THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA V. SH. ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL, BATHINDA

ITA 307/ASR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4568 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 25-04-2018
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 25-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S NEGI LD
• Assessee Lawyers: J K GUPTA LD

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.307(ASR)/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), BATHINDA VS. SH. ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL, HUF #5074, MAL GODOWN STREET BATHINDA PAN:AADHA8052P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. S.S.NEGI (LD. DR) RESPONDENT BY: SH. J.K. GUPTA (LD. ADV.) DATE OF HEARING: 25.04.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29.05.2018 ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM: THE INSTANT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, ON FEELING AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.03.2017 IMPUGNED HEREIN PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-B ATHINDA FOR ASST. YEAR:2012-13. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE ALREADY ON RECORD, HENCE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY NOT REPEATED HEREI N. 3. AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENT OF THE CASE, THE LD. DR DID NOT AGITATE ALL THE FIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL SPECIFICALLY, H OWEVER, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CORRECT BECAUSE THE SAME IS BASED ON THE LOGICAL ITA NO.307/ASR/2017 (ASST. YEAR: 2012-13) ITO VS. SH. ASHOK KUMAR B ANSAL (HUF), BATHINAD 2 REASONING AND HENCE, REQUIRES TO BE UPHELD BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER IMPUGNED HEREIN PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR SH. J.K. GUPTA (ADV .) HAS SUBMITTED THAT ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE BY THIS HONBLE COURT AS THE SAME DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY PERVERSITY, ILLEGALITY AND IMPROPRIETY. 5. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS IT REFLECTS FROM THE ORDERS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.50 LACS AS ADVANCED ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND SHOWN AS LIABILITY IN THE BALAN CE SHEET ON THE BASIS OF FAMILY AGREEMENT MUTUALLY AGREED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND HIS RELATIVE. THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.50 LAC WAS RECEIVED BY WAY OF (ONE CHEQUE OF RS.20 LACS AND TWO CHE QUES OF RS.15 LACS). HOWEVER, THE DEAL COULD NOT BE FINALIZED AND THE ADVANCE MONEY OF RS.50 LACS WAS RETURNED IN APRIL, 2013 (SUBSEQUENT YEAR TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR), HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE A S GENUINE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY WRITTEN AGREEMENT AND A DDED THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.50 LACS IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO SOUGHT REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO TO VERIF Y THE RECEIVING OF ADVANCE AMOUNT AND RETURNING BACK IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR ON NON FINALIZATION OF THE PROPERTY D EAL UNDER ISSUE. THE REMAND REPORT WAS SUBMITTED ON 21 ST FEB. 2017 BY ACKNOWLEDGING THE FACT OF RECEIVING ADVANCE OF RS.50 LACS AND RETURN OF THE SAME IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR THROUGH BANKING ITA NO.307/ASR/2017 (ASST. YEAR: 2012-13) ITO VS. SH. ASHOK KUMAR B ANSAL (HUF), BATHINAD 3 CHANNELS, HOWEVER DOUBTED THE SAID TRANSACTIONS IN THE A BSENCE OF ANY WRITTEN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES. THE LD . CIT(A) WHILE CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT AND OBSERVING THAT THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION WAS A FAMILY AFFAIR AND NOT A REGU LAR BUSINESS DEAL WITH UNKNOWN PARTIES AND SPECIFICALLY THE VERIFI CATION OF THE FACTS OF ADVANCE AND RETURN OF THE AMOUNT UNDER CONSIDER ATION, DELETED THE ADDITION, WHICH ACCORDING TO OUR CONSIDERED VIEW DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY ILLEGALITY, PERVERSITY AND IM PROPRIETY BECAUSE FROM THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS AS WELL AS BANK STAT EMENT, IT CLEARLY REFLECTS THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.50 LACS HAS BEE N SHOWN AS ADVANCE MONEY QUA PROPERTY DEAL AND ON NON-MATURAT ION, THE SAME WAS RETURNED BACK TO THE PARTIES CONCERNED, HENCE , DOES NOT REQUIRES ANY INTERFERENCE. THE ABSENCE OF WRITT EN AGREEMENT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED AS ON ACCOUNT OF THE TRANS ACTION BETWEEN RELATED PARTIES. 6. IN THE RESULT , THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.05.2018 . SD/- SD/- (SANJAY ARORA) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDIC IAL MEMBER DATED:29.05.2018 /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) SH. ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL, (HUF), BATHINDA (2) THE ITO, WARD-1(1), BATHINDA (3) THE CIT(A)- BATHINDA (4) THE CIT CONCERNED. (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., AMRITSAR TRUE COPY BY ORDER