Baldev Prashar, BATALA V. The Income Tax Officer, BATALA

ITA 468/ASR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5596 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 20-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 21-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R AHUL DHAWANDR
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR (SMC) BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO.468 (ASR)/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 SHRI BALDEV PRASHAR, VS. THE ITO, 341, GOPAL SMADH ROAD, WARD-I, BATALA. BATALA. PAN NO. AAOPP8303P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VINAMAR GUPTA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAHUL DHAWAN,DR DATE OF HEARING : 21.04.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.05.2017 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASS AILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 23.06.2016 OF CIT(APPEALS) -I AMRITSAR PERTAINING TO 2012-13 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THAT LEARNED CIT A HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF AO UNDER SECTION 143(3) MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 5,00 ,000/-. 2. THE LEARNED CIT A HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BY UPHOLDING THAT AMOUNT RECEIVED IS ASSESSABLE U/S 56(2), IN SPITE OF AMOUNT REPAID BACK BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT A HAS ERRED IN L AW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BY WRONGLY AP PRECIATING THE PRINCIPLE THAT REPAYMENT OBLIGATION IS ALSO CONSIDE RATION AS BEING APPLICABLE TO 'LOAN' ONLY. 4. THAT THE LEARNED CIT A HAS ERRED IN L AW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BY PRODUCING SELF CO NTRADICTORY ARGUMENTS HOLDING THAT TRANSACTION IS ADVANCE FO R SALE OF PROPERTY AND HENCE IT IS NOT LOAN AND THEN HOLDIN G IN THE SAME BREADTH THAT THE TRANSACTION IS NOT ADVANCE FO R SALE OF PROPERTY BECAUSE IKRARNAMA HAS BEEN PROVED AS FAKE. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, A MEND OR VARY THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL HERE IN ABOVE AT OR BEFORE HE ARING OF APPEAL. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E DECLARED AN INCOME OF RS. 3,02,271/- WHICH WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. T HE SOURCE OF INCOME WAS DAMI AND TRADING IN JAGGERI GUR. THE TWO BUSINESSES WE RE RUN UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S BALDEV RAJ SHAM SUNDER , NEW GRAIN MARKET, BATALA AND M/S HAMDARD AGRO, D.B.N. ROAD, BATALA. T HE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS R EQUIRED TO FURNISH DETAILS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS. ON A PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS , IT WAS NOTICED 2 THAT SMT SUKHWINDER KAUR WAS TO PAY RS. 5 LACS. HOWEVE R, THE ASSESSEE, AS PER ITS REPLY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 31.12.2014 STATED THAT THERE WERE NO CREDITORS. THE SPECIFIC INSTANCE WAS EXPLAINED AS UNDER : 'THE CREDIT OF RS.500000/- IN THE NAME OF SMT. SUKHW INDER KAUR IS FROM HER BANK ACCOUNT ATTACHED HEREWITH. THIS AMOUNT WAS AN ADVANCE FOR THE PURCHASE OF SHOP AND WHEN LATER ON SHE COULD NO T ARRANGE THE AMOUNT, HER ADVANCE WAS RETURNED. HER SOURCE OF DEP OSIT IN THE BANK WAS THE SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCTS AND T HE SALE OF OLD TRACTOR. HER HUSBAND EXPIRED AND SHE MANAGED ALL THE AFFAIRS ,' 3. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT SUPPORTING EVIDE NCE. THE ASSESSEE, AS PER ITS REPLY DATED 28.01.2015 SUBMITTED CO PY OF BIANA EXECUTED WITH THE SAID LADY AND ALSO COPY OF THE DEATH C ERTIFICATE OF THE HUSBAND OF SMT. SUKHWINDER KAUR SHRI SUCHA SINGH WHEREIN IT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 5 LACS HAS BEEN REC EIVED VIDE TWO CHEQUES DATED 21.05.2011 AND 24.05.2011 OF RS. 3.00 LACS AN D RS. 2.00 LACS AND WAS WITHDRAWN AFTER A YEAR ON 20.06.2012 WITH TH E NARRATION THAT SMT. SUKHWINDER KAUR HAD NO FUNDS TO PURCHASE THE LAND, ACCORDINGLY, THE AMOUNT WAS RETURNED ON 20.06.2012. HOWEVER, THE EX PLANATION WAS NOT ACCEPTED. 4. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE SAID ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED. 5. APART FROM VARIOUS OTHER SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED, THE AS SESSEE REITERATED THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN REPAID BY CHEQUE NO. 331602 DATED 20.06.2012 FOR RS. 5,00,000/-. THE ARGUMENTS ORIGINALLY ADV ANCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH OF SMT . SUKHWINDER KAUR WAS REITERATED. THEY ARE EXTRACTED AT PAGE 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER: DATE CH. NO. AMOUNT SOURCE 21.05.2011 356591 300000/- CASH DEPOSIT O UT OF SALE OF TRACTOR ON 15-04-2011 FOR RS. 3,65,000/-. THE DOCUMENT OF SALE/PURCHASE ALREADY ON RECORD OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER STANDS VERIFIED [COPY OF DOCUMENT ENCLOSED] 24.05.2011 356292 200000/- OUT OF CASH DEPOS IT FROM SALE OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE BY SUCHA SINGH HUSBAND OF SUKHVINDER KAUR FOR RS. 133327.46 ON 27-04-2011 [COPY OF J FORM ENCLOSED] AND REMAINING PROCEEDS OF TRACTOR SALE AND J FORMS FOR RS. 308478,06 DURING 2010-11 [COPIES ENCLOSED] 3 6. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLAN ATION OFFERED AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISSED THE ISSUE HOLDING AS UNDER : 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE GROUNDS OF APP EAL ARE DISPOSED OFF AS UNDER : I. THE GROUND OF APPEAL AT S.NO. 1, 2 & 2 ARE DISMISSE D. II. THE GROUND OF APPEAL AT S.NO. 4, 5 & 6 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND NEEDS NO COMMENTS. 7. THE LD. AR RELIES UPON THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BEFORE T HE TAX AUTHORITIES ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 8. THE LD. SR.DR RELIES UPON ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES. 9. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MA TERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AVAILABLE ON RECORD WHICH HAVE BRIEFLY BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER, I FIND THAT THE IMPUGNED O RDER CANNOT BE UPHELD, NOT ONLY ON THE FACT THAT IT IS A NON-SPEAKING OR DER, EVEN OTHERWISE, NO INFIRMITY IN THE FACTS HAS BEEN BROUGHT OUT B Y THE TAX AUTHORITIES IN THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS. THE SOURCE FROM WH ICH THE STATED ADVANCE WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF SPEC IFIC PROPERTY HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE WIDOW AND SINCE ULTIMATELY FULL FUNDS C OULD NOT BE ARRANGED BY HER FOR PURCHASE, ADVANCE HAS BEEN RETURN ED AGAIN THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS, THAT ALSO AFTER THE LAPSE OF ONE YEAR. THE SAID CONSISTENT ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN SUPPORTED BY THE ASSE SSEE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I FIND NO GOOD REASON WHY THE ADDITION SHO ULD HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED. BEING SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OFFERED CONSIS TENTLY WHICH STANDS UNREBUTTED ON RECORD, THE ADDITION IS DIRECTED TO BE DELE TED. 10. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. SD/- ( DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 16 TH MAY, 2017. POONAM/CHD COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT, AMRITSAR