SHRIMATI GURMIT KAUR, HOSHIARPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DASUYA, DASUYA

ITA 247/ASR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9216 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Set aside
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 133(6)

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. 247/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Gurmit Kaur W/o Sh. Satwinder Singh, VPO Tanda Ram Sahai, Tehsil Mukerian, Distt. Hoshiarpur [PAN: CBHPK 6797A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Dasuya (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None (Written submission) Respondent by: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 19.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 08.07.2022 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: The appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 30.03.2018 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jalandhar in respect of the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: ITA No. 247/Asr/2018 Gurmit Kaur v. ITO 2 “1. The Assessment Order dated 24/11/2017 is illegal, arbitrary and not based on proper appreciation of facts of the case and the decisions of the High Courts and Supreme Court. 2. The Ld. AO provided the documentary evidences of all the available sources before the Assessing Officer but he only considered the part for the same for making assessment. The Honorable CIT(A)-1, Jalandhar did not provide the opportunity to discuss the matter so that matter could have lead to logical conclusion. So, it is prayed that the Addition made may kindly be deleted or matter may be restored to the file of the CIT(A), Jalandhar. 3. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any of the grounds of appeal on or before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.” 3. Apropos Ground No. 2, the appellant assessee challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in view of the facts that he was not provided the opportunity of being heard to explain the matter. So, it is prayed that the Addition made may kindly be deleted or matter may be restored to the file of the CIT(A), Jalandhar. 4. The Assessee is an agriculturist who purchased an agriculture land for Rs. 1,06,37,000 in the financial year 2009-10 under consideration. Based on AIR information, the AO made enquiries by issuing notice under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act with regard to the financial transaction and source thereof. Eventually when the period for issuing notice under section 148 was about to expire, the Assessing officer issued the notice under section 148 of the Act. The return for the period was filed and return income was assessed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing officer being not satisfied with the explanation offered regarding source of investment in respect of the ITA No. 247/Asr/2018 Gurmit Kaur v. ITO 3 above financial transaction, made the additions of Rs. 4,42,500/- as unexplained income to the return income of the assessee which has been confirmed by the CIT(A). 5. None appeared for the assessee, however a written submission was filed which reads as under: “In the present case, the facts and the basic submissions are given hereunder: The Assessee is an agriculturist. She purchased an agriculture land for Rs. 1,06,37,000 in the year 2009-10. The information was received by the Assessing officer through AIR and enquiries were made under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act in the year 2012-13. The information with regard to the financial transaction and source thereof was submitted from time to time. Eventually when the period for issuing notice under section 148 was about to expire, the Assessing officer issued the notice under section 148 of the Act. The return for the period was filed and return was assessed under section 143(3) read with section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing officer made the additions of Rs. 4,42,500 as unexplained income for which the Assessee could not offer satisfactory source of investment in respect of the above financial transaction. However, the assessee submitted the following information with regard to the above financial transaction: Total Investment Rs.1,10,72,500 Including Registration Charges Source of Investment In the year 2009-10 Rs. 21,00,000 Balance Rs. 89,72,500 In the year 2009-10 Withdrawals from ICICI Bank Rs. 85,30,000 Withdrawals from Hoshiarpur Central Co-op bank, Tanda R S Rs. 1,98,300 ITA No. 247/Asr/2018 Gurmit Kaur v. ITO 4 Receipts from Western Union Rs. 2,45,711 Agriculture Income Rs. 4,00,000 Total Source Rs. 93,74,011 The Assessing officer considered only the withdrawals from ICICI Bank Account only and made additions of Rs. 4,42,500. Aggrieved by the order the appeal was filed before the Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-I, Jalandhar. What the Honorable CIT (A) decided: 1. The Assessee challenged the re-opening of the case under section 147 being illegal, illogical and void ab-initio. The Assesee relied on various judgements of the High Court and Supreme Court in support of the contention. However, the matter was decided against the Assessee. 2. The documentary evidences in original in the shape of bank statement of Central Co-Operative Bank, Tanda Ram Sahai branch and the receipts of the western Union were submitted in original. Unfortunately, the Honorable CIT(A)-I neither considered nor made any reference in her Assessment Order. 3. The Honorable CIT(A)-I did not even discussed the case before making the disposals. So, she erred in her Assessment Order by mentioning that the Assessee did not provide any documentary evidence of the agriculture income. The question before the CIT (A)-I was not that the Assessee earned that income or not. The Assessing officer had already accepted that agriculture income earned by the Assessee. However, the Assessing officer did not give the credit of the agriculture income while calculating the source of investment by the Assessee. Pleading before the Honorable Bench: Your Honor, the bank statements of Hoshiarpur Central Co-op bank Limited, Western Union receipts (payment remitted by spouse to assessee), Fard Jamaband is of agriculture land holding forms part of the Assessment record. The AO ignored this fact and the CIT-A did not discuss the matter with the counsel. The AO accepted the agriculture income but failed to give the credit of ITA No. 247/Asr/2018 Gurmit Kaur v. ITO 5 the funds from operations. You are hereby prayed to kindly provide the relief by accepting the returned income.” 6. Per contra, the Ld. Addl. CIT, DR placed strong reliance on the impugned order. 7. Having carefully examined the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and in the light the written submission of the appellant assessee, we find that the CIT(A) has failed to grant adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee to come to decision of rejection of assessee’s submissions. It is noted that the ld. CIT(A) did not even discuss the facts of the arriving at the decision in confirming the addition made by the AO in her Assessment Order without giving credit of the agricultural income, though he has admitted the agricultural income of Rs. 4,00,000/- in the hand of the assessee based on documentary. In our view, the CIT(A)’s observation by mentioning that the Assessee did not provide any documentary evidence of the agriculture income without appreciating the facts as per record is unfair and unjustified to the assessee. In the present case, the question before the CIT (A)-I was not whether the Assessee earned that agriculture income but he was to examine that whether the Assessing officer did give the credit of the agriculture income while calculating the source of investment in purchase of the land by the Assessee. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, minor tax implications, the impugned order passed in mechanical manner, without application of mind by the Ld. CIT (A) is required to be set aside. ITA No. 247/Asr/2018 Gurmit Kaur v. ITO 6 8. In the above view, we accept the grievance of the assessee as genuine and accordingly, delete the addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 08.07.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (Anikesh Banerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(Appeals) (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order