The Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar V. Sh. Manmohan Singh Prop, Jalandhar

ITA 393/ASR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 39320914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 13-12-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R L CHHANALIA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.393(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 PAN :ALMPS9506N THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME-TAX, VS. SH. MANMOHAN S INGH, PROP. RANGE-1, JALANDHAR. M/S. RAMJI OIL PAINT, 105-106, DEOL NAGAR, JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH. R.L.CHHANALIA, DR RESPONDENT BY:SH.SURINDER MAHAJAN, CA DATE OF HEARING: 13 /12/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:14/12/2012 ORDER PER BENCH ; THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARISES FROM THE ORDER O F THE CIT(A), JALANDHAR, DATED 07.08.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.12,00,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH INTRODUCE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT. 2. THAT, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) BE SET-ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. ITA NO.393(ASR)/2012 2 3. THAT THE APPELLANT REQUESTS FOR LEAVE TO ADD OR TO AMEND OR ALTER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD AN D DISPOSED OFF. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE THAT THE AO NOTICED CASH OF RS. 12 LACS INTRODUCED IN THE ASSESSEES CA PITAL IN HIS PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN ON 05.01.2006. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT TH E AMOUNT HAD BEEN RECEIVED AS ADVANCE FOR SALE OF HIS PROPERTY SITUAT ED AT VILLAGE BOOTAN, TEHSIL JALANDHAR FROM SH. AMARJIT SINGH S/O SH. JIW AN SINGH, MUKERIAN. THE STATEMENT OF SH. AMARJIT SINGH WAS RECORDED ON 07.11.2008 BY THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX. THE AO POINTED OUT TO THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THIS STATEMENT SH. AMARJIT SINGH HAD DENIED MAKING ANY P AYMENT TO THE ASSESSEE OR EVEN OF HAVING ENTERED INTO ANY AGREEMENT. THE A O PROPOSED TO ADD THIS AMOUNT TO THE ASSESSEES TOTAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE DENIED THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO AND SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT OF SH. AMARJIT SINGH IN THIS REGARD. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE AFFIDAVIT OF SH. AMARJIT SINGH FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: I) HE HAD BEEN SIGNING IN ENGLISH. II) HE HAD NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF 12 LACS BUT OF RS.10,60,000/- ONLY. III) HE HAS STRESSED UPON THE RETURN OF RS.12 LACS AND N OT THE ADVANCE OF MONEY OF RS.12 LACS. IV) SH. AMARJIT SINGH IS HAVING BANK ACCOUNT IN (A) ORI ENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, MUKERIAN AND (B) HOSHIARPUR CENTRAL C OOP. BANK AT MUKERIAN. ITA NO.393(ASR)/2012 3 V) SH. AMARJIT SINGH RECEIVED THE MONEY ON 14.12.05 AT RS.10,60,000/- BUT THERE NO CORRESPONDING DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT BETWEEN 14.12.05 TO 02.01.2006(THE DATE OF ADVANCEMENT OF RS.12 LACS) VI) SH. AMARJIT SINGH WITHDRAWING FROM BANK ON 14.12.05 TO 02.01.06. VII) SH. AMARJIT SINGH HAD BEEN REGULARLY WITHDRAWING MO NEY FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNTS AFTER A DEPOSIT OF SOME CASH. VIII) THE RETURN OF MONEY BY CHEQUE AT RS.2 LACS WAS CRED ITED IN THE BANK A/C ON 30.03.07 AT RS.1,99,414/- AND THIS AMOU NT WAS WITHDRAWN ON 07.04.07 AT RS.1,95,000/-. IX) THE ENDORSEMENT ON THE BACK OF THE AGREEMENT FOR TH E RETURN OF MONEY APPEARS TO BE WRITTEN IN ONE SITTING THOUGH S HOWING DIFFERENT DATES FOR THE RECEIPTS OF PAYMENT. 2.1. THE AO HELD THAT ALL THESE FACTS PUT TOGETHER SHOWED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADOPTED A COLORABLE DEVICE TO INTRODUCE HIS OWN UNEXPLAINED MONEY IN THE GARB OF AGREEMENT AND ADDED THE SUM OF RS.12 LA CS TO THE ASSESSEES TOTAL INCOME. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS IN THE CASES OF CIT VS. K. MAHIM 214 ITR 820 (KER.), ITR VS. M.J. CHERIAN, 117 ITO 371(KER), A.S. SIVAN PILLAI VS. CIT 34 ITR 328 (MAD.). 3. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AN EX PLANATION BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO FORWARDED THE SAME TO THE AO FOR HI S COMMENTS. THE ASSESSEE IN REJOINDER FURTHER SUBMITTED THE EXPLANA TION. THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE PARA 8 OF HIS ORDER DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY TH E AO SINCE THE ASSESSEE AND WITNESSES HAVE CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTION. THERE IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF THE MONEY WITH THE ASSESSEE. CO NSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF ITA NO.393(ASR)/2012 4 THE FACTS, THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSE E WAS ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 5. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE O RDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SH. SURINDER M AHAJAN, CA ARGUED AND AT THE OUTSET INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PB 33 & 34 WHICH WAS THE STATEMENT TAKEN BY THE INSPECTOR OF THE A.O. OF SH. AMARJIT SINGH, IN WHICH HE HAD NOT IN FACT, DENIED OF ENTERING INTO TRANSA CTION. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED THAT HIS SON SH. JASBIR SIN GH EXECUTED AN AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF HOUSE AT JALANDHAR, WHICH WAS CANCE LLED, THE DETAILS OF WHICH HE IS NOT AWARE OF. THE SAID STATEMENT IS AVAILABLE AT PB 33 & 34. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT OF SH. AMARJIT SINGH CONFIRMING THE TRANSACTION AND EXPLAINED THE SOURCE AND EVEN SOURC E OF SOURCE. THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE AFFIDAVIT, THE EXPLA NATION OF WHICH HAS BEEN SUBMITTED VIDE PARA 5 OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. CIT (A) AVAILABLE AT HIS ORDER AT PAGES 5 TO 8. THE AO WAS DIRECTED BY THE L D. CIT(A) VIDE PARA 5 OF HIS ORDER TO CARRY OUT FURTHER INQUIRY BY SUMMONING SH.AMARJIT SINGH AND THE WITNESSES. THE AO SUMMONED SH. AMARJIT SINGH AN D THE WITNESSES AND RECORDED THEIR STATEMENTS IN WHICH THEY HAVE CONFIR MED ALL THE TRANSACTIONS ITA NO.393(ASR)/2012 5 AND THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THIS FACT. IN SUCH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE PARA 8 OF HIS ORDER HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT INQUIRY IN THE MATTER HAD BEEN DIRECTED TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE AO. THE AO AC CORDINGLY RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF SH. AMARJIT SINGH AND TWO WITNESSES, W HICH STATEMENT HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID STATEMENT, SH. AMARJIT SINGH AND THE TWO WITNESSES SH. JASPREET SINGH AND SH. PALWIN DER SINGH HAVE CONFIRMED ALL THE TRANSACTIONS. AS REGARDS THE SOUR CE OF SAID RS.12 LACS, COPY OF SALE DEED IS ON RECORD AT PB 39 TO 49, WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT THE AMOUNT HAD BEEN RECEIVED AS ADVANCE FOR SALE OF HIS PROPERTY SITUATED AT VILLAGE BOOTAN, TEHSIL JALANDHAR FROM SH. AMARJIT S ING S/O SH. JIWAN SINGH OF MUKERIAN. THEREFORE, THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY TH E ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY BEEN FOUND SATISFACTORY BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS EVEN EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF SOURCE. THE MINOR OBJECTION S RAISED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CANNOT HELP THE REVENUE SINC E FRESH INQUIRY WAS DIRECTED TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE A O. THE AO IN RESPONSE TO SUCH DIRECTIONS HAS RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF SH . AMARJIT SINGH AND TWO WITNESSES, AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE, WHO HAS CONFIR MED THAT THE TRANSACTION IS NOT UNDER DISPUTE. IN SUCH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, THE IDENTITY, ITA NO.393(ASR)/2012 6 CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION CAN NOT BE DOUBTED. THEREFORE, IN THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WHO HAS RIGHTLY DELETED TH E ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. THUS, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMIS SED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.393(ASR)/2012 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14T H DECEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 14TH DECEMBER, 2012 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:SH. MANMOHAN SINGH, JALANDHAR. 2. THE ACIT,R-1, JALANDHAR. 3. THE CIT(A), JALANDHAR. 4. THE CIT, JALANDHAR. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.