Sh. Surjit Singh (deceased), Nawanshahr V. The Income Tax Officer, Nawanshahr

ITA 352/ASR/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 35220914 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 11-08-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: J S BHASIN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. I.T.A. NOS.352 & 353(ASR)/2009. (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1999-2000 & 2000-01 SHRI SURJIT SINGH THROUGH VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFI CER, L/H SH. NAVRAJ SINGH, NAWANSHAHR. NAWANSHAHR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND I.T.A. NO.354(ASR)/2009. (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-01 SHRI NAVRAJ SINGH, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAWANSHAHR. NAWANSHAHR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANTS BY: SHRI J.S. BHASIN, ADV. RESPONDENT BY: SH.MAHAVIR SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 13/02/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:24/02/2014 ORDER PER BENCH: THESE THREE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY TWO DIFFERE NT ASSESSEES AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS, ALL DATED 15-6-2009, PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), JALANDHAR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 AND 2 000-01. SINCE COMMON ITA NOS. 352 TO 354(ASR)/2009 2 FACTS AND ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS, THE SE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER F OR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED IDENTICAL GROUNDS IN ALL TH E APPEALS. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO.352(ASR)/2009 WHICH ARE ID ENTICAL IN OTHER TWO APPEALS EXCEPT VARIATION IN AMOUNTS, ARE REPRODUCED , FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) MISDIRECTED HIMSELF IN LAW AND FACTS, IN UPHOLDING THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE ITO BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147/148. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ITO IN DECLINING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF AGRICULTURE L AND WERE IN HUF CAPACITY AND THAT THE SAME WERE THEREFORE, NOT TAXABLE IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN REJECTI NG THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THE ASSESSEE SH. SURJIT SINGH HAVING DIED BEFORE THE FILING OF RETURN AGAINST NOTICE U/S 148, THE ITO OUGHT TO HAVE ISSUED FRESH NOTICE IMPLEADING ALL THE LEGA L HEIRS OF THE DECEASED, SANS WHICH, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS BAD IN LAW. 4. THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT IS LIABLE TO BE HEL D AS A NULLITY IN THE EYES OF LAW INASMUCH AS THE SAME HAS BEEN FRAME D TAKING COGNIZANCE OF AN INVALID RETURN FILED ON 23.11.2004 . 5. THAT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, MORE PARTICULARLY, THE AGRICULTURAL BACKGROUND OF ASSESS EE FAMILY, LACK OF AWARENESS AND PROPER GUIDANCE, THE ADDITION AL EVIDENCE FILED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, O UGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 6. THAT THE CREDITS IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNTS, WERE R ELATABLE TO EITHER SALE OF AGRICULTURE LANDS, OR AGRICULTURE PR ODUCE AVAILABLE ITA NOS. 352 TO 354(ASR)/2009 3 TO ASSESSEE AND FINDINGS TO THE CONTRARY BY THE ITO AND UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) ARE AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 7. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ADDITION OF (RS.16,87,180 + 18,70,500-1,46,950) RS.34,10,730/- AS WRONGLY MADE BY THE ITO, WAS NOT WARRANTED TO BE SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A). 8. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDI NG ALL THE ACTIONS OF THE ITO, BY WRONGLY TAKING COGNIZANCE O F VARIOUS DOCUMENTS AND STATEMENTS RELIED UPON BY ITO, INADMI SSIBLE IN EVIDENCE, MORESO, WHEN CROSS EXAMINATION OF PERSONS MAKING SUCH STATEMENTS WAS NOT ALLOWED. 9. THAT EVEN OTHERWISE, IN THE LIGHT OF MUTUALLY CO NFLICTING AND CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS OF THE SELLER, THE BUYER A ND THE WITNESSES, MADE AT DIFFERENT STAGES, THE ADDITION O F ALLEGED PAYMENT OF ON-MONEY BEYOND THE REGISTERED SALE D EEDS, OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT(A) RELYING UP ON THE APEX COURT DECISION (2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC) 10. THAT CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234A AND 234B HAS BEEN WRONGLY UPHELD. 11. THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS WHOLLY AGAINST LAW A ND FACTS OF THE CASE. 3. THE FACTS AS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO RE PEAT THE SAME FOR THE SAKE OF REPETITION. 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, ESPECIALLY THE ORDER OF THE R EVENUE AUTHORITIES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ITA NOS. 352 TO 354(ASR)/2009 4 ORDER WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED IN GROUND NO.5 IN ALL THE APPEALS. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE A DDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE , WHICH IS VERY MUCH ESSENTIAL FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE CASE. 5. FURTHER, THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS ARE INTER- CONNECTED AND SOME OF THEM ARE LEGAL ISSUES, WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FURNISH ED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AS PER MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND AFTER HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ARE NOT COMMENTING UPON THE MERITS OF THE CASE ON ALL THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE PRESE NT APPEAL, AS MENTIONED IN THE AFORESAID PARAGRAPH WHILE REPRODUCING THE GROUN DS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE RECALLED OUR ORDER DATED 24. 11.2009 BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME INADVERTENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER. IN FACT, A CLEAR DIRECTION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE ALL THE ISSUES IN VOLVED IN ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY APP RECIATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND DECIDED THE ISSUE BY PASSING THE IMPUG NED ORDER DATED 07.08.2013 IN COMPLIANCE TO THE DIRECTIONS CONTAINE D IN THE SET ASIDE ORDER OF THIS BENCH DATED 24.11.2009. HENCE, WE ARE PASS ING THE PRESENT ORDER ITA NOS. 352 TO 354(ASR)/2009 5 AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS D IRECTED TO DECIDE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE APPEALS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN T HE GROUNDS BEFORE HIM. 6. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT TH E ISSUES IN DISPUTE REQUIRE FRESH ADJUDICATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE FIRST APPELL ATE AUTHORITY AND THE SAME ARE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. F IRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE ALL THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS RAISED BY THE ASSESSES AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LA W AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND AS P ER OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THIS ORDER ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. ACCORDINGLY , ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASS ESSES ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24TH FEBRUARY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 24TH FEBRUARY, 2014 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:SH.SURJIT SINGH THROUGH L/H NAVRAJ SI NGH (II) SH.NAVRAJ SINGH, NAWANSHHAR. 2. THE ITO, NAWANSHAHAR. 3. THE CIT(A), JLR. 4. THE CIT,JLR. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. ITA NOS. 352 TO 354(ASR)/2009 6 TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR