Smt. Amarjit Kaur, Ludhiana V. ITO, W-6(1), Ludhiana

ITA 40/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1496 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MODIT SRIVASTAVA SR DR
• Keywords: Gift; Rule of consistency
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

, .. , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BEN CHES, SMC CHANDIGARH .., ! BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT ITA NOS.40 & 41/CHD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07 & 2008-09 SMT. AMARJIT KAUR 386-R, MODEL TOWN LUDHIANA THE ITO WARD-6(1), LUDHIANA PAN NO:AFWPS0637N APPELLANT RESPONDENT !' ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL, ADVOCATE #!' REVENUE BY : SHRI MODIT SRIVASTAVA, SR. DR $ %! & DATE OF HEARING : 12/06/2019 '()*! & DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14/06/2019 '#/ ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT BOTH THE ABOVE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSES SEE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDER EACH DT. 25/10/2018 OF LD. CIT(A)-4, LUDHIANA . 2. AT THE FIRST INSTANCE, I WILL DEAL WITH ITA NO. 40/CHD/2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 WHEREIN ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING G ROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-4 , LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN M AKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,44,500/- BY TAKING THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF 1/2 PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AT RS. 45,15,000/-. 2. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT T HAT IN THE CASE OF CO-OWNER NAMELY SH. INDERTEJ PAL SINGH (HUSBAND), THE CIT(A) VIDE ORDER, DATED 20.06.2018 HAS ALREADY DELETED SUCH ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF SAME FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND, AS SUCH, THE ADDITION AS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS AGAI NST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THAT THE CIT(A) WAS FULLY APPRISED BY WAY OF SUBMIS SIONS ALONGWITH PAPER BOOK, WHEREIN, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), DATED 20.06.2018 HAVE BEEN FILED AND WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DISCUSSED AT ALL BY THE LD. CIT(A). 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD OR DISPOSED OFF. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 26/04/2013 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 90,000/-. THE REAFTER THE A.O. REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT) ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM AD I(INV.)-III, LUDHIANA. THE A.O. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTICED THAT T HE ASSESSEE WAS CO-OWNER OF THE PROPERTY NO. BXIX/446 MEASURING 601-2/3 SQ. YARDS IN WHICH SHE HAD SHARE AND HER HUSBAND WAS ALSO THE OWNER OF SHARE. HE ALSO OBSE RVED THAT SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF SHRI KANWAR RANBIR SINGH DHIL LON(PURCHASER) AND TOTAL CONSIDERATION @ RS. 15,000 PER SQ. YARDS CAME TO RS . 90,30,000/- WHERE AS THE ASSESSEE 2 HAD SHOWN HER SHARE AT RS. 25,00,000/- AS AGAINST R S. 45.15 LACS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SHE WAS OWNER OF 300 SQ. YARDS BEING SHARE A ND RECEIVED PAYMENT AS UNDER: I) RS. 1,00,000/- AS BIANA VIDE CH. NO. 164119 DT. 02/ 04/2005 II) RS. 9,00,000/- AS BIANA VIDE CH. NO. 164118 DT. 11/ 04/2005 III) RS. 5,00,000/- VIDE CH. NO. 849516 DT. 06/05/2005 D RAWN ON ICICI BANK IV) RS. 10,00,000/- IN CASH 04/08/2005 V) RS. 10,00,000/- VIDE CH. NO. 910132 DT. 13/08/2005 DRAWN ON PNB BANK BRS NAGAR BRANCH, LUDHIANA 4. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT AS PER REVISED AGREEMENT DT. 19/09/2005 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES FOR EXTENSION OF DATE OF SA LE DEED, THE SALE DEED DATE WAS FIXED AS 25/12/2005 AND IN THIS AGREEMENT THE PAYME NT OF RS. 35,00,000/- MADE BY THE PURCHASER AND THE RATE OF LAND @ RS. 15,000/- PER S Q. YARDS HAD BEEN CONFIRMED. THE A.O. MADE ADDITION OF RS. 11,44,500/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO SUSTAINED THE ADDITION. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE M ATTER TO THE ITAT BENCH B CHANDIGARH WHEREIN VIDE ORDER DT. 22/03/2018 THE MA TTER WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A). IN COMPLIANCE TO THE SAID DIRECT ION THE LD. CIT(A) DECIDED THIS ISSUE. HE REPRODUCED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSE E IN PARA 5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, FOR THE COST OF REPETITION THE SAME IS NOT REPRODUC ED HEREIN. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED TO THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE SAID PROPERTY WAS SOLD VIDE AGREEMENT TO SALE DT. 02/04/2005 FOR RS. 90,30,000/-. SUBSEQUENTLY THE SA LE AGREEMENT WAS REVISED BY THE PARTIES ON 30/12/2006 TO RS. 55,00,000/- AND THAT T HE SALE DEED OF SHARE OF THE PLOT WAS EXECUTED AT RS. 25,00,000/- ON 22/12/2005 THE O THER SALE DEED OF THE PROPERTY WAS EXECUTED AT RS. 30,00,000/- ON 18/04/2007. IT WAS P OINTED OUT THAT WHEN THE PURCHASER HAD CAME AWARE TO THE SUIT FILED BY MRS. RAJINDERWA NT KAUR SISTER OF DONAR OF THE PROPERTY TO THE CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE SOCIETY FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF T HE TRANSACTION WAS REDUCED TO RS. 55,00,000/-. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THERE WAS DISPUT E REGARDING GIFT OF PROPERTY TO THE CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE SOCIETY WHICH HAD TAKEN N OTE OF IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALSO. A REFERENCE WAS ALSO MADE TO THE ORDER OF HON 'BLE COURT CIVIL JUDGE(JR. DIV) LUDHIANA IN THE CASE OF RAJINDERWANT KAUR VS. GURVI R SINGH DHILLON ETC. IN CIVIL SUIT NO. 293 OF 10/10/2001 DT. 14/08/2006 WHICH HAS BEEN INC ORPORATED IN PARA 5.2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITI ON BY OBSERVING IN PARA 5.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER: 5.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE C ASE AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THE PROPERTY AT SANT NAGAR QUESTION WAS PURCHASED BY TH E ASSESSEE ALONGWITH HER HUSBAND FOR RS.42 LACS ON 29.10.2004. VIDE AGREEMENT TO SEL L DATED 02.04.2005, THE PROPERTY WAS AGREED TO BE SOLD AT THE RATE OF RS. 15000 PER SQUA RE YARD I.E. FOR RS.90,30,000/- (601 X 15,000). AS PER THIS AGREEMENT TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.35,00,000/ - WAS RECEIVED BY THE SELLERS TILL 13.08.2005. 3 IT IS OBSERVED THAT ON 23.12.2005, THERE WAS REGIST RY OF THE PROPERTY FOR RS.25,00,000/- FOR 1/2 PROPERTY. AFTER ALREADY HAVI NG RECEIVED RS.35,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF PROPERTY, THE REGISTRY WAS MADE ONLY FOR RS .25,00,000/- BY THE PARTIES. IT IS OBSERVED THAT ON 15.10.2005 A NOTICE FOR CLAI M OF DAMAGES WAS FILED BY SH. KANWAN RANBIR SINGH TO THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND AND AC CORDINGLY A SUIT WAS FILED IN COURT ON 10.12.2005 WHICH WAS DISMISSED ON 11.03.2006. DURIN G THE PENDENCY OF SUCH SUIT VI OF THE PROPERTY WAS REGISTERED AS SOLD FOR RS.25,00,000/- ON 23.12.2005 ITSELF. WHEN, THE PURCHASERS - SH. KANWAR RANBIR SINGH HAS PAID RS.35,00,000/- T O THE SELLERS AND HAS FILED A SUIT ALSO AGAINST THE SELLERS, WHY ONLY PART AMOUNT OF RS.25 LACS WAS GOT REGISTERED AS AGAINST OF PAYMENT ALREADY MADE OF RS.35 LACS IS NOT EXPLAINED . SUBSEQUENTLY ON 18.04.2007, BOTH THE PARTIES ENTERED INTO ANOTHER AGREEMENT AT RS.30 ,00,000/- FOR SALE OF THE SAME PROPERTY. THUS, TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY WAS RECEIVED AT RS.55,00,000. THE HON'BLE CIVIL COURT AT LUDHIANA HAS MADE FOLLOW ING OBSERVATIONS IN PARA 10 OF THE ORDER MENTIONED IN PARA 5.2 ABOVE. MOREOVER, AFTER FILING OF THE PRESENT APPLICATION, THEY GOT REGISTERED THE SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF KANWAR RANBIR SINGH BY TAKING RS. 4500000 /- OF HALF OF THE PROPERTY THAT IS 300 SQUARE YARDS IN FAVOUR OF KANWAR RANBIR SINGH. COPY OF THE SALE DEED IS ALSO ON THE FILE WHICH SHOWS THAT THE SALE DEED WAS REGISTERED IN FA VOUR OF KANWAR RANBIR SINGH TO THE TUNE OF RS. 2500000/-. IT IS CATEGORICALLY STATED B Y THE APPLICANTS THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD TO THE TUNE OF RS.45,00,000/-. WHEREAS THE SALE DEE D WAS REGISTERED TO THE TUNE OF RS.25,00,000/-. IT IS A CLEAR CUT CASE OF EVASION O F STAMP DUTY BUT THIS COURT CANNOT TAKE COGNIZANCE ABOUT THE EVASION OF THE STAMP DUTY BECA USE IT IS THE DUTY OF THE REVENUE COURT TO TAKE CARE OF THIS TYPE OF EVASION, BUT THE CONDUCT OF THE APPLICANT CAN BE SEEN AT THIS STAGE. FIRST OF ALL APPLICANTS INDER TEJPAL SINGH MATERIAL LY CONCEALED THE FACT THAT HE HAD EXECUTED AND AGREEMENT OF SALE FOR WHOLE OF THE PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF KANWAR RANBIR SINGH. EVEN THE APPLICANT DID NOT TAKE CARE OF THIS THING THAT HE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT WITH HIS APPLICATION. IT SEEMS THAT THE APPLICANT INDER TEJPAL SINGH HAS NO REGARDS OR RESPECT FOR THE COURT AND HE VOLUNTARILY AND KNOWINGLY CONCEALE D THE MATERIAL FACTS. NOW REGARDING THE OTHER APPLICANT KANWAR RANBIR SINGH HE IS ALSO ON THE SAME FOOTING, WHEN IT WAS IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF APPLICANT KANWAR RANBIR SINGH WHO IS W ELL EDUCATED AND RETIRED PROFESSOR, HE CATEGORICALLY STATED IN THE COURT ON OATH THAT T HERE WAS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN HIM AND OTHER APPLICANTS FOR RS. 90 LACS OF WHOLE OF TH E PROPERTY AND THIS AGREEMENT WAS REVISED BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND HE PURCHASED THE HA LF OF THE PROPERTY FOR RS. 25 LACS. HE ALSO EVADED THE STAMP DUTY IN KNOWINGLY OR VOLUNTAR ILY. IT IS NOTED THAT THE ABOVE ADVERSE REMARKS OF THE H ON'BLE COURT HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE HON'BLE COURT HAS CLEARLY OBSE RVED THAT DURING THE PENDENCY OF SUIT THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AN D THE PROPERTY WAS REGISTERED AT MUCH LESS AMOUNT AS AGAINST THE AGREED AMOUNT AND T HE STAMP DUTY WAS EVADED KNOWINGLY OR VOLUNTARILY. THOUGH SH. KANWAR RANBIR SINGH FILED A SUIT FOR DAMAGES AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND FOR PROPOSING TO SELL A DISPUTED PROPERTY, SIMULTANEOUSLY A REGISTRY OF THE PART AMOUNT OF RS. 25,00,000/- OUT OF TOTAL RS.35,00,000/- PAID WAS MADE, DURING THE PENDENCY OF SUCH SUIT. THOUGH THE SUIT F ILED BY SH. KANWAR RANBIR SINGH FOR DAMAGES WAS DISMISSED AT A SUBSEQUENT DATE. THESE F ACTS SHOW THAT SELLERS AND PURCHASERS OF THE PROPERTY HAVE ENTERED INTO THE SE COND AGREEMENT AT REDUCED PRICE OF RS.55 LACS ONLY TO AVOID TAXES. THE SALE OF PROPERT Y WAS AGREED TO BETWEEN PARTIES AT RS.90,30,000/-. THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN E XECUTED BETWEEN THE PARTIES. THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSING THE PR OPORTIONATE SALE CONSIDERATION ON THE BASIS OF TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.90,30,000/- IS UPHELD. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT SALE CONSI DERATION OF THE PROPERTY IS CONFIRMED. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AN IDE NTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE CIT-1, LUDHIANA IN THE CASE OF SHRI INDERTEJ PAL SI NGH HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE WHO IS CO- OWNER OF THE SAME PROPERTY HAVING A SHARE FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, VIDE ORDER DT. 20/06/2018 WHEREIN THE SIMILAR ADDIT ION MADE BY THE A.O. WAS DELETED, COPY OF THE SAID ORDER WAS FURNISHED WHICH IS PLACE D ON RECORD. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT NO FURTHER APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE SAID ORDER. IT WAS 4 CONTENDED THAT THE CONSISTENCY WAS REQUIRED TO BE M AINTAINED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NO T JUSTIFIED. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS : BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2004) 266 ITR 99 (SC) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. LEADER VALVES LTD. ( 2007) 295 ITR 273 (P&H) 8. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. SR. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND REITERATED THE OBSERVATIONS MADE THE REIN. 9. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS NOTICED THAT A SIMILAR ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE WHO IS CO- OWNER OF THE SAME PROPERTY, HAVING SIMILAR SHARE I.E , AS HAD BEEN HELD BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DT. 20/06/2018 IN APPEAL NO. 153/ IT/CIT(A)-I/LDH./2014-15. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN PARA 13 WHICH READ AS U NDER: THE AFORESAID FACTS OBTAINING IN THE CASE OF THE AP PELLANT AS ALSO THE SUBMISSIONS IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY E XAMINED, PERUSED AND CONSIDERED. FACTS AS OUTLINED ABOVE LEAVE NO DOUBT AS TO THE SPATE OF LITIGATION SURROUNDING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. WHEN THE APPELLANT ACQUIRED THE HOUSE PRO PERTY IN QUESTION FROM CMC, HE HAD NO INKLING OF THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY WHICH HAD BEEN DONATED TO CMC AND HAD BECOME ITS EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY, SHALL BECOME LITIGIO US ON ACCOUNT OF A SUIT FILED BY SISTER OF THE DONOR OF THE SAID PROPERTY. IT WAS ONLY WHEN TH E APPELLANT DECIDED TO SELL THE PROPERTY TO ANOTHER PURCHASER THAT THIS DISPUTE CAME TO LIGH T. IT CANNOT ALSO BE DENIED THAT DISPUTED PROPERTY WITH IMPERFECT TITLE, DOES RESULT IN LESSER PRICE THAN THE PREVAILING MARKET RATE. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CASE OF THE APPE LLANT, AS IS BORNE OUT BY THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS PLACED BEFORE THE AO AND ALSO ADDUCED IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE B Y THE APPELLANT CAME IN DISPUTE BECAUSE OF THE PLAINTIFF, SMT. RAJINDERWANT KAUR FI LING A SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST HER BROTHER WHO HAD GIFTED THE S AID PROPERTY TO CMC VIDE 'GIFT DEED' DATED 26/07/2001 BEARING VASIKA NO. 5105. WHEN THIS FACT CAME TO BE KNOWN, THE APPELLANT AND THE INTENDING PURCHASER ENTERED INTO LITIGATION THEMSELVES AND THEREAFTER SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED IN THE SUIT FILED BY SMT. RA JINDERWANT KAUR, AS DEFENDANT. THE SAID EFFORT CAME TO NAUGHT BECAUSE OF THE DISMISSAL OF T HEIR APPLICATIONS. THEREAFTER, THE APPELLANT AND THE PURCHASER CAME TO TERMS, TO EFFEC T THE SALE BY REDUCING THE SALE PRICE TO MAKE UP FOR THE LITIGATION COST IN FUTURE. IN AN Y CASE, IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT AN ENCUMBERED PROPERTY FETCHES A LESSER PRICE THAN THE PREVAILING MARKET PRICE. CONSIDERING THE SITUATION, IT IS NOT UNLIKELY THAT IF THE APPEL LANT HAD NOT AGREED TO SCALE DOWN THE SALE PRICE, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN FURTHER LITIGATION WIT H THE INTENDING PURCHASER AND THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN PRESSURE TO RETURN THE AMOUNT OF EA RNEST MONEY RECEIVED PURSUANT TO THE ORIGINAL 'AGREEMENT TO SELL'. BESIDES, THE CONV EYANCE DOCUMENT IN THE FORM OF REGISTERED SALE DEED SHALL, UNDOUBTEDLY, HAVE GREAT ER EVIDENTIARY VALUE THAN AN UNREGISTERED 'AGREEMENT TO SELL', MORE SO WHEN THER E IS NO EVIDENCE OF RECEIPT OF MONEY OVER AND ABOVE THE SALE PRICE AS PER THE RECITAL OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED AND NO DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES WITH REGARD TO THE ORIG INAL 'AGREEMENT TO SELL' AND ITS SUBSEQUENT REVISION, COUPLED WITH A 'COMMUNITY DECI SION' WHICH RATIFIED THE REVISED AGREEMENT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WOULD NOT BE FA IR TO FASTEN UNDUE LIABILITY ON THE APPELLANT BY PRESUMING THAT THE SALE DEED WAS EXECU TED AT A DEPRESSED FIGURE THAN THE AGREED AMOUNT AS PER THE 'AGREEMENT TO SELL'. IF TH E SAID 'AGREEMENT TO SELL' BETWEEN THE PARTIES IS CONSIDERED GENUINE AND SACROSANCT, THERE IS NO RATIONALE FOR DISBELIEVING THE SUBSEQUENT AND REVISED 'AGREEMENT TO SELL' BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES. THE CIRCUMSTANCES NECESSITATING THE SCALING DOWN OF THE PRICE OF THE PROPERTY ARE TOO EVIDENT TO BE IGNORED OR CONSIDERED AS CONCOCTED OR MAKE BELIEVE STORY. T HE DESIDERATUM FOR FASTENING A LIABILITY ONTO THE APPELLANT IS THE EXISTENCE OF OR UNEARTHIN G OF SOME EVIDENCE WHICH TRAVEL BEYOND THE REALM OF PRESUMPTION. CONSIDERED IN TH E AFORESAID LIGHT, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION TO THE RETURNED INCOME IS DIRECTED TO BE D ELETED. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY 5 10. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE THAT NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO ORDER IN THE CASE OF SHRI INDERTEJ PAL SINGH HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE, WAS NOT CONTROVE RTED. 11. ON A SIMILAR ISSUE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER: IF THE REVENUE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HIGH COURT AND HAS ACCEPTED IT IN THE CASE OF ONE ASSESS EE, THEN IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE REVENUE TO CHALLENGE ITS CORRECTNESS IN THE CASE OF OTHER A SSESSEES, WITHOUT JUST CAUSE. 12. SIMILARLY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. LEADER VALVES LTD. (P&H) (SUPRA) HEL D AS UNDER: THAT KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY , THE REVENUE COULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN ISOLATION ONLY FOR ONE YEAR IN TH E CASE OF ONE ASSESSEE, WHILE ACCEPTING THE FINDINGS ON THE SAME ISSUE IN THE CASE OF OTHER ASS ESSEES AND FOR OTHER YEARS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 13. THEREFORE BY KEEPING IN VIEW THE RATIO LAID DOW N BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE AFORES AID REFERRED TO CASES, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE DEPARTMENT OUGHT TO HAVE MAINTAINED CONSIS TENCY AND THAT THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED PARTI CULARLY WHEN AN IDENTICAL ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE CO-OWNER OF THE SAME PROPE RTY I.E; HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SAID ORD ER WAS NOT CHALLENGED BEFORE THE HIGHER FORUM. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ADDITION MAD E BY THE A.O. AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS DELETED. 11. IN ITA NO. 41/CHD/2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR AS WERE IN ITA NO. 40/CHD/2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS IN THE AMOUNT INVOLVED, THEREFORE MY FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE FORMER PART OF THIS ORDER SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR ALS O. 12. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE ABOVE APPEALS OF THE AS SESSEE ARE ALLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14/06/2019 ). SD/- .., ( N.K. SAINI) ! / VICE PRESIDENT AG DATE: 14/06/2019 (+! ,-.- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. $ / CIT 4. $ / 01 THE CIT(A) 5. -2 45&456789 DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 8:% GUARD FILE