Sh. Yash Paul Khanna Prop., Jalandhar V. Income tax Officer, Jalandhar

ITA 211/ASR/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7406 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 13 year(s) 7 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2007
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GHANSHYAM SHARMA DR
• Assessee Lawyers: Y K SUDCA
• Keywords: Gift; Income from undisclosed sources; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENC H, AMRITSAR (VIRTUAL COURT AT CHANDIGARH) BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI, R.L. NEGI, JM ./ ITA NO. 211/ASR/2007 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 YASH PAL KHANNA 587-R, MODEL TOWN JALANDHAR THE ITO (III)-2, JALANDHAR ./ PAN NO: AFZPK8301A / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ! / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI Y.K. SUD,CA ! / REVENUE BY : SHRI GHANSHYAM SHARMA, DR ! &/ DATE OF HEARING : 23/12/2020 ! &/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23/12/2020 / // / ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 20/04/2007 OF CIT(A)-II, LUDHIANA. 2. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF FIS .11,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. BOTH OF THEM FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH CREDIT IN THE BOO KS OF APPELLANT WHICH COULD BE TREATED AS HIS INCOME. 2. THAT THE CIT (A) WRONGLY APPROVED THE ACTION OF THE I.T.0. IN TREATING THE CASH CREDIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI GURDEV SING H AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY ACCEPTING THE SELF CONTRADICTORY STATEMENT OF GU RDEV SINGH. 3. THAT BOTH CIT(A) AND THE I.T.O. FAILED TO ESTABLI SH ANY NEXUS BETWEEN THE GIFTS OF RS.9,00,000/- MADE BY GURDEV SINGH & NISHA N SINGH AND THE CASH OF RS. 11,50,000/- FOUND CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF G URDEV SINGH AND THEREFORE NO ADDITION COULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE A PPELLANT. 4. THAT THE CIT (A) WRONGLY APPROVED THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN COMMENTING AND DISBELIEVING THE REPORT OF THE HANDWRITING EXPE RT WITHOUT EVEN CONFRONTING THE SAME TO THE EXPERT OR THE APPELLANT. 2 5. THAT THE CIT ( A ) W A S NOT JUSTIFIED IN BRUSHING ASIDE THE ATTESTATION O F AFFIDAVIT AND THE GIFT DEED BY THE EXECUTIVE MAGIST RATE AND NOTARY PUBLIC WHO WERE DULY COMPETENT TO ATTEST THE SIGNATURES OF THE EXECUTORS OF GIFT DEED AND THE AFFIDAVIT. 6. THAT, THE CIT ( A ) & L.T.O. WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CALLING THE SECOND DONOR NISHAN SINGH. THIS ACTION OF BOTH THE CIT ( A ) & A.O . IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 7. THAT THE CIT ( A ) AND A .O. FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED WAS ON THE DIRECTIONS OF CIT-1, JALANDHAR AFTER CAN CELLATION OF THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 263 AND THE FRESH ASSESSMENT C OULD HAVE BEEN FRAMED ONLY AS PER THOSE DIRECTIONS. 8. THAT THE INTEREST U/S 234-B HAS BEEN WRONGLY CHARGED. 9. THAT THE ORDERS OF THE CIT ( A ) AND I.T.O. ARE AGAINST LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 3. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED AN APPLIC ATION STATING THEREIN AS UNDER: ITA NO. 211/(ASR)/2007 ASST. YEAR: 2001-02 SUB: REQUEST FOR PERMISSION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF ABOVE SAID APPEAL MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE ABOVESAID APPEAL IS PENDING FOR ADJUDICATI ON BEFORE THE HON'BLE BENCH. 2. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OPTED FOR VSVS AND HAS ALREAD Y FILED FORM NO. 1 & 2 (COPY ENCLOSED) 3. THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ASSESSEE HEREBY WITHD RAW THE APPEAL AND PRAY BEFORE THE BENCH THAT APPEAL BE DISMISSED AS W ITHDRAWN SUBJECT TO ACCEPTANCE OF FORM NO. 1 & 2 BY THE DEPARTMENT. FOR YASH PAL KHANNA SD/- THROUGH SD/- Y.K. SUD C.A COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE 3 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE CONTENTS OF THE AFORESAID APPLICATIO N AND SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT ACCEPT THE SAID APPLIC ATION AND DOES NOT ISSUE THE FORM NO. 3/5, THE ASSESSEE MAY BE GIVEN L IBERTY TO APPROACH THE ITAT FOR RESTORING THIS APPEAL. 5. LD. CIT DR DID NOT OBJECT TO THE AFORESAID CONTE NTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN WITH A RIDER THAT IN CASE THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT ACCEPT THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER VIVAD SE VISHWAS SCHEME, ACT 2020. THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO MOVE AN APPLICATION B EFORE THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH FOR RESTORING THIS APPEAL. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 23/12/2020 SD/- SD/- . .. . . . . . . .. . . .. . , ,, , (R.L. NEGI ) ( N.K. SAIN I) 0 0 0 0 / / / / JUDICIAL MEMBER 12 12 12 12 / // / VICE PRESIDENT AG DATE: 23/12/2020 ! 3 43/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR 6. GUARD FILE