Smt. Amarjit Kaur, Ludhiana V. ITO, Ludhiana

ITA 291/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5155 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 13-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCHB, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.291 & 292 /CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2008-09 SMT. AMARJIT KAUR VS. THE ITO 386-R, MODEL TOWN WARD VI(1) LUDHIANA LUDHIANA PAN NO. ACCPK3244L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. SUDHIR SEHGAL REVENUE BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 21/03/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22/03/2018 ORDER PER BENCH: BOTH THE ABOVE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSES SEE AGAINST THE SIMILAR ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-4, LUDHIANA DT. 16/ 12/2016. 2. SINCE THE ISSUES RAISED IN BOTH THE ABOVE APPEAL S ARE COMMON THEREFORE THEY ARE BEING DECIDED BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. WE SHALL TAKE ITA NO. 291/CHD/2017 AS A LEAD CASE I N WHICH ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE WORTHY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,44,500/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE RETURNED INCOME. 2. THAT WHILE MAKING THE ABOVE AID ADDITION OF RS. 11, 44,500/- THE WORTHY CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER IN ADOPTING THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF VI PORTION OF PROPERTY (SOLD DURING THE YEAR) AT RS. 4 5,15,000/- ON THE BASIS OF FIRST AGREEMENT OF SALE, DATED 02.04.2 005.(TOTAL SALE VALUE BEING RS. 90,30,000/-). 3. THAT THE WORTHY CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERIN G THAT FIRST AGREEMENT OF SALE, DATED 02.04.2005 FOR RS. 90,30,000/- WAS CANC ELLED AND ANOTHER AGREEMENT TO SELL FOR THE SAME PROPERTY WAS MADE ON 30.12.200 6 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 55,00,000/- AND, THUS, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE REVISED AGREEMENT DUE TO THE LITIGATION IN RESPECT OF TITLE OF THE PROPERTY. 2 4. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE ST ATEMENT OF SH. KANWAR RANBIR SINGH (PURCHASER) AS RECORDED DURING THE COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 5. THAT THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO CONSIDER AND REJECTED THE 2 ND AGREEMENT TO SELL, DATED 30.12.2006 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.55,00,000/- ON WHICH, ACTUAL SALE CONS IDERATION WAS MADE, SIMPLY ON GUESS WORK AND WITHOUT GIVING ANY SPECIFIC REASO N. 6. THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE WORTHY CIT(A) AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 7. THAT THE DETAILED SUBMISSION FILED DURING THE COURS E OF HEARING AT PARA 7.1 OF THE ORDER AT PAGE 4, 5 & 6 OF THE CIT'S ORDER, H AS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE CIT(A), WHILE DISPOSING OF THE ORDER. 3. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PA RTIES. 4. REGARDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,44,500/- BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE ORDER WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE REASONS FOR UPHOLDING THE ADDITION AFTER THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY ASSE SSEE. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) READS AS UNDER: IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE STATED FACTS AND IN CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FULLY JUSTIFI ED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 11,44,500/- IN THIS CASE BY TAKING SALE CONSIDERATI ON OF HALF PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AT RS. 45,15,000/-. THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,44,500/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS CASE BY TAKING SALE CONSIDERATION OF HALF PORT ION OF THE PROPERTY AT RS. 45,15,3000/- IS THEREFORE UPHELD. 5. SINCE NO REASONS HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED IN THE ORDE R, THE MATTER IS BEING REFERRED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH DI RECTIONS TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER ON THE ISSUE. BOTH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES HAVE ALSO CONCEDED TO THE PROPOSAL OF SETTING ASIDE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A). 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE ABOVE APPEALS OF THE ASS ESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (B.R.R.KUM AR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 22/03/2018 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR