31 ST MARCH 2011 BEFORE WHICH ITA NO.198/CHD/2018 PAGE 5 OF 8 THE INVESTMENT COULD BE MADE UNDER THE CAPITAL GAIN S SCHEME. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY INVESTED THE AMOUNT IN A RESIDENTIAL PROPER TY ABROAD AND THEREFORE THE DEDUCTION WAS LEGALLY ELIGIBLE TO THE ASSESSEE. 4.9 THE BASIC CONTENTION HERE IS THAT SECTION 54 DO ES NOT REQUIRE OR MANDATE FILING OF RETURN BUT ONLY MANDAT ES THE TIMELINE FOR MAKING THE INVESTMENT IN A CAPITAL GAI NS ACCOUNT SCHEME OR THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELIGIBILITY IN THAT SECTION. THIS INTERPRETATION OF THE ASSESSE E OF THE SECTION BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CORRECT. THE CLEAR R EADING OF SUB SECTION 2 OF SECTION 54 COULD HOWEVER SUGGEST O THERWISE. THE SUB SECTION IS REPRODUCED ABOVE FOR CONSIDERATI ON. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT . SUCH DEPOSIT BEING MADE IN ANY CASE INTO LATER THAN THE DUE DATE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB-SECTI ON (1) OF SECTION 139] IN AN ACCOUNT IN ANY SUCH BANK OR INST ITUTION AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN, AND UTILIZED IN ACCORDANCE WIT H, ANY SCHEME WHICH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY, BY NOTIFIC ATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, FRAME IN THIS BEHALF AND SUCH RETURN SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY PROOF OF SUCH DEPOSIT 4.10 IT IS SEEN THAT THE SECOND PART OF THE SUB SEC TION CLEARLY STATES THAT THE EVIDENCE OF DEPOSIT IN THE CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT HAS TO BE ATTACHED WITH THE RETURN FILED ALONG WITH THE AMOUNT UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASE OF ANY RESIDEN TIAL PROPERTY. THEREFORE THE ABOVE PROVISION BECOMES ILLOGICAL IF THE MANDATE OF FILING F RETURN IS TAKEN OUT. THEREFORE THE FACT OF FURNISHING OF RETURN IS MANDATORY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE CLAIM U/ S. 4,. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE A.O. THAT A CLAIM BY THE ASSESSEE I S NOT BEING ALLOWED. THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE IS THAT THE CLAIM FO R DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 CAN ONLY BE MADE BY FILING THE RET URN. THE QUANTIFICATION OF THAT CLAIM HAS TO BE MADE IN THE RETURN ITSELF AND THAT QUANTIFICATION AND ELIGIBILITY HAS TO BE A SSESSED BY THE A.O. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN IN THIS CASE, THE ISSUE RELATING TO ELIGIBILITY TO CLAIM U/S. 54 DO N OT ARISE. THE A.O. IS CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT DEDUCTION U/S 54 IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AR FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO GIVEN A SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY TO FURNISH ANY JUDGMENT IN HIS FAVOUR O F THE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL OR HIGH COURT WHEREIN THE C LAIM U/S. 54 HAD BEEN ALLOWED IN THE CASE WHERE NO RETURN HAD BEEN F IELD BY THE ASSESSEE. THE COUNCIL WAS NOT ABLE TO FURNISH ANY J UDGEMENT IN THIS REGARD. THE APPEAL THEREFORE FAILS ON THIS GRO UND AND THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S. 54 IS NOT ELIGIBLE. THIS LEAVES THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED. 8. LEARNED COUNSEL VEHEMENTLY CONTENDS DURING THE C OURSE OF HEARING THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DISALLOWING ASSESSEES SEC. 54 DEDUCTION C LAIM DESPITE THE FACT ITA NO.198/CHD/2018 PAGE 6 OF 8 THAT HE SATISFIES ALL THE RELEVANT CONTENTIONS REGA RDING RE-INVESTMENT OF CAPITAL GAINS IN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN LONDON A S WELL AS IN MOHALI (SUPRA). THE REVENUES CASE ON THE OTHER HAND IS TH AT ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED EITHER ANY RETURN U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT OR IN RESPONSE TO SEC. 148 PROCEEDINGS SO AS TO ELIGIBLE FOR THE IMPUGNED DEDU CTION. 9. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RI VAL CONTENTIONS. WE NOTICE THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS ADOP TED INCONSISTENT STANDS SO FAR AS ASSESSEES SEC. 54 DEDUCTION IS CO NCERNED. THE ASSESSING OFFICERS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 02.12.2 016 FORMING PART OF THE CASE RECORDS INDICATES THAT HE HAD DULY UPHELD THE ASSESSEES DEDUCTION CLAIM OF RS.12,96,000/- AS ALLOWABLE EVEN IN ABSENCE OF RETURN SEC. 139 OF THE ACT AS WELL AS IN RESPONSE T O SEC. 148 NOTICE AS FOLLOWS:- SUB: SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IN THE CASE OF SH. PARAM PAUL SINGH GANDHI-REG PLEASE REFER TO THE PENDING PROCEEDINGS IN YOUR CA SE. 2. IN THIS REGARD, TO IS INFORMED THAT SH. ANEET GO YAL, CA APPEARED WITHOUT POWER OF ATTORNEY AND HANDED OVER THE CALCULATION R EGARDING LTCG, PHOTOCOPES OF THE PURCHASE DEED AND SALE DEED IN RE SPECT OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY I.E. #2356, SECTOR-35C, CHANDIGARH SOLD BY YOU AND ALSO EVIDENCE REGARDING PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY (NEW ASS ET) FOR TOTAL COST OF RS.12,96,000/- AT KHARAR. AS THE CA HAS NOT FILED T HE POA SO FAR AND ALSO DID NOT FURNISH THE EVIDENCE REGARDING THE COST OF IMPR OVEMENT CLAIMED AT RS.9,53,550/- AND RS.7,72,200/- AS ON 31.03.1995 AN D 31.03.1998 RESPECTIVELY. AS THE CASE IS GETTING BARRED BY TIME ON 31.12.2016, I HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE BEST TO DECIDE YOUR CASE ON MERITS U/S. 144 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE WITH THIS OFFICE. 2. AS PER COMPUTATION FILED, TH8E PROPERTY IS SOLD AT RS.70,27,360/- ON WHICH LTCG IS CALCULATED AT RS.49,35,830/- AND NET LTCG I S SHOWN AT RS.7,71,530/- AGAINST WHICH TAX OF RS.1,20,050/- IS CLAIMED TO BE PAID ON 09.12.2008 AS ADVANCE TAX AND IN SUPPORT OF THIS PHOTCOPIES OF TH E CHALLAN IS ALSO FILED BUT NO EVIDENCE REGARDING FILING OF RETURN FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2009-10 ON DUE DATE HAS BEEN FIELD. 3. PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS ON RECORD REVEALS THAT YOU ALONGWITH YOUR MOTHER SMT. MOTIA RANIO PURCHASED, THE SAID PROPERTY I.E. 2356/35C, CHANDIGARH FOR TOTAL COST OF RS.6,18,750/- ON 20.01.1995 (CONSIDER ATION MONEY RS.5,50,000 + STAMP DUTY RS.68,750/-) AS PER EVIDENCE PLACED ON R ECORD. THEREFORE, YOUR SHARE OF 50% COMES AT RS.3,09,375/- AS AGAINST 6,38 ,750/- CLAIMED IN THE COMPUTATION CHART FILED. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RE CORD WHICH COULD PROVE, THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT AT RS.9,53,550/- AND RS.7,7 2,200?- AS ON 31.03.1995 ITA NO.198/CHD/2018 PAGE 7 OF 8 & 31.03.1998. THEREFORE, THIS EXPENDITURE IS NOT BE ING ALLOWED FOR WANT OF EVIDENCE. 4. THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.13,20,000/- IS CLAIMED FRO M THE LTCG OF RS.49,35,830/- BUT EVIDENCE OF RS.12,96,000/- IS ON LY AVAILABLE ON RECORD I.E. SALE DEED OF NEW ASSET. HENCE, THE BENEFIT OF RS.12 ,96,000/- WILL ONLY BE ALLOWED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE LTCG IS RE CALCULATED AS UNDER AT RS.50,36,162/- WHICH WILL BE ADDED TO YOUR INCOME A ND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) WILL ALSO BE INITIATED FOR CONCEALIN G AND FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. SALE CONSIDERATION RS.70,27,3360/- PURCHASE COST/INDEXED COST (25.01.1995) RS. 6,95,198/- RS.3,09,375 X 582 63,32,162/- 259 EXEMPTION U/S 54 RS.12,96,000 ALLOWABLE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN RS.50,36,162/- 5. AS PER STATEMENT OF BANK ACCOUNT NO.04093000250014 PLACED ON RECORDS, YOU WERE MAINTAINING ABOVE SAID BANK ACCOUNT WITH PUNJA B & SIND BANK, SECTOR- 47D, CHANDIGARH. THERE IS CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.9 LAC ON 25.11.2008. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO GIVE THE SOURCE OF THIS AMOUNT WITH EV IDENCE, OTHERWISE THE SAME WILL BE ADDED TO OUR INCOME PER SECTION 69 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) WILL ALSO BE INI TIATED FOR CONCEALING AND FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 10. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAILS TO RE BUT THIS CLINCHING FACTUAL POSITION. WE OBSERVE IN THESE PEC ULIAR FACTS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED ASSESSEES SEC. 54 D EDUCTION ON THE ONE HAND REGARDING MOHALI PROPERTY BUT SIMULTANEOUSLY H ELD THAT THE TAXPAYER HAD NOT FILED ANY RETURN EITHER U/S 139 OR IN SEC. 148 PROCEEDINGS. WE ARE OF THE VIEW IN THESE PECULIAR F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT SAID INCONSISTENCY DOES NOT DESE RVE TO BE CONCURRED WITH. HON'BLE APEX COURTS DECISION IN GOETZ INDIA LTD . (SUPRA) MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THIS JUDICIAL PRECEDENT DOES NOT IMPINGE UPON APPELLATE AUTHORITIES JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN A CLAIM ACTI ON IN ABSENCE OF REVISED RETURN IN INCOME TAX LAW. THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURTS DECISION IN CIT VS. INDIAN EXPRESS (MADURAI) PVT LTD. 140 ITR 705 (MAD) ALSO HELD THAT A TAX LITIGATION CANNOT BE TREATED AS A LIS BETWEEN TWO PARTIES SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICERS JOB IS TO ARRIVE AT A CORRECT TAXABLE INCOME. ITA NO.198/CHD/2018 PAGE 8 OF 8 WE CONCLUDE IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT T HE LEARNED ASSESSING AUTHORITY NEEDS TO RE-CONSIDER THE IMPUGNED DEDUCTI ON CLAIM U/S 54 OF THE ACT AFRESH ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFT ER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE TAXPAYER. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO FILE ON RECORD ALL HIS EVIDE NCE IN SUPPORT IN CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS. THIS LATTER SUBSTANTIVE GROUND IS ACCEPTED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSES IN ABOVE TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04/06/2019. SD/- SD/ - [ N.K.SAINI ] [ S.S.GODARA ] VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER ! DATED: 04/06/2019 *DKP ! ' / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-SHRI PARAM PAUL SINGH, HOUSE NO.2234, SECTOR-45C, CHAN DIGARH 2. /RESPONDENT-DCIT, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CHANDIG ARH 3. &'&() * * + ! / CONCERNED CIT CHANDIGARH 4. * * +- ! / CIT (A) CHANDIGARH 5. /0 11(), * () , ! / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 4 56 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ *78 , 9 &: * () , ;