Sh. Shangar Singh, Tarn Taran V. The Income Tax Officer, Tarn Taran

ITA 460/ASR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3726 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 24-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 09-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNA AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR BEFORE SH.T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH.SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.460(ASR)/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 SH. SHANGAR SINGH S/O SH. RAM SINGH M/S. GAURAV TRADING CO. VPO SABHRA, TEHSIL PATTI, DISTT:- TARAN TARAN PAN:AWDPS3807J VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), TARN TARAN (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. P.N.ARORA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY: SH.RAHUL DHAWAN, DR DATE OF HEARING: 24/11/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:30/11/2016 ORDER PER T.S. KAPOOR, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF LD. CIT(A), AMRITSAR, DATED 29.02.2016 FOR ASST. YEAR: 2011-12. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL , HOWEVER, THE CRUX OF GRIEVANCES IS THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A), BY WHICH HE HAS CONFIRMED AN ADDITION OF RS.42,05,560/-,WHICH WAS MADE BY ASS ESSING OFFICER AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. VIDE G ROUND NO.5, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED WITH THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) , BY WHICH HE DID NOT ITA NO.460/ASR/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 2 ENTERTAIN THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH WAS FILED B Y ASSESSEE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE ACT. 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSM ENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO FILE EVIDENCES AGAINST THE ALLEGED INCOME BEFORE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND WHICH ASSESSEE FILED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD . CIT(A). IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF A PROPERTY WHICH WAS SOLD BY WIFE OF ASSESSEE AND IN THIS RESPECT OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PB 28 TO 32 WHERE A COPY O F SALE DEED EXECUTED BY NIRMALJEET KAUR WIFE OF ASSESSEE WAS PLACED. THE LD. AR ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PB-27 WHERE A COPY OF RECEIPT ISSU ED BY WIFE OF ASSESSEE TO THE PURCHASER OF LAND SMT. SURJIT KUAR WAS PLACE D. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD OBTAINED REMAND R EPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN THE REMAND REPORT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAD ADMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS BASED UPO N THE FACTS BUT WHICH REQUIRED DETAILED INVESTIGATION. IT WAS SUBMI TTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO VERIF Y THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND DID NOT COMMENT ON THE SAME OTHER THE N TO ADMIT THAT THE DOCUMENTS WERE BASED UPON THE FACTS. 4. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, ARGUED THAT LD. C IT(A) HAS GIVEN CLEAR FINDING WITH RESPECT TO THE SAID SALE DEED WH EREIN HE HAS HELD THAT ITA NO.460/ASR/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 3 THE AMOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION WAS NOT MENTIONED ON THE SALE DEED AND THEREFORE, HE HAS RIGHTLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT A COPY OF S ALE DEED EXECUTED BY THE WIFE OF ASSESSEE IS PLACED AT PB 28 & 29 WHEREI N THE SALE CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN MENTIONED AT RS.19,00,000/- AT PAGE-29. THE SALE DEED HAS BEEN EXECUTED ON 2.6.2010, THEREFORE, IT IS WRONG ON THE PART OF LD. CIT(A) TO HOLD THAT THE SALE CONSIDERAT ION WAS NOT MENTIONED. HOWEVER, IT IS CORRECT THAT IN THE AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY NIRMALJEET KAUR, THE SALE AMOUNT IS NOT MENTIONED, BUT IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED AS WELL AS IN THE R ECEIPT ISSUED BY NIRMALJEET KAUR, WIFE OF ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OF FICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT HAS ALSO HELD THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY ASSESSEE APPEAR TO BE BASED ON FACTS AND WHICH REQUIRED DETA ILED INVESTIGATION. THE PARA-5 OF THE REMAND REPORT OF ASSESSING OFFICE R IN THIS REGARD IS REPRODUCED BELOW. 05 FURTHER, WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITIONAL PIECE O F DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE YOUR HONOUR, THE SAME APPEAR TO BE BASED ON FACTS. HOWEVER, TO ASCERTAIN THEIR GENUINENESS THESE REQUI RE DETAILED INVESTIGATION. THEREFORE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PR ESENT CASE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, WHO AFTER CONDUCTING DETAILED EXAMINATION OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY ASSESSEE SHOULD ARRIVE AT THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF ADDITION IF ANY. ITA NO.460/ASR/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 4 5.1 NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT ASSESSEE WILL BE PROVIDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 6 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSE E IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30/11/201 6. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (T.S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 30/11/2016 /PK/PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: 2. THE 3. THE CIT(A), 4. THE CIT, 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER