Shri Virender Kumar, Kurukshetra V. ITO, Kurukshetra

ITA 202/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4071 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 31-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N D GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: S K MUKHI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCHB, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.202/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 SHRI VIRENDER KUMAR VS. THE ITO PROP. M/S ROYAL PROPERTIES & WARD-1 CAR BAZAR, KURUKSHETRA KURUKSHETRA PAN NO. AQNPK2326E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. S.K. MUKHI REVENUE BY : SHRI. N.D. GUPTA DATE OF HEARING : 17/07/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07/08/2018 ORDER PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, A.M: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), KARNAL DT. 08/11/2016. 2. IN THE PRESENT ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THAT THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS, ILL EGAL, HAVING BEEN PASSED WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLAN T IN ITS TRUE SPIRITS. 2. (A) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONCURR ING WITH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE A.O., CONFIRMING ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF R S. 71,35,000/- WHICH IS ILLEGAL, WITHOUT JURISDICTION, ARBITRARY BEING WITHOUT AFFOR DING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND THUS BAD IN LAW AND SO NEEDS TO BE QUASHED. (B) THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE APPELLANT ALSO DISPUTES QUANTUM OF ADDITION AS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE AND THUS PERVERSE. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION OF THE A MOUNTS FOUND TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAVE BEEN PURPORTED TO BE THE RECEIPTS OF SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND AS NO P ROPER VALID DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE COPY OF RECEIPTS TO SH OW THAT THE CASH HAD BEEN RECEIVED ON EARLIER DATES PRIOR TO DATE OF SALE OF LAND AND HELD THAT SINCE NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FILED, THE ADDITION H AS BEEN CONFIRMED. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR ARGUED THAT ORAL ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN TAKEN UP BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WHO COULD NOT CONSIDER THE SAM E OWING TO NON PLACING OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AND ARGUED THAT GIV EN AN OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD, THE ASSESSEE WOULD PROVIDE ALL THE REL EVANT DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. LD. DR WHILE RELYING ON THE ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARGUED THAT IF AT ALL THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED, REVENUE SHOULD GET DUE OPPORTUNITY OF REVISITING THE ENTIRE ISSUE. WE FIND THAT NO PR EJUDICE WOULD BE CAUSED TO THE REVENUE IF AN OPPORTUNITY IS TO BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE SO THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN TAKE A CONSIDERED DECISION FOR EXAMINAT ION OF THE ISSUE AT HAND. HENCE THE MATTER IS REFERRED BACK TO THE FILE OF AS SESSING OFFICER TO REFRAME THE ASSESSMENT DENOVO. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO HEREBY DIRECTED NOT TO MISUSE THE OPPORTUNITY GIVEN AND FURNISH ALL THE RELEVANT DOCU MENTS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 07/08/2018 AG COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR