Sh. Harish Garg L/R Darshan Garg, Bathinda V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda

ITA 369/ASR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9569 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 13-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 05-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S KANWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Application of stay; Additional evidence
• Section: 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.369(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 PAN : AFNPG8779G SH. HARISH GARG, VS. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX , L/H OF SH. DARSHAN SINGH CIRCLE-1, C/O HOTEL SAGAR, G.T.ROAD, BATHINDA. BATHINDA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) S.A. NO.03(ASR)/2016 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.369(ASR)/2014) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 PAN : AFNPG8779G SH. HARISH GARG, VS. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX , L/H OF SH. DARSHAN GARG CIRCLE-1, C/O HOTEL SAGAR, G.T.ROAD, BATHINDA. BATHINDA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH.P.N.ARORA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY: SH. S.S. KANWAL, DR DATE OF HEARING: 13/07/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15/09/2016 ITA NO.369(ASR)/2016 A.Y. 2008-09 2 ORDER PER T.S. KAPOOR, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), BATHINDA, DATED 27.03.2014, RELATING TO ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS SIXTEEN GROU NDS OF APPEAL, WHEREIN THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) HAVE BEEN CHALLENGED. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS AS NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R ARE THAT SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 133A AT THE BUSINESS P REMISES OF M/S. HOTEL SAGAR, G.T.ROAD, BATHINDA, ON 19.09.2007. DUR ING THE SURVEY CERTAIN INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE IMPOUNDED AND DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE DOCUMENTS. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH T HE SUBMISSIONS AND THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF RECORDED STATEMENT OF TH E ASSESSEE AND ON THE BASIS OF THE DOCUMENTS IMPOUNDED DURING SURVEY, HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1,60,14,571/- ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS DISCREPAN CIES. THE MAJOR ADDITION OUT OF RS.1,60,14,571/- CONSISTED OF RS.4 4 LACS, WHICH THE AO HAD MADE ON ACCOUNT OF IKRARNAMA FOR PURCHASE OF PIECE OF LAND MEASURING 743.88 SQ. YDS. @ RS.15,800/- PER SQ. YDS FOR RS.44,00,000/- . THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THIS PLOT ALONGWITH FOUR OTHER PERSONS FROM SMT. MANJIT KAUR. THE SECOND MAJ OR ADDITION ITA NO.369(ASR)/2016 A.Y. 2008-09 3 CONSISTED OF RS.11.90 LACS, WHICH THE AO HAD MADE O N THE BASIS OF THE DOCUMENTS IN VARIOUS BUNDLES IMPOUNDED DURING THE S URVEY. IN THE BUNDLE, THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT HAVING BEEN MADE TO THE OWNER OF LAND SH.JAGDEV SINGH BY M/S. JAI JAWALA TRUST, I N WHICH SH. DARSHAN GARG WAS THE CHAIRMAN. THE AO HELD THAT SINCE M/S. JAI JAWALA TRUST WAS NOT REGISTERED ENTITY AND WAS NOT INCOME TAX AS SESSEE, THEREFORE, HE REGARDED THE TRUST AS A SOURCE FOR THE INVESTMENT OF SH. DARSHAN KUMAR GARG AND THEREFORE, MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.11.90 LA CS. THE ADDITION OF RS.75,00,000/- WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF MARRIAGE EXP ENSES OF SON OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS ADDITION WAS ALSO MADE ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS IMPOUNDED DURING THE SURVEY. FURTHER, ADDITION OF R S.15 LACS WAS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED INCOME EARNED BY TH E ASSESSEE FROM PROPERTY DEALINGS ON ACCOUNT OF BROKERAGE INCOME AN D BUSINESS OF CLOTH. ALL THE ADDITIONS WERE CONTESTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THESE ADDITIONS BY HOLDING AS UND ER: I) ADDITION OF RS.44 LACS 2.2 ACCORDING TO THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT THE ADDIT ION OF RS.44,00,000/- HAS BEEN MADE DESPITE THE FACT THE A GREEMENT IS UNSIGNED AND IT WAS NOT EXECUTED AS THE PROPERTY IS STILL IN THE NAME OF THE SELLER SMT. MANJIT KAUR. HE HAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE APPELLANT ONLY PAID RS. 700000/- THROUGH TWO CHEQUE S OF RS. 350000/- EACH AND SHE PAID BACK RS. 600000/- TO THE APPELLANT. THUS ACCORDING TO THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT NO ADDIT ION IS CALLED FOR ON THE BASIS OF THIS DOCUMENT 2.3 A CARELUL PERUSAL OF THE SUBJECT AGREEMENT PROV ES THAT IT IS A SPEAKING DOCUMENT AND NOT A DUMB DOCUMENT. THE YEAR OF TRANSACTION, OWNERSHIP OF TRANSACTION, NATURE OF TR ANSACTION AND THE COMPLETE FIGURES PROVES THAT IT IS AN AGREEMENT TO SELL THE ITA NO.369(ASR)/2016 A.Y. 2008-09 4 PROPERTY I.E. 743.88 SQ.YRD OF LAND @ RS. 15800/- P ER SQ.YRD AMONGST SMT. MANJIT KAUR AND FOUR PERSONS OUT OF ON E IS THE APPELLANT HIMSELF. THE DETAILS OF THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN RECORDED AS RS. 800000/- ON 22.08.2007 (CASH), RS. 700000/- ON 27.08.2007 (TWO CHEQUES), RS. 900000/- (CASH) WITH NO DATE AND RS. 2000000/- TO BE RECEIVED ON 30.01.2008 TOTALING TO RS. 4400000/-. THUS THE CONTENTION OF THE A/R OF THE AP PELLANT THAT IT IS A DUMB DOCUMENT STANDS REBUTTED. 2.4 IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT ONCE THE APPELLANT ADMIT S THE NOTINGS/CONTENTS OF THE SUBJECT DOCUMENTS HE IS UND ER AN OBLIGATION TO REBUT THE CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENT SO THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF THAT DOCUMENT. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE APPELLANT HAS ACCEPTED THE FACT TH AT RS. 700000/- WAS PAID BY HIM THROUGH PAYEE ACCOUNT CHEQUES OF RS . 350000/- EACH THEN THE ONUS IS UPON HIM TO PROVE THAT WHY TH E OTHER NOTINGS OF THE PAYMENTS WHETHER CASH OR THROUGH CHE QUES SHOULD NOT BE PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE. 2.5 REGARDING THE PAYMENT OF RS. 700000/- FOR WHICH BANK ACCOUNT HAS BEEN FURNISHED IN THE APPELLATE PROCEED INGS IT HAS BEEN STATED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AS UNDER:- THE RELEVANT BANK STATEMENTS COULD NOT BE PRODUCED AS THOSE COULD NOT BE PRODUCED FROM THE RELEVANT BANK DURING THE TIME PERIOD OF THE DEMAND BY THE AO. IN ANY CAS E, THE PRESUMPTUOUS SALE OR THIS GROUND IS HIGHLY UNJUSTIF IED. THE AO SHOULD HAVE ENDEAVORED TO EXAMINE THE BANK RECOR D AS ALSO TO EXAMINE THE SELLER MANJIT KAUR AND THE OTHE R FIVE CO- OWNERS MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT. HOWEVER, THE AO CHOSE TO HURRIEDLY FRAME THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT CARING TH AT THE EXTENT OF ADDITION IS MASSIVE. THE RELEVANT BANK AC COUNT, WHICH THE APPELLANT HAS NOW BEEN PROCURED FROM THE BANK IS BEING PRODUCED FOR INSPECTION BY THE HONBLE APPELL ATE COMMISSIONER. IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT EVERY THI NG AFORESAID IS NOT MUCH OF USE IN VIEW OF THE FACT TH AT THE AGREEMENT IN QUESTION WAS UNSIGNED AND THEREFORE A WASTE PAPER AND MAKES ALL THE ADDITIONS ON THIS POINT AS ILLEGAL' 2.6 THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO OBSERVE THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF INCOME LAX RULES, 1952 WHICH PROVIDE S THAT NO EVIDENCE WHICH WAS NOT FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO CAN BE FURNISHED IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS UNLESS IT IS PROVED TH AT THE SAME COULD NOT BE FURNISHED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS ON ACCOUNT OF THE REASONS AS GIVEN IN C LAUSE (A) TO CLAUSE (D) OF RULE 46A(1). THERE IS NO ATTEMPT BY T HE A/R OF THE ITA NO.369(ASR)/2016 A.Y. 2008-09 5 APPELLANT TO MAKE OUT A CASE BY PROVING THAT WHY TH E SUBJECT BANK ACCOUNT COULD NOT BE FURNISHED IN THE ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS RATHER HE HAS TRIED TO SHIFT THE ONUS OF THE AO BY STATING THAT THE BANK RECORD, MANJIT KAUR AND FOUR PARTIES (INCLUDIN G THE APPELLANT HIMSELF) SHOULD HAVE EXAMINED BY THE AO. IT IS SETT LED LAW THAT ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE EVIDENCE TO PROVE WHAT HE CONTENDS AND ONLY THEN THE AO IS UNDER AN OBLIGATIO N TO VERIFY THE EVIDENCE. IN THE PRESENT CASE NEITHER DURING THE CO URSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOR DURING THE APPELLATE PRO CEEDINGS THE OTHER THREE PARTIES WHO EXECUTED THE AGREEMENT ALON GWITH THE APPELLANT HAVE COME FORWARD TO PROVE THE SOURCE PAY MENTS MADE AS ADVANCE NEITHER THERE IS REBUTTAL BY SMT. MANJIT KAUR THAT SHE RECEIVED RS. 700000/- ONLY AND NO OTHER PAYMENT AS RECORDED IN THE AGREEMENT WAS RECEIVED BY HER. IN THE ABSENCE O F SUCH EVIDENCE THE AO RIGHTLY MADE ADDITION OF RS. 440000 0/- IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT WHICH DESERVES TO BE CONFIRM ED. THERE WAS NO REQUEST BY THE APPELLANT EITHER DURING THE COURS E OF ASSESSMENT OR APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS TO SUMMON THE OTHER THREE PARTIES AND THE SELLER SMT. MANJIT KAUR TO CONFIRM THE FACTS AN D WITHOUT SUCH REQUEST NEITHER THE AO NOR THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS) IS UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO EXAMINE THE CON CERNED PERSONS AS LAW HELPS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT OF THEIR LEGAL RIGHT AND NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARIFICATION, THE ADDITION OF RS. 4400000/- BEING CONFIRMED IN TOTALI TY IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT AS THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO BRI NG ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE OTHER THREE PARTIES MAD E PAYMENTS OF ADVANCE OF THEIR OWN SHARE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SU CH EVIDENCE THE ONLY ACTION WHICH CAN BE TAKEN IS TO MAKE THE A DDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. REGARDING THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH HAS BEEN FURNISHED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCE EDINGS TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF RS. 700000/- EVEN IF THE S AME IS ADMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS DOES NOT HELD TH E APPELLANT AS THE NOTING ON THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENT SAYS THAT THE PAYMENT OF RS. 700000/- WAS MADE THROUGH PAYEE ACCOUNT CHEQUES OF RS. 350000/- EACH ON 21 .QQ.2Q1 BUT IN THE PHOTOCOPY OF BANK ACCOUNT THE CHEQUE OF RS. 350000/- EACH HAS BEEN DE BITED ON 28.08.2007 AND 05.10.2007 FROM THE ACCOUNT OF DARSH AN GARG AND RS. 350000/- FROM THE ACCOUNT OF SH. RAJIV GARG AND THERE IS NOTHING IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS TO GIVE ANY CLAR IFICATION ON THIS ISSUE. FURTHER THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE PAYMENT OF RS. 600000/- RECEIVED BACK BY THE APPELLANT. THUS THE SAME DOES NOT HELP THE APPELLANT. 2.7 THE FACT THAT SMT. MANJIT KAUR STILL OWNS THE P LOT AND THE DEAL WAS CANCELLED HAS NO EFFECT ON THE ADDITION. T HE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO BECAUSE AT ONE POINT OF TIME TH E APPELLANT ITA NO.369(ASR)/2016 A.Y. 2008-09 6 MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.440000/- AND THE SOURCE OF TH E SAME HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT. II) ADDITION OF RS.11.90 LACS 5.2. ACCORDING TO THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT JAI J WALA TRUST, BATHINDA IS A SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITY HEADED BY FIFTE EN TRUSTEE AND THE AO HAS IGNORED THE EVIDENCE FURNISHED DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 5.3. FROM THE FACTS AS DISCUSSED IN DETAILS BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS APPARENT THAT ALL THE DOCUME NTS RELATED TO PURCHASE OF LAND BY M/S JAI JAWALA TRUST HAS BEEN E XECUTED BY THE APPELLANT AS THE CHAIRMAN OF JAI JAWALA TRUST T HU TRUST IS NEITHER REGISTERED WITH ANY AUTHORITY NOT IT IS AN INCOME TAX ASSESSEE. THUS THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FILED ANY EVID ENCE TO PROVE THAT M/S JAI JWALA TRUST IS A SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITY AND THE ONLY WAY TO DEAL WITH THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE DOCUMENTS IMPOUNDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY WAS TO MAKE T HE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF SH. DARSHAN GARG APPELLANT AS THE T RUST HAS BEEN USED ONLY FOR THE NAMESAKE. THE ACTION OF THE AO IS CONFIRMED AND THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,90,000/- IS UPHELD. THE GROU NDS OF APPEAL NO. 9 IS DISMISSED. III) ADDITION OF RS.75 LACS 6.3 AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF RS. 7500000/- MADE BY THE AO SEPARATELY ON ACCOUNT OF MARRIAGE EXPENSES OF SH. H ARISH GARG, ACCORDING TO THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT THE FINANCIAL OUTGOING ON SOME OF THE PAPERS RELATES TO MARRIAGE AND THE ADDI TION HAS BEEN MADE TWICE. BUT NO PRESENTABLE RECONCILIATION OF TH E IMPOUNDED RECORD HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO HELP THE APPELLATE AUTH ORITY TO PROPERLY ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE. REGARDING THE CONTEN TION OF THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURR ED BY SH. HARISH GARG. AS STATED EARLIER NO CONFIRMATION FROM SH. HARISH GARG HAS BEEN FILED EITHER DURING THE COURSE OF ASS ESSMENT OR APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 6.4 GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 12 IS VAGUE AND SKETCHY. IT SAYS THAT ONLY ONE SIDE OF LOOSE PAPER (OUTGOES) AND NOT THE OTHER SIDE (RECEIPTS) HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BUT T HIS ASPECT SHALL BE DISCUSSED IN DETAIL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ITA NO.369(ASR)/2016 A.Y. 2008-09 7 6.5 BUT IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS NO DETAILED EXPLANATION WITH CROSS REFERENCE TO THE ITEMS HAS BEEN FURNISHED. IN THESE TYPES OF CASES THE BENEFIT CAN ONLY BE GIVEN IF THE APPELLANT GIVES A COMPLETE ANALYSIS OF DATE WISE, PAGE WISE ANALYSIS OF THE FINANCIAL IMPLICATI ONS OF THE SEIZED RECORD TO HELP THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO ARRIVE AT A LOGICAL CONCLUSION WHICH IS MISSING. MOREOVER AT ONE STAGE THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT THESE ARE ONLY ROUGH PROJECTIONS WHI CH GIVES A CONTRADICTORY STATEMENT. 6.6. IN THE RESULT, THE ADDITION OF RS.4,84,336/- + RS.75,00,000/- ( ON THE MARRIAGE EXPENSES OF THE SON SH. HARISH GA RG) MADE BY THE AO IS UPHELD AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 10, 11 AND 12 ARE DISMISSED. IV. ADDITION OF RS. 15 LACS. 8.3 THE APPELLANT IN HIS STATEMENT BEFORE THE AO R ECORDED ON 23.11.2010 THAT HE WAS DOING BUSINESS OF BROKERAGE, REAL ESTATE AND WHOLESALE CLOTHS BUT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAS NOT B EEN PRODUCED ON THE PRETEXT THAT BOOKS WERE DAMAGED. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER STATED BY HIM IN ANSWER TO QUESTION NO. 3 THAT HE WAS NOT EARNING ANY INCOME FROM REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE AND IT WAS NOT IN CLUDED IN HIS INCOME TAX RETURN. THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT CAN BE ESTIMATED FROM THE FACT THAT HE INCURRED SUBSTANTIAL EXPENDIT URE ON THE MARRIAGE OF HIS SON AND HAS NOT KEPT ANY RECORD OF BROKERAGE DEALS, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY MAKING ESTIMA TE OF RS. 1500000/- IS UPHELD AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 1 4 IS DISMISSED. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET S UBMITTED THAT THE AO HIMSELF HAS HELD THAT THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY 1/4 TH AND STILL HE HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS NOT AT ALL JUSTIFIED. FURTHER, H E SUBMITTED THAT THE ALLEGED PIECE OF LAND IS STILL EXISTING IN THE NAME OF SMT. MANJIT KAUR, THE ALLEGED SELLER. HE SUBMITTED THAT NEITHER SMT. MANJ IT KAUR WAS EXAMINED ITA NO.369(ASR)/2016 A.Y. 2008-09 8 NOR OTHER PERSONS WERE EXAMINED AND THE ENTIRE ADDI TION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO IGNORED VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS IN THIS REGARD. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE R EMAND REPORT OF THE AO DATED 27.03.2014 STATED THAT THE SAID PROPERTY E XISTED IN THE NAME OF SMT. MANJIT KAUR. THEREFORE, IT WAS PRAYED THAT THI S ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES AND CONJECTURES AND THEREF ORE, NEEDS TO BE DELETED. 4.1. IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.11.90 LACS, IT WA S STATED THAT M/S. JAI JAWALA TRUST WAS A REGISTERED TRUST UNDER SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1860 HAVING INDEPENDENT ENTITY AND 15 MEMBERS AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY BY THIS TRUST IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AT ALL JUSTIFIED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY HELD THAT THE TRUST WAS NOT A SEPARATE ENTI TY. 4.2. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF RS.75 LCS, ON ACCOU NT OF ALLEGED MARRIAGE EXPENSES OF THE SON OF SH. DARSHAN GARG, T HE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT ALL ENTRIES NOTED IN THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS WERE NOT RELATED TO MARRIAGE EXPENSES AND IN THIS RESPECT OU R ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PB 75 TO 85. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. C IT(A) HAS UPHELD THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS THAT NO PRESENTABLE RECONCILI ATION OF THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS RECORDED WAS SUBMITTED. 4.3. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF RS. 15 LACS, THE LD . COUNSEL SUBMITTED THE AO HAD MADE AD-HOC ADDITION AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE SAME WITHOUT RECORDING ANY FINDING. ITA NO.369(ASR)/2016 A.Y. 2008-09 9 5. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED AND SPEAKING ORDER AFTER REC ORDING ALL THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS NO INFIRMI TY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WHICH SHOULD BE UPHELD. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IN RESPE CT OF ADDITION OF RS.44 LCAS, IT IS A FACT THAT THE AO HIMSELF HAS NOTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDER OF 1/4 TH SHARE OF THE ALLEGED PROPERTY. THEREFORE, ADDITION OF THE ENTIRE ALLEGED CONSIDERATION CANNOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, REMAND REPORT OF THE AO STATES THAT THE PROPERTY ALLEGEDLY SOLD BY SMT. MANJIT KAUR STILL EXISTS IN THE NAME OF SMT. MANJIT KAUR. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, WE DEEM IT APPROP RIATE TO REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDIC ATION ON THE BASIS OF COMPLETE VERIFICATION FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SUB RE GISTRAR. 7. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF RS.11.90 LACS, THE LD . COUNSEL HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE TRUST WAS A REGISTERED TRUST AND THEREFORE, NO SEPARATE ADDITION COULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE HAND S OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. C OUNSEL THAT THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD NOT HAVE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION IN T HE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITIO N HOLDING THAT THE TRUST WAS NOT A SEPARATE ENTITY. WHEREAS, THE LD. A R HAS ARGUED THAT THE ITA NO.369(ASR)/2016 A.Y. 2008-09 10 TRUST WAS A REGISTERED SOCIETY. TO RESOLVE THE ISSU E WE CONSIDER IT APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO WILL DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH ON THE BASIS OF THE DO CUMENTS SHOWING EXISTENCE OF TRUST. 8. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF RS.75 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF MARRIAGE EXPENSES, WE FIND FROM PAPER BOOK PAGES 75 TO 85, T HAT ALL THE EXPENSES NOTED IN THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS DO NOT RELATE TO MARRIAGE EXPENSES AS FEW OF THE ENTRIES ARE WITH RESPECT TO PROPERT Y DEALS. THEREFORE, THIS ADDITION ALSO NEEDS FURTHER VERIFICATION AND FRESH ADJUDICATION AND THEREFORE, THIS GROUND IS ALSO SET ASIDE TO THE FIL E OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. 9. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF RS. 15 LACS, WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS ARBITRARILY MADE THIS ADDITION, WHICH HAS BEEN CON FIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT MADE AN Y FINDING OF FACT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE INCOME HAS BEEN ESTIMATED. T HEREFORE, IT REQUIRES FRESH ADJUDICATION AND ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS REM ITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO. 10. THE OTHER ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE S MALL IN NATURE AND IN VIEW OF THE RE-ADJUDICATION OF MAJOR POINTS OF ADDITIONS, WE DEEM IT ITA NO.369(ASR)/2016 A.Y. 2008-09 11 APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THE REST OF THE ADDITIONS ALSO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. 11. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSEE WILL BE PROVIDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS CASE IN FRESH PROCEEDING S. 12. AS REGARDS THE STAY APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE , THE SAME HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS, SINCE WE HAVE SET ASIDE THE O RDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND STAY APPLICATION IS DISMISSED AS INFRU CTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15/09/2016 . SD/- SD/- (A.D. JAIN) (T.S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /SKR/ DATED: 15/09/2016 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:SH. HARISH GARG, BATHINDA. 2. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA. 3. THE CIT(A), BATHINDA 4. THE CIT, BATHINDA. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.