M/s Fateh Softech Pvt.Ltd, Chandigarh V. ITO-Ward-1(4), Chandigarh

ITA 56/CHANDI/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2656 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 21-06-2021
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MEENAKSHI VOHRA CIT
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Period of limitation; Valuation report; Time period of passing order; Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BE NCH A, CHANDIGARH ( VIRTUAL COURT) .., ! '# $ %', ! BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI , RAJPAL YADAV, VP ITA NO. 56/CHD/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 M/S FATEH SOFTECH PVT. LTD. H.NO. 2144, SECTOR-15C CHANDIGARH-160015 THE ITO WARD-1(4) CHANDIGARH PAN NO: AAACF9857H APPELLANT RESPONDENT !' ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PARIKSHIT AGGARWAL, CA #!' REVENUE BY : SMT. MEENAKSHI VOHRA, ADDL. CIT $ %! & DATE OF HEARING : 21/06/2021 '()*! & DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21/06/2021 %&/ ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-1, CHANDIGARH DT. 31/10/2019. 2. THE REGISTRY HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE APPEAL IS BAR RED BY LIMITATION BY TWO DAYS. THE ASSESEE FILED AN APPLICATION DT. 02/02/2021 FOR CO NDONATION OF DELAY STATING THEREIN AS UNDER: SUBJECT: PRAYER FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL IN ITA NO. 56/CHANDI/2020 IN THE CASE OF FATEH SOFTECH PVT LTD , PAN- AAACF9857H FOR A. Y. 201011. HONBLE BENCH, KINDLY REFER TO THE MATTER CITED AS SUBJECT ABOVE. THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE HON TALE ITAT ON 13.01.2020. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST THE APPELLATE ORDER DTD. 31.10.2019PASSED U/S 250(6) BY WORTHY CIT(A). THE REGISTRY OF THE HONBLE BENCH HAS POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS A D ELAY OF 2 DAYS IN FILING OF THIS APPEAL. THE FACTS BEHIND THE SAID DELAY AND OUR PRA YER PRAYING FOR CONDONATION OF THE SAME ARE AS UNDER: 2 1. THE PRESENT CASE RELATES TO ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 1 43(3) R.W.S 147OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WHERE-AGAINST ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE WORTHY CIT(A)-1, CHANDIGARH. 2. THE ABOVE APPEAL WAS PARTLY ALLOWED BY WORTHY CIT(A )VIDE ORDER DTD. 31.10.2019. THIS ORDER WAS SERVED ON TO THE ASSESSE E ON 13.11.2019. 3. AGAINST THE ABOVE-SAID ORDER OF WORTHY CIT(A), 2 ND APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT, CHANDIGARH ON 13.01.2020. 4. THE REGISTRY OF THE HONBLE ITAT HAS POINTED OUT TH AT THERE IS A DELAY OF 2 DAYS IN FILING OF THIS APPEAL. 5. AS REGARDS THE REASON FOR DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT LIMITATION PERIOD OF 60 DAYS FROM TH E DATE OF RECEIPT OF ORDER EXPIRED ON 12.01.2020.HOWEVER THAT BEING SUNDAY, TH E APPEAL WAS FILED THE NEXT WORKING DAY I.E. ON 13.01.2020. HOWEVER, THE REGIST RY POINTED OUT A DEFECT THAT THE APPEAL FEE DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IS SHORT B Y RS. 10. THIS AMOUNT WAS IMMEDIATELY DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE NEXT D AY I.E. ON 14.01.2020. 6. THEREAFTER, THE REGISTRY COUNTED THE DATE OF FILING OF THE APPEAL WHEN THE SAID BALANCE APPEAL OF RS. 10 WAS DEPOSITED. IF COUNTED TILL THE ACTUAL DATE OF FILING OF THE APPEAL ON 13.01.2020, THERE IS NO DELAY. 7. THE ABOVE FACTS LED TO DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEA L BEFORE THE HONBLE BENCH. 8. THE ABOVE DELAY, IF ANY, WAS CAUSED DUE TO REASO NS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, THE DELAY CAUSED WAS T OTALLY UNINTENTIONAL AND BONA- FIDE ON PART OF THE APPELLANT. A DULY SWORN & ATTESTED AFFIDAVIT OF THE DIRECTOR O F THE APPELLANT COMPANY, IN THIS REGARD, IS ATTACHED HEREWITH. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE FACTS AND MORE SO IN THE INTE REST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL MAY PLEASE B E CONDONED. FURTHER, THE APPLICANT UNDERTAKES TO FULLY CO-OPERATE FOR THE EA RLY DISPOSAL OF THE SUBJECT APPEAL. WE SHALL BE HIGHLY OBLIGED. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE REITERATED THE CONTENTS OF THE AFORESAID APPLICATION AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL WITH IN TIME BUT THERE WAS SHORT PAYMENT OF RS. 10/- WHI CH WAS DEPOSITED ON THE NEXT DAY, THEREFORE THE DELAY IF ANY IN FILING THE APPEAL MAY BE CONDONED. 4. THE LD. SR. DR ALTHOUGH OBJECTED THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF THE DELAY BUT COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE AFORESAID CONTENTION OF THE L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 3 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIE S WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE SHORT DELAY IN THIS CASE MAY BE CONDONED. ACCORDINGLY T HE APPEAL IS ADMITTED AND THE DELAY IS CONDONED. 6. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL: 1. THAT ON LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE WORTHY CIT(A) IN APPEAL NO. 10428/17-18 HAS ERRED IN PASSING THAT OR DER IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF S. 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 . 2. THAT ON LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO WHEREIN LD. AO H AD ERRED BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND HAD FURTHER ERRED IN CONTINUATION AND COMPLETION OF THE SAID RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE A CT EVEN WHEN THE WHOLE OF THE PROCESS WAS ILLEGAL AND , AGAINST THE PROVISION S OF INCOME TAX ACT AND HENCE REQUIRED TO BE DECLARED VOID-AB-INITIO. 3. THAT ON LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO WHEREIN LD. AO H AD ERRED IN MAKING THE ASSESSMENT IN HASTE AND WITHOUT AFFORDING REASONABL E OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT FRA MED IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND HENCE DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 4. THAT ON LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE WORTHY CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO WHEREIN LD. AO HAD ACTED WITH A BIASED AND PREJUDICE MIND IN FRAMING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSME NT ORDER AND CARRYING OUT THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE THE SAI D APPEAL IS ILLEGAL AND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 5. THAT ON LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE WORTHY CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO WHEREIN LD. AO HAD ADOPTED RS. 32,84,000/- THE CURRENT VALUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION E XP. AND ADDED RS. 8,21,000/- THE PROPORTIONATE CONST, EXP., EVEN THOUGH THE CONS TRUCTION ACTIVITY WAS ACTUALLY CARRIED OUT IN FY 2006-07 AND THAT TOO BY M/S ICRMS (P) LTD., TO WHOM THE PROPERTY WAS GIVEN ON LEASE. 6. THAT ON LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO WHEREIN LD. AO HAD ADOPTED RS. 32,84,000/- AS THE CONSTRUCTION EXP. AND ADDED RS. 8,21,000/- THE PROPORTIONATE CONST, EXP., EVEN THOUGH THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WAS ACTUALLY CARRIED OUT IN FY 2006-07. THE RESPONDENT HAD MADE THIS ADDITION IN A .Y. 2010-11 AS HE LACKED POWERS BY VIRTUE OF LIMITATION PERIOD TO ASSESSEE A .Y. 2006-07. 7. THAT ON LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE WORTHY CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO WHEREIN LD. AO ON HIS OWN WITHOUT MAKING ANY REFERENCE TO DVO HAD ADOPTED RS. 32,84,000/- AS THE CONSTRUCTION EXP. AND ADDED RS. 8,21,000/- THE PROP ORTIONATE CONST, EXP. 8. THAT ON LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE WORTHY CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO WHEREIN LD. AO HAD ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 1,10,000/- IGNORING THE FACT , SUBMISSION AND 4 DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD BY ERRONEOUSLY HOLDING T HAT SUCH INCOME CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT TO HAVE BEEN EARNED FROM A GRICULTURAL OPERATIONS IS ACTUALLY EARNED FROM OTHER SOURCES. 9. THAT ON LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO WHEREIN LD. AO HAD ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 1,10,000/- IGNORING THE FACT , THAT THE SIMILAR AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS ALLOWED IN THE PREVIOUS YEA R ASSESSMENT BY THE THEN LD. AO. 10. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR ANY ADDITIO N, DELETION OR AMENDMENT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DISPOSAL OF THE SAME. 7. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTSET STATED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED THE IMPUGNED CONSOLID ATED ORDER FOR THE A.YS 2008- 09, 2009-10, 2011-12 AND THE PRESENT A.Y. 2010-11. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN ALL THE YEARS THE REOPENING WAS DONE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT) BY RECORDING THE SIMILAR REASONS AND THE APPEALS FOR THE AFORESAID YEARS EXCEPT THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT, SMC BENCH, CHANDIGARH IN ITA NO. 54, 55 & 57/CHD/2020 FOR THE A.YS 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2011-12 RESPECTIVELY WHICH WERE DISPOSED OFF VIDE ORDER DT. 24/05/2021 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE IT IS A COVERED ISSUE AS THE FACTS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE A.YS 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2011-12 VIS- -VIS, THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 8. THE AFORESAID CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE WAS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. SR. DR. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIE S AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD, IT IS NOTICED THAT A N IDENTICAL ISSUE HAVING SIMILAR FACTS HAD ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE ITAT, SMC BENCH, CHA NDIGARH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 54, 55 & 57/CHD/2020 FOR THE A.YS 200 8-09, 2009-10 & 2011-12 RESPECTIVELY WHEREIN THE LEGAL ISSUE AS WELL AS THE IS SUE ON MERIT HAVE BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE RELEVANT FINDINGS HAVE BEEN GI VEN IN PARA 5 TO 15 OF THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO ORDER DT. 24/05/2021 WHICH READ AS UNDER: 5. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE REASONS REVEAL THAT THE A O OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN FIXED ASSETS OF RS. 36.29 LACS BUT HE HAD NOT OFFERED ANY INCOME FROM THE SAID PROPERTY EXCEPT AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 1,20,00,000/-. THIS, IN MY VIEW IS 5 A VAGUE REASON. MERELY POSSESSION OF A FIXED ASSET DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE EARNED ANY INCOME FROM THE SAID ASSET WHICH WOULD HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE OWNS AG RICULTURAL LAND WHERE UPON CERTAIN CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IT HAS BEEN USED FOR ITS OWN PURPOSES. THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER DO NOT DISCLOSE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS USED ANY OF HIS ASSETS FOR ANY BUSINES S OR RENTAL PURPOSES. THE FORMATION OF BELIEF BY THE AO IN THIS CASE REGARDING THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, IN MY VIEW IS BASED ON JUST ASSUMP TIONS AND PRESUMPTIONS AND THERE WAS NO RELIABLE MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH THE A O TO FORM THE BELIEF THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN T HIS VIEW, RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE, IN MY VIEW IS BAD IN LAW A ND THE SAME IS THEREFORE QUASHED. 6. HOWEVER, SINCE THE ISSUES ON MERITS ARE ALSO INV OLVED, APPEALS RELATING TO SUBSEQUENT YEARS ALSO, THEREFORE, I PROCEED TO DECI DE THE ISSUES ON MERITS ALSO. GROUND NO. 7 TO 10 : 7. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ON MERITS ARE THAT THE AO IN THIS CASE RECEIVED A REPORT FROM THE PUNJAB VIGILANCE BUREAU THAT THE CONSTRUCTION/DEVELOPMENT WORK AMOUNTING TO RS. 32.8 4 LACS WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE ON ITS PROPERTY SITUATED AT VILLAGE SI UANK, DISTT. SAS NAGAR DURING THE YEARS FROM 2008 TO 2011. ON BEING SHOW CAUSED AS TO WHY THE PROPORTIONATE AMOUNT MAY NOT BE ADDED TO HIS RETURNED INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS INVESTMENT FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE S, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE REPORT RELIED UPON BY THE AO WAS ERRONEOUS. THAT, INFACT, THE PROPERTY WAS INITIALLY ON LEASE FOR TWO YEARS WITH M/S ICRMS PVT. LTD. AND AS PER AGREEMENT THE M/S ICRMS PVT. LTD. HAS DONE ALL THE CONSTRUCTI ON ON THIS PROPERTY AND AT THAT TIME, THE LABOUR QUARTERS ON THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN RENOVATED TO BE MADE INTO TOILETS. AS SUCH, THE DETAILS OF COST ON THE CONSTR UCTION OF BOUNDARY, PATHWAY, TOILETS, ETC. MAY BE SOUGHT FROM M/S ICRMS PVT. LTD . (UNDER VARIOUS LITIGATIONS). THAT WAS PROPER LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN M/S ICRMS P VT. LTD AND FATEH SOFTECH PVT. LTD. IN THIS REGARD. THAT THE COPY OF SAID LEASE AGREEMENT MAY BE OBTAINED FROM M/S ICRMS PVT. LTD. AS SHRI JATINDER SINGH DUA (SHAREHOLDER & DIRECTOR OF ICRMS PVT. LTD.) HAS STOLEN THE COMPANY RECORDS AS DETAILED IN FIR 286/13 AND THE ORDERS OF DISMISSAL OF BAIL APPLICAT ION OF JS DUA BY ASJ, CHANDIGARH & HON'BLE HIGH COURT. IT WAS ALSO PLEADED THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OTHERWISE HAD BEEN DONE IN THE YEAR 2006-07 AND HENCE, NO INCOME CAN BE ADDED IN THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION EVEN ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELI ED UPON THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE APPROVED VALUER M/S NANDINI ASSOCIATES TO SUBMI T THAT THE CONSTRUCTION WAS MADE IN THE YEAR 2006-07 AND THAT THE TOTAL ESTIMAT ED CONSTRUCTION VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT THAT TIME WAS AT RS. 15787.70. 8. HOWEVER, THE AO DID NOT AGREE WITH THE ABOVE SUB MISSIONS AND RELIED UPON THE REPORT OF THE VALUER SUBMITTED BY THE PUNJAB VI GILANCE BUREAU AND ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2.05 LACS PROPORTIONATE TO THE EXPENS ES CARRIED OUT DURING THE YEAR INTO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE AO. 10. THE ASSESSEE HAS THUS COME IN APPEAL BEFORE THI S TRIBUNAL. 6 11. I HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD. FIRST OF ALL, IT IS SEEN THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO REG ARDING THE DATE OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY. CONSEQUENTLY, THE VAL UE OF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN MADE ON ESTIMATION BASIS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE HAS BROUGHT MY ATTENTION TO THE REPORT OF THE VALUER OBTAINED FROM PUNJAB VIGILANCE BUREAU UPON WHICH THE AO HAS RELIED UPON, WHEREIN, THE YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN MENTIONED AS 2008 TO 2011. THE VALUE OF THE PROPERT Y, HOWEVER, HAS BEEN ASSESSED AS ON 3.3.2015. THEREFORE, THE VALUE OF TH E PROPERTY HAS BEEN ESTIMATED IN THE YEAR 2015 AND THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS TAKING THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 3.3.2015, WHEREAS, IT IS OWN CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED F ROM 2008 TO 2011. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE REPORT OF THE APPROVED VALUER TO SUBMIT THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS AT APPROX IMATELY RS. 15 LACS. THIRDLY, CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN DISPUTED BY T HE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO HAS CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THAT THE C ONSTRUCTION IN THE SHAPE OF BOUNDARY, PATHWAY AND TOILETS WAS MADE BY M/S ICRMS DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 AS PER THE LEASE AGREEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE SAID COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE HAD FURTHER REQUESTED THE AO TO GET ALL THE DETAILS IN THIS RESPECT FROM M/S ICRMS COMPANY, HOWEVER, THE AO TOTALLY IGNO RED THE AFORESAID REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE AND SIMPLY RELIED UPON THE REPORT O F THE VALUER ATTACHED ALONGWITH THE REPORT OF THE PUNJAB VIGILANCE BUREAU . 12. AS OBSERVED ABOVE, THE SAID VALUATION WAS DONE AS PER THE VALUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION IN THE YEAR 2015. IN THIS CASE, EVEN T HE AO DID NOT MAKE ANY INDEPENDENT QUERY. MOREOVER, THE AO IN THE CIRCUMSTA NCES WAS SUPPOSED TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFIC ER TO GET APPROXIMATE DATE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS VALUE OF THE PROPERTY ON THE DATE OF CONSTRUCTION. NO SUCH EXERCISE HAS BEEN DONE BY THE AO. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE JUST ON ESTIMATION BASIS ON THE BORROWED SATIS FACTION OF THE PUNJAB VIGILANCE BUREAU WITHOUT ANY INDEPENDENT INVESTIGAT ION IN THE MATTER BY THE AO. SUCH AN ADDITION MADE ON THE BASIS OF MERE SUSPICIO N, IN MY VIEW, IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. THIS ADDITION IS AC CORDINGLY SET ASIDE. GROUND NO. 11 : 13. VIDE GROUND NO. 11, THE ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED T HE ADDITION OF RS. 1.20 LACS MADE BY THE AO AS 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' AS AGA INST DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 1.20 LACS CONTENDING THAT THE SAME WAS EARNED F ROM THE LEASE OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS RESPECT PRO DUCED AFFIDAVIT OF ONE MR. KULDEEP SINGH S/O SHRI CHHAJU SINGH FROM WHOM THE A GRICULTURE INCOME/BATAI WAS RECEIVED. HOWEVER, THE AO REJECTED THE AFORESAID AFF IDAVIT OF SHRI KULDEEP SINGH AND HELD THAT THE AFORESAID INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FROM AGRICULTURE ACTIVITY AND ASSESSED THE SAME AS 'INCOME FROM OTHE R SOURCES'. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 14. BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTINUOUSLY BEEN OFFERING THE AGRICUL TURAL LAND ON BATAI AND THAT THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OF RS. 1.20 LACS WAS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM AGRICULTURE OPERATIONS. THE LD COUNSEL HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED TH AT DURING THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS, THE SAID LESSEE WAS EXAMINED BY THE AO AND STATEMEN T WAS ALSO RECORDED AND AFTER HAVING SATISFIED, NO ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE I N THIS RESPECT IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. MOREOVER, IT HAS NOT BEEN DENIED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE 7 IS IN POSSESSION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THE LESSE E HAS ADMITTED THAT HE HAS PAID AFORESAID AMOUNT OF RS. 1.20 LACS AS BATAI TO THE A SSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THIS, I DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION ON THE PART OF THE AO TO MAKE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON THIS IS SUE IS DELETED. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STAND S ALLOWED. SINCE THE FACTS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE ID ENTICAL TO THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO A.YS AND EVEN T HE LD. CIT(A) PASSED THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO YEAR S AS WELL AS THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. SO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER DT. 24/05/2021 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 54, 55 & 57/CHD/2020 FOR THE A.YS 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2011-12 RESPECTIVELY, THE REOPENING IS QUASHED AND THE APPEAL IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21/06/2021 ) SD/- SD/- $ %' .., (RAJPAL YADAV ) ( N.K. SAINI) ! / VICE PRESIDENT ! / VICE PRESIDENT AG DATE: 21/06/2021 (+! ,-.- 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