Sh. Balbir Singh, Yamunanagar V. ITO, Yamunanagar

ITA 340/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 34021514 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.340/CHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) SH.BALBIR SINGH, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, H.NO.1174, WARD 27, WARD 3, JAMMU COLONY, YAMUNANAGAR. YAMUNANAGAR. PAN: BKCPS3896R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ROHIT GOEL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI JITENDER KUMAR, DR DATE OF HEARING : 15.10.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.10.2015 O R D E R PER RANO JAIN, A.M . : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PANCHKULA DATED 5.2.2015 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE RETURN OF INCOME DURING THE Y EAR. UPON HAVING INFORMATION REGARDING THE INVESTMENTS M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF LAND, TO VERIFY THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS. THE 2 ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE RETURN IN PURSUANCE OF NOTIC E UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. IN SPITE OF ISSUE OF SEVER AL STATUTORY NOTICES, QUESTIONNAIRES AND SHOW CAUSE FO R COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ATTENDED THE PROCE EDINGS NOR WAS ANY WRITTEN COMMUNICATION FILED. IN THE A BSENCE OF THIS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE AMOUN T OF RS.46,38,500/- BEING PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF LAND , AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), AFTER GETTING SEVERAL ADJOURNMENTS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A LETT ER IN DAK ON 30.1.2015 AND IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SEMI LITERATE PERSON WITH A VERY HUMBLE BACKGROUND. HIS BROTHERS ARE TRUCK DRIVERS AND HE HIMSELF IS BARELY ABLE TO READ AND WRITE, EDUCATED UPTO MATRICULATION LEVEL AND HAS BE EN OBLIGED WITH A JOB OF BILTY CLERK BY HIS RELATIVES WHO ARE TRANSPORTERS. THE ASSESSEE NEVER UNDERSTOOD THE SERIOUSNESS AND T HE IMPLICATIONS OF INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS UNIM AGINABLE FOR HIM TO ACCEPT THE FACT THAT HE HAS BEEN ISSUED NOTICES BY INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. HE APPROACHED THE COUNSEL AG AINST THE ORDERS OF THE ITO, WARD-3, YAMUNANA NAGAR AND O N HIS REQUEST THE COUNSEL FILED THE APPEAL. HOWEVER, HE C OULD NOT GET ANY EVIDENCE EARLIER BUT NOW HE HAS LAID HIS HA NDS ON A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AN D SOME OTHER PERSONS WHO HAD ADVANCED HIM THE AMOUNT ON AN UNDERSTANDING THAT HE HAD TO ACQUIRE THE LAND IN HI S OWN NAME, AS THE PURCHASERS WERE NOT ON GOOD TERMS WITH THE 3 SELLER AND THEY WERE NOT SURE AS TO WHETHER THEY CO ULD ACQUIRE THE LAND IN THEIR NAME OR NOT. ALSO, SOME PART WAS ACQUIRED BY HIM FOR HIS OWN USE OUT OF FUNDS RECEIVED AGAINS T FAMILY SETTLEMENT WHEREIN HIS FATHER HAD ALIENATED HIS OWN ERSHIP RIGHTS IN THE ANCESTRAL PROPERTY IN VILLAGE PEKHRI, TEHSIL & DISTT. SAMBA, J&K. AN AFFIDAVIT TO THIS EFFECT FROM THE ASSESSEE WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPE ALS), REQUESTING TO GIVE HIM ONE OPPORTUNITY TO FILE THES E ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. 4. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) REJECTED THE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE OPPORTUNITY TO FILE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE AFFIDAVIT A ND THE AVERMENTS MADE THERE UNDER ARE ONLY SELF SERVING ST ATEMENTS, WHICH IS NOT BACKED BY ANY EVIDENCE. IN THIS WAY, HE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). REFERRING TO THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BEFOR E THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSE SSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS, HE DID NOT ATTEND THE SAME. IT WAS PRAYED THAT THE MATTER BE SENT BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS IN POSSESSI ON OF EVIDENCES AND MATERIAL TO DEFEND HIS CASE. THIS PR AYER WAS MADE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 6. THE LEARNED D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). 4 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BO TH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE S EE THAT IN THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS ), IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE, BEING A SEMI LITERATE PER SON COULD NOT UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITY, BEING UNAWARE OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE SAME. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ADDITION OF RS.46,38,500/- AND THE CONSEQ UENTIAL TAX LIABILITY ON THE SAME WOULD BE A VERY HUGE FINA NCIAL BURDEN FOR SUCH A PERSON. IN CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS A GOOD CASE BACKED BY RELEVANT MATERIAL AND EVIDENCES, IT WOULD NOT BE PROPER TO PENALIZE HIM WITH SUCH FINANCIAL LIABI LITY, JUST ON THE BASIS OF TECHNICALITY. IN THIS VIEW, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT HE MUST BE GIVEN AT LEAST ONE MORE FAIR OPPORT UNITY TO DEFEND HIS CASE. THEREFORE, WE RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WITH A DIRECTION TO THE ASSE SSEE TO PRODUCE ALL MATERIAL AND EVIDENCES BEFORE HIM IN AN EXPEDITIOUS MANNER AND NOT TO TAKE ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 21 ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (RANO JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 21 ST OCTOBER, 2015 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH