SHRI JASKARAN SINGH, BAREILLY V. ITO 1(2), Bareilly

ITA 39/LKW/2021

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Jaskaran Singh, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, Bareilly, which confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer under sections 147 and 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The additions were made following the reopening of the assessee's case due to non-filing of income tax returns, where the assessee had purchased immovable property. The Assessing Officer added the assessee's share of the property purchase and additional household expenses to his income. The First Appellate Authority dismissed the assessee's appeal, leading to the current appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123092 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 11-09-2023
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 29-03-2021
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Set aside
• Section: 147; 69; 148; 54B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.39/LKW/2021 A.Y. 2007-08 Income Tax Oficer-1(2), Bareilly Vs. Jaskaran Singh, Alsiya Boaj Faridpur, Baheri, Bareilly PAN DOJPS 9671R (Respondent) (Appellant) Shri Abhishek Khanna, CA Appellant by Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl.CIT( DR) Respondent by 12/09/2023 Date of hearing 27/09/2023 Date of pronouncement O R D E R This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 11.09.2020 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, Bareilly [hereinafter called the ‘CIT(A)] for A.Y. 2007-08. 2. The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee had purchased immovable property along with two other persons for a total consideration of Rs.36,25,000/- along with stamp duty charges of Rs.1,48,800/-. Since the assessee had not filed any return of income, the assessee’s 2 ITA No. 39/Lkw/2021 case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) and the assessee was required to explain the source of investment of his one third share in the purchase of property which came to Rs.12,57,933/-. However, since no reply was forthcoming from the assessee, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.12,57,933/-. The Assessing Officer also made further addition of Rs. 75,000/- on account of household expenses and the assessment was completed in terms of Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act at a total income of Rs.13,32,930/-. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. First Appellate Authority and it was the contention of the assessee before the ld. First Appellate Authority that the assessee was an agriculturalist having no taxable income and that during the year under consideration, the assessee’s father Shri Sukhvinder Singh had sold his agricultural land situated in Haryana worth Rs.38.68 lacs, which was utilized for the purpose of making the investment. The assessee also enclosed a copy of the sale deed executed by his father Shri Sukhvinder Singh. However, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal by holding that the assessee had failed to furnish 3 ITA No. 39/Lkw/2021 any supporting evidences in support of the contention that the said purchase was from the source of his father. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of the appeal by the ld. First Appellate Authority by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, additions by the LA AO as confirmed by the CIT(A) is bad in law, the order of CTT(A) deserves to be set aside. 2. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer has made the addition u/s 69 of the act on account of purchase property, explanation of the same was not accepted for the lack of evidences whereas all the evidences were placed before the Ld CIT(A), Bareilly, renders the order of Ld. CIT(A) bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 3. BECAUSE, on the facts and under the circumstances of the case no notice u/s 148 had ever been served upon the assessee renders the entire proceedings lack of jurisdiction and be quashed. 4 Because on the facts and under the circumstances of the case order passed by the Ld. AO also confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), Bareilly for the addition of Rs 75000/- as house hold expenses without any basis, since the assessee is a farmer and having income only from agriculture Le non taxable income, renders the entire addition of Rs 75000/- as household expense had in law and be deleted 5. Because, on the facts and under the circumstances of the case order passed by the Ld. AO also confirmed by the Ld CITAL, Bareilly for the addition of Rs 12,57,933/- u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 whereas the amount had been invested out of the receipts from sale of agriculture land in Haryana amounted to Rs 38.68 Lac for which the assessee is 4 ITA No. 39/Lkw/2021 eligible for deduction u/s 54B of Income Tax Act, 1961, renders the entire addition bad in law and be deleted 6. The humble assessee, craves for leave to add/amend any other ground with the prior permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal.” 5. At the outset, the ld. A.R. submitted that as per the memo received from the Registry of the Tribunal, the captioned appeal was filed belatedly by 108 days. The ld. A.R. submitted that the appeal was filed on 30.03.2021 and the delay had occurred due to the COVID-19, pandemic situation. The ld. A.R. referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein, vide order passed in suo moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2020, the limitation had been extended by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It was submitted that as per the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 was to be excluded in computing the limitation under different Acts. It was submitted that, therefore, there was no delay in filing of this appeal. 6. The ld. Senior D.R. fairly agreed that the delay in filing of the appeal was duly covered by the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court as aforesaid. 5 ITA No. 39/Lkw/2021 7. In view of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court. I hold that there has been no actual delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for regular hearing. 8. The ld. A.R. submitted that although the observation of the ld. First Appellate Authority was patently wrong that the assessee had not furnished any evidences, all the same, the assessee may be provided another opportunity to file the evidences on the issue and, it was prayed that the appeal may be restored to the file of the ld. First Appellate Authority so as to enable the assessee to file the required details/evidences. 9. Per contra, the ld. Senior D.R. had no objection to the file being restored to the Office of the ld. First Appellate Authority. 10. Having heard both the parties and having gone through the material on record, I restore this appeal to the office of the ld. First Appellate Authority with the direction to re-adjudicate the issue after giving proper opportunity to the assessee to file evidences in this regard. I also direct the assessee to fully comply with the notices being issued by the NFAC in the set aside proceedings. 6 ITA No. 39/Lkw/2021 11. In the final result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 27/09/2023) Sd/- (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Aks – Dtd. 27/09/2023 Copy of order forwarded to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner (4) Departmental Representative (5) Guard File Assistant Registrar