Amandeep S/o Sh. Baru Ram, Jind V. ITO, Jind

ITA 535/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9889 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Deemed to accrue or arise in india

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 535/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 SHRI AMANDEEP SINGH, VS THE ITO, VILLAGE - HABETPUR, WARD 1, TEH & DISTT. JIND. JIND. PAN: ASZPA0920C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 14.06.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.06.2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) HISSAR DATED 13.02.20 15 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 CHALLENGING THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 18,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSIT IN THE BAN K ACCOUNT. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED FROM THE AIR INFORMATION THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE CAS H DEPOSIT OF RS. 36 LACS IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT W ITH BANK OF INDIA, JIND DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEV ANT 2 TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RAISED THE QUERY TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF C ASH DEPOSITS FOR WHICH THE COMPLETE EXPLANATION WAS NOT PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, HELD THAT RS. 36 LACS IS DEEMED INCOME I N VIEW OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A OF THE ACT AND MA DE ADDITION ACCORDINGLY. 3. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT RS. 18 LACS WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON 29.12.2010. THE S AID DEPOSIT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAID DATE AFTER SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN VILLAGE NIDANI, TEHSIL AND DISTT. JIND. THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS SOLD BY BROTHER AND MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. SHRI SANDEE P AND SMT. MUKESH RESPECTIVELY FOR RS. 31,05,000/- AS THEIR SHARES. THE OTHER CO-OWNERS WERE OTHER FAMIL Y MEMBERS. THOUGH THE LAND WAS SOLD IN THE NAMES OF BROTHER SHRI SANDEEP AND MOTHER SMT. MUKESH, YET TH E AMOUNT OF RS. 18 LACS WAS DEPOSITED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT FROM THE BAN K STATEMENT, IT IS CLEAR THAT DEPOSIT OF CASH IS ONLY RS. 18 LACS ON 29.12.2010. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKE N AMOUNT OF RS. 18 LACS TWICE BECAUSE ON 30.12.2010, THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED FDR WITH THE SAID BANK WHICH WAS PRE-MATURITY ENCHASED AND CLOSURE OF FDR WAS SHOWN IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AT RS. 18 LACS AGAIN. 3 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), AFTER CONSIDERING THE BANK STATEMENT AND MATERIAL ON RECORD FOUND THAT CASH WA S DEPOSITED ON 29.12.2010 OF RS. 18 LACS AND SECOND ENTRY IS ON 31.12.2010 WHICH IS ON ACCOUNT OF PRE- MATURE CLOSURE OF THE FDR. IT WAS, THEREFORE, FOUN D THAT ADDITION OF RS. 18 LACS IS MADE TWICE. THE LD . CIT(APPEALS), ACCORDINGLY, DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 18 LACS OUT OF ADDITION OF RS. 36 LACS. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF RS. 18 LACS, LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THA T THE LAND WAS SOLD IN THE NAME OF BROTHER SHRI SANDEEP A ND MOTHER SMT. MUKESH BUT ASSESSEE FAILED TO SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT OF RS. 18 LACS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY EXPLANATION THAT IF THE ASSESSEE WAS C O- OWNER, THEN WHY HIS NAME WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE ALLEGED SALE DEED. FURTHER, IF SALE PROCEED WAS RECEIVED IN CASH AND DEPOSITED IN ASSESSEE'S BANK ACCOUNT, WHY THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 31,05,000/- W AS NOT DEPOSITED IN ASSESSEE'S BANK ACCOUNT. FURTHER, ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO PROVE ANY CO-RELATION BETWE EN THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BY HIS BROTHER AND MO THER AND DEPOSIT OF CASH OF RS. 18 LACS IN HIS BANK ACCO UNT. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), ACCORDINGLY, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 18 LACS. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I AM OF THE VIEW THE MATTER REQUIRES RE-CONSIDERATION AT THE LE VEL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESS EE DID 4 NOT COOPERATE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT ASSESSM ENT STAGE. COMPLETE DETAILS WERE NOT FILED BEFORE ASSE SSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, COPY OF THE SALE DEED IN QUESTIO N WAS FURNISHED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER. COPY OF TH E SALE DEED DATED 29.12.2010 IS FILED IN THE PAPER BO OK WHICH SHOWS THAT BROTHER AND MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI SANDEEP AND SMT. MUKESH ALONGWITH OTHERS HAVE SOLD THE PROPERTY AND THEIR SHARE COMES TO RS. 31,05,000/-. THE DATE OF SALE DEED IS SAME AS WAS OF THE DEPOSIT IN CASH MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WRONGLY NOTED IN TH E IMPUGNED ORDER THAT IF THE ASSESSEE WAS CO-OWNER TH EN WHY HIS NAME WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE SALE DEED. T HIS FACT IS INCORRECT BECAUSE ASSESSEE NEVER CLAIMED TO BE CO-OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. THE SALE DEED DATED 29.12.2010 SHOWS BROTHER AND MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE WERE PARTY TO THE SALE DEED AND RECEIVED SALE CONSIDERATION IN CASH. COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI SANDEEP IS ALSO FILED ON RECORD WHICH SHOWS THAT ON 29.12.2010 CASH OF RS. 1 7 LACS HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THES E FACTS WOULD SHOW THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PROPER FOR ASSESSEE TO FILE CONFIRMATION FROM THESE TWO PERSON S BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF C ASH DEPOSIT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT OUT OF THE SALE PROCEED S OF 5 THE AGRICULTURAL LAND, HOWEVER, ASSESSEE DID NOT FI LE COMPLETE DETAILS BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5(I) THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALSO RECORDED WRONG FAC TS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 18 LACS. THE COPY OF THE SALE DEED SHOWS THAT THERE WAS AVAILABI LITY OF THE CASH WITH THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT O F THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE FILED THE CONFIRMATION FROM HI S FAMILY MEMBERS OF MAKING DEPOSIT IN HIS BANK ACCOUN T. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS SUPPORTED BY THE SALE DEED FILED ON RECORD, HOWEVER, AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COOPERATE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(APPEALS) RECORDED WRONG FACTS IN HIS FINDINGS, THEREFORE, THE MATTER REQUIRES RE-CONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. I, ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW AND RESTORE THE MATTER IN ISSUE TO THE FILE O F ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO RE-EXAMINE THIS ISSUE OF DEPOSIT OF RS. 18 LACS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE SALE DEED DATED 29.12.2010. THE ASSESSEE MAY ALSO FILE CONFIRMATIO N OF HIS BROTHER AND MOTHER BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FINAL ADJUDICATION OF THE MATTER IN ISSUE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-DECIDE THE ISSUE IN 6 ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY GIVING REASONABLE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 16 TH JUNE, 2016. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT/CHD