SHRI RAHUL SHARMA, JALANDHAR V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

ITA 347/ASR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7062 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VEDPAL SINGH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 143(2)

Judgement Text

PAGE | 1 ITA NO.347/ASR./2018 A.Y. 2015-16 SHRI RAHUL SHARMA VS. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CAMP BENCH AT JALANDHAR BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.347/ASR./2018 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16) SHRI RAHUL SHARMA 45, AMANDEEP AVENUE, MAQSUDAN, JALANDHAR. VS. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1 JALANDHAR. PAN CAIPS1799G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI ASHRAY SARNA, A.R RESPONDENT BY: SHRI VED PAL SINGH, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 07.01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15.01.2019 O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-1, JALANDHAR, DATED 29.03.2018, WHICH IN TURN ARISES FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT I.T ACT), DATED 22.12.2017 FOR A.Y. 2015-16. THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS RAISED BEFORE US MULTIPLE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT A.R) FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ONLY GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 5 IS BEING PRESSED. WE THUS IN TERMS OF THE CONCESSION ON THE PAGE | 2 ITA NO.347/ASR./2018 A.Y. 2015-16 SHRI RAHUL SHARMA VS. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE 1 PART OF THE LD. A.R CONFINE OURSELVES TO THE ADJUDICATION OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 5, WHICH READS AS UNDER: THE CONCLUSION DRAWN ON ACCOUNT OF CLAUSE 8 MISMACH IN RECEIPTS SHOWN FROM PROFESSION IS ERRONEOUS AND NEEDS TO BE REVERSED. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE TAX ON PROFESSIONAL INCOME OF RS.3,38,801/- HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID IN F.Y 2013-14 (A.Y. 2014-15). THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT NEEDS TO BE DELETED. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE WHO IS A PROFESSIONAL CRICKETER HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.09.2015, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,08,80,510/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 143(2) OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O THAT WHILE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS IN HIS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,92,79,284/-, HOWEVER AS PER 26AS THE SAME STOOD REFLECTED AT RS.1,96,18,085/-. THE A.O CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.3,38,801/- [RS. 1,96,18,085/-(-) RS. 1,92,79,284/-] AS HAD EMERGED IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTS. AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE ANY EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID DIFFERENCE IN RECEIPTS, THEREFORE, THE A.O ADDED THE SAME TO HIS RETURNED INCOME. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PLACE ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM, THUS THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE AFORESAID ADDITION OF RS. 3,38,801/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS. 5. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. IN THE COURSE OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT A.R) FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE IMPUGNED VARIANCE OF RS.3,38,801/- ALREADY FORMED PART OF THE PROFESSIONAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR, VIZ. A.Y. 2014-15. IT WAS AVERRED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FAILING TO APPRECIATE THE GENESIS OF THE AFORESAID MISMATCH OF RS.3,38,801/-, HAD THUS WRONGLY PAGE | 3 ITA NO.347/ASR./2018 A.Y. 2015-16 SHRI RAHUL SHARMA VS. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE 1 BROUGHT THE SAME TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. A.R THAT IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTUAL POSITION THE ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED AND WAS THUS LIABLE TO BE VACATED. 6. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT D.R) RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,38,801/- WAS INCLUDED IN HIS INCOME FOR THE PRECEDING YEAR VIZ. A.Y 2014-15, THEREFORE, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD RIGHTLY ADDED THE SAME TO HIS RETURNED INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WAS AVERRED BY THE LD. D.R THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO RAISE THE AFORESAID CLAIM IN THE COURSE OF THE PRESENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES FOR BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE PROFESSIONAL INCOME OF RS.3,38,801/- HAD ALREADY BEEN ASSESSED IN HIS HANDS IN THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2014-15. HOWEVER, AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS AFORESAID CLAIM, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAD UPHELD THE SAID ADDITION. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE SPECIFIC CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PROFESSIONAL INCOME OF RS.3,38,801/- UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD ALREADY BEEN ASSESSED IN HIS HANDS IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR VIZ. A.Y. 2014-15, REQUIRES TO BE VERIFIED, FAILING WHICH THE SAME WOULD LEAD TO TAXING OF AN INCOME TWICE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE THUS IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O FOR MAKING NECESSARY VERIFICATIONS. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE A.O SHALL IN THE COURSE OF THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDING AFFORD A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS AFORESAID CLAIM THAT THE PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS OF RS. 3,38,801/- UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS ALREADY ASSESSED IN HIS HANDS IN THE PRECEDING YEAR VIZ. A.Y 2014-15, THEN PAGE | 4 ITA NO.347/ASR./2018 A.Y. 2015-16 SHRI RAHUL SHARMA VS. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE 1 THE ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT MADE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION SHALL STAND VACATED. 8. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15.01.2019 SD/- SD/- ( N.K. SAINI) (RAVISH SOOD) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: JALANDHAR; DATE: 15 .01.2019 PS. ROHIT / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. / CIT 5. , / DR, ITAT, CAMP BENCH, JALANDHAR 6. [ / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) /ITAT, CAMP BENCH, JALANDHAR. PAGE | 5 ITA NO.347/ASR./2018 A.Y. 2015-16 SHRI RAHUL SHARMA VS. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE 1 SR.NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 15.1.19 SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 15.1.19 SR.PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 16.1.19 SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 10 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER