SHRI SANTOKH SINGH , KAPURTHALA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KAPURTHALA

ITA 38/ASR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7110 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 16-01-2019
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LALIT MOHAN JINDAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CAMP BENCH AT JALANDHAR BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.38/ASR./2018 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2009-10 SH. SANTOKH SINGH, C/O SH. DINESH SARNA, ADV., B- 18, VAKIL BUILDING, MODEL TOWN ROAD, JALANDHAR VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KAPURTHALA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. DBXPS4379R ASSESSEE BY : SH. ASHRAY SARNA, CA REVENUE BY : SH. LALIT MOHAN JINDAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 16.01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.01.2019 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.11.2017 OF LD. CIT(A)-2, JALANDHAR. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEA L: 1. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE CIT(A) DAT ED 14.11.2017 IS AGAINST THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE . 2. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, HONBLE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN PASSING THE IMPU GNED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 OF THE ACT BY R ECORDING INCORRECT FACTS AND THAT TOO WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE MANDATORY CONDITIONS U/S 147/148 AS ENVISAGED UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ITA NO. 38/ASR./2018 SANTOKH SING H 2 3. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN C ONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN MAKING ADDITION TO THE EXTE NT OF RS. 9,23,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOU NT, IGNORING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT CASH ACCUMULATED OF CASH WITHDRAWAL, AGRICULTURAL PROCEE DS AND SALE OF RURAL AGRICULTURAL LAND. 4. THAT IN ANY CASE AND IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN MA KING ADDITION OF RS. 9,23,000/- WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND WITHOUT OBSERVING T HE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, IS BAD IN LAW AND AG AINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, MODI FY, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 3. FROM THE ABOVE GROUNDS, IT IS GATHERED THAT THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE CONFIRMATI ON OF ADDITION OF RS.9,23,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEP OSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT. 4. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE AO RECEI VED AN INFORMATION FROM THE KAPURTHALA CENTRAL CO-OPERATIV E BANK LTD., KAPURTHALA THAT THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED RS.25,30,000 /- IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT. HE ISSUED A QUERY LETTER TO THE ASSES SEE TO VERIFY THE SOURCES OF THOSE DEPOSITS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DI D NOT FILE ANY REPLY. THE AO FRAMED THE BEST JUDGMENT U/S 144 OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.21,23,000/- WHICH WAS THE PEAK AMOUNT OF DEPO SITS. HE ALSO ADDED INTEREST ACCRUED ON THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT A MOUNTING TO RS.21,271/-. ITA NO. 38/ASR./2018 SANTOKH SING H 3 5. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND FURNISHED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION WHICH H AS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 4.2 OF THE IMP UGNED ORDER, ON THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) ASKE D THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO AND THE SAID REPORT HAS BEEN REPRO DUCED IN PARA 4.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, FOR THE COST OF REPETITI ON, THE SAME ARE NOT REPRODUCED HEREIN. THE LD. CIT(A) ASKED THE COM MENT OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO AND THE ASS ESSEE STATED THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE SOUR CES OF CASH ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF LAND ON THE GROUND THAT THE SALE DEED HAD NOT BEEN REGISTERED. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO OBSERVED T HAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED BY THE AO O N THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM ITD DATABASE AND THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.25,30,000/- HAD BEEN MADE IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE AO AFTER EXA MINING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AND REASONS GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LD. CIT( A) OBSERVED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.12,00,000/- HAD BEEN CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ON 15.10.2008 VIDE DD NO. 0 04619. HE ALLOWED THE RELIEF FOR THE SAID AMOUNT AND SUSTAINE D THE ADDITION OF RS.9,23,000/-. 7. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW A ND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE EVIDENCES RELATING TO THE CASH DEPOSITS WER E FURNISHED BEFORE THE LD. ITA NO. 38/ASR./2018 SANTOKH SING H 4 CIT(A) WHO ASKED THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO BUT DID NOT APPRECIATE THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ONLY ACCEPTED RS.12,00,000/- WHICH WAS RECEIVED THROUGH DRAFT BUT DID NOT CONSIDER THE OTHER SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IN RIGHT PERSP ECTIVE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WRONGLY CALCULATED THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.25,33,000/- WHILE THE ACTUAL DEPOSITS WERE OF ONLY RS.13,33,000/-. HE DRE W OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS PAGE NOS. 27 TO 29 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK WHI CH IS THE COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD AGRICULTURAL LAND MEASURING 20 KANAL 18 MARLA SITUATED AT VILLAGE DYA LPUR, TEHSIL DHILWAN, DISTRICT KAPURTHALA FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.20,00 ,000/- AND IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID CONTENTION, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ALONGWITH THE OLD FARD JAMABANDI AS AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962, BUT NEITHER THE AO NOR THE LD. CIT (A) APPRECIATED THE FACTS IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE AND THE LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION IN ARBITRARY MANNER. 8. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. DR STRONGLY SU PPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REITERATED THE OBSERVATIONS M ADE THEREIN. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CA SE, IT APPEARS THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDE R RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 HAD NOT BEEN APPRECIATED BY THE AUT HORITIES BELOW IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. THE LD. CIT(A) ONLY CONSIDERED THE DEP OSITS OF RS.12,00,000/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH DEMAND DRAFT AS GE NUINE BUT DID NOT APPRECIATE THIS FACT THAT THE PEAK WAS WRONGLY CALC ULATED BY THE AO. WE, THEREFORE, BY CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS , DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS LIMITED ISSUE RELATING TO THE ADDITION O F RS.9,23,000/- TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE W ITH LAW AND IF IT IS FOUND ITA NO. 38/ASR./2018 SANTOKH SING H 5 THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING A SOURCE OF RS.20,00,0 00/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE AGREEMENT OF THE SALE OF LAND AND THE PEAK WAS WRON GLY CALCULATED BY THE AO. HE SHOULD DECIDE THIS LIMITED ISSUE AFTER CONSIDERI NG THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ALREADY ON RECORD FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN ACC ORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 17/01/2019) SD/- SD/- (RAVISH SOOD) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER V ICE PRESIDENT DATED: 17/01/2019 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR