SHRI JASBIR SINGH S/O AVTAR SINGH, TARN TARAN V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, TARN TARAN

ITA 22/ASR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2643 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 18-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 144; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 22/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Jasbir Singh S/o Avtar Singh VPO Assal Uttar Tehsil patti, Distt. Tarn Taran [PAN:AMDPS5343M ] (Appellant) Vs. ITO-Ward 1, Tarn Taran. (Respendent) Appellant by Sh. Rajiv Kumar & Sh. Ashwani Kalia, CA Respondent by Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT.D.R. Date of Hearing 01.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement 11.05.2022 ORDER Per: Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-1, Amritsar [in brevity the CIT(A)] bearing appeal no. 10071/2016-17, date of order 30.10.2017, order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act,1961 [in brevity the Act] for A.Y.2014-15. The said order is I.T.A. No. 22/Asr/2018 2 originated from the order of the ld. ITO, Ward -1, Tarn Taran (in brevity the AO) passed order u/s 144 of the Act, date of order 06.10.2016. 2. The ground of the assessee is as follows:- “1. That the Ld.CIT(A)-l, Amritsar has erred in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs.1367449. 2. That the Ld.CIT(A)-l, Amritsar has erred in law and on facts, in holding that the gross receipts on sale of agriculture produce for the year under appeal was only Rs.1796103. 3. That the Ld.CIT(A)-l, Amritsar has erred in law and on facts, in holding that the net income is only 50% of gross agriculture receipts relying upon the decision of Amritsar ITAT in the case of Paramjit Singh Prop. Doaba Filling Station without confronting the decision to assessee nor giving even citation of the case relied upon. 4. That the order is bad in law and on facts. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the ground of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off.” 3. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee prayed for adjournment during the hearing before the bench. As the matter is too old in presence of the ld. DR the said appeal was heard. The assessee claimed agricultural income in its return u/s 139 amount of Rs. 22,65,500/- for A.Y. 2014-15. Accordingly the assessee filed a jamabandhi for related F.Y. 2013-14 for all his agricultural holdings. The ld. AO passed the order u/s 144 of the Act in reason that there is no proof and documents related to its claim and had taken off the agricultural income as income from undisclosed source which was added back with the total income of the assessee. I.T.A. No. 22/Asr/2018 3 4. Aggrieved assessee had filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) adjudicated the issue considering the order of Hon’ble ITAT, Amritsar Bench in the case of Sh. Paramjit Singh Prop. M/s Doaba Filing Station, and reduced the addition. The ld. CIT(A) considered the net agricultural income amount of Rs.8,98,051/- which was reduced from gross agricultural income amount of Rs.22,65,500/-. Accordingly, sustained the addition of amount Rs.13,67,449/- as undisclosed source of income. 5. The ld. DR placed an order of the Coordinate Bench in case of Naib Singh vs. ITO Nakodar, bearing ITA No. 505/Asr/2013 date of pronouncement 24.02.2014. The said order is considered the case of Paramjit Singh Proprietor, M/s M/s Doaba Filing Station in ITA No. 144/159/ASR/2008. So the ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT(A) and prayed in sustaining the addition. The observation of the ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:- “6.2. As regards the decision of the ITAT, Amritsar Bench in the case of ITO vs. Sh. Paramjit Singh (supra), relied upon by the AO, the ld. C1T(A) has well appreciated the arguments made by the ld. counsel that the said decision is quite distinguishable which, in fact has also been argued by the Id. counsel for the assessee before us. The Ld. CIT(A) has accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case, has very reasonably estimated the expenses @ 40% as against Rs.29.90% claimed by assessee and as against 50% estimated by the AO. Therefore, we do not find any error in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and the same is well reasoned and is upheld. Thus, all the grounds of the assessee are dismissed.” I.T.A. No. 22/Asr/2018 4 6. We considered the argument of the ld. DR and the submission available on the record. The assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Act. So, the assessee is denied to substantiate his claim during the proceeding. Further the ld. CIT(A) during the appeal hearing only relied on the orders of the ITAT. No factual matrix was considered. The opportunity should be allowed to assessee for justifying his claim related to agricultural income which was not considered by the CIT(A) in factual matrix. 7. Accordingly, we are directing to ld. CIT(A) to allow the assessee for hearing for sustaining his claim. The impugned order is set aside and matter is restored back to the ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after considering the assessee’s evidences on factual matrix. The assessee, in turned, is directed to substantiate its claim before the revenue authority. It is pertinent to mention that adequate opportunity of hearing shall be granted to assessee for his case. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 11.05.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) Accountant Member Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 22/Asr/2018 5 AKV Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order