The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar V. Sh. Joga Singh, Jalandhar

ITA 562/ASR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 56220914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 27-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 30-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R L CHHANALIA
• Assessee Lawyers: SUSHIL CHOPRA
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.562(ASR)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 PAN :AVPLS7450C THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME-TAX, VS. SH. JOGA SINGH CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR. C/O M/S. SODHI ENTE RPRISES, DISTT. JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH. R.L. CHHANALIA, DR RESPONDENT BY: SH. SUSHIL CHOPRA DATE OF HEARING:27/09/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:27/09/2012 ORDER PER BENCH ; THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST T HE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A), LUDHIANA, DATED 01.09.2011 FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005-06 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT BY ACCEPTING TH E ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED AT THE APPELLATE STAGE IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE AFTER HAVING GIVEN REASONABLE OP PORTUNITY AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. ITA NO.562(AS)/2011 2 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE G ROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD AND DISPOSE D OF. 3. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE SE T-ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. BE RESTORED. 2. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE ARE NOT DISPUT ED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. THEREFORE, THERE IS NOT NEED TO REPEAT THE SAME FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. DR, SH. R.L. CHH ANALIA, STATED THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS PASSED THE IMPUGN ED ORDER BY WRONGLY ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED AT THE APPE LLATE STAGE WITHOUT GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE A.O. HE RELIED UPON T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US, ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUT HORITIES. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE GROUND RAISED BY THE RE VENUE REGARDING ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED AT THE APPE LLATE STAGE WITHOUT GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO IS TOTALLY AGAINST THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS WELL AS THE IMPUGN ED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). WE HAVE PERUSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ESPECIAL LY PARAS 4, 5 & 6 ( PAGES 4 & 5), IN WHICH THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTH ORITY HAS SENT THE ADDITIONAL ITA NO.562(AS)/2011 3 EVIDENCE TO THE AO FOR HIS COMMENTS AND IN COMPLIAN CE OF THE SAME THE AO HAS SENT HIS COMMENTS TO THE OFFICE OF THE LD. CIT( A) VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 05.01.2011, IN WHICH THE AO OBJECTED TO THE ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCE ON THE GROUND THAT THE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN GI VEN TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, BUT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THESE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS . FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE FINDINGS ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT PARA 4 TO 6 (PAGES 4 & 5) OF THE LD. CIT( A) ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 4. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE AR OF THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED HIS ARGUMENTS AS UNDER: THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 31 LACS ADVANCED TO SMT. MOHINI KULWANT GHAI FOR THE PURCHA SE OF THE PROPERTY. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE PARTIES A RE IN LITIGATION AND THE AMOUNT OF RS. 31 LACS FELL IMMEDIATELY IN D ISPUTE. THE AO ACCEPTED THE SOURCE OF AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM SMT . HARBHAJAN KAUR AT RS.5,70,000/- AND SMT. JOGINDER K AUR AT RS.5,50,000/- BUT REJECTED THE SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.6,65,000/- AND RS.4,80,000/- WITH THE ASSESSEE A S HAVING BEEN RECEIVED AS AGRICULTURAL PROCEEDS/ADVANCES ON BEHALF OF SH. AJIT SINGH SON OF SH. PARKASH SINGH AAND SH. RA M SINGH SON OF SH. PARKASH SINGH SONS OF HIS MOTHERS REAL SISTER MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE EVIDENCE REGARDING THE AGRIC ULTURE LAND OWNED BY THEM HAS NOT BEEN FILED. THAT THE FARAD JAMABANDI IN PROOF OF AGRICULTURE L AND OWNED COULD NOT BE PRODUCED FOR LACK OF REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT TIME FOR PROCURING THE SAME FROM THE SAI D PERSONS WHO WERE LIVING ABROAD AND THE DELAY FROM THE REVEN UE ITA NO.562(AS)/2011 4 DEPARTMENT AND THE ASSESSMENTS WERE GETTING TIME BA RRED. THEREFORE, THE COPIES OF THE FARAD JAMABANDI AS WEL L AS THE CERTIFICATE OF THE VILLAGE SARPANCH/LAMBARDAR IN EV IDENCE OF THE CULTIVATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND OF THE ABOVE A ID PERSONS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE MATERIAL AND RELEVANT FOR THE DECI SION IN THE ABOVE SAID ISSUED, THE COPIES OF WHICH ARE SUBMITTE D HEREWITH APPREHENDING AS AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 4 6A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962 WHICH MAY KINDLY BE ADMITTED . THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRO DUCING THE EVIDENCE AND IS PERI-MATERIA AND RELEVANT FOR ARRIV ING AT THE DECISION ON THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 5. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT ALONGWITH THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PROPOSED TO BE FILED WAS SENT T O THE AO FOR HIS COMMENTS VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 5/1/2001 . THE AO OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON THE GROUND THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY HAD BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. I HAVE CONSIDERE D THE ISSUE OF ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTM ENT AS RAISED FROM SH.RAM SINGH AND SH. AJIT SINGH VIDE ORDER SHE ET ENTRY DATED 6.11.2007. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 28.12.2007 AND IN THIS PERIOD THE ASSESSEE WAS EXPE CTED TO GET THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE FROM THE RELATIVES STAYING A BROAD AND THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAD TO BE FOLLOWED UP TO GE T THE NECESSARY CERTIFICATES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE MENTIO NED FACT IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE AND REASONABLE THAT PROCURING OF CER TIFICATES CALLED FOR COULD HAVE BEEN BEYOND THE ASSESSEES RE ACH IN THE GIVEN TIME PERIOD. AS SUCH, I AM OF THE OPINION THA T THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE CAUSE TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE CALLED FOR. THEREFORE, EVIDENCE PROPOS ED TO BE FILED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IS ADMITTED UNDR RULE 46A. 5.1. KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT T HE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DELETED THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE ON TH E BASIS OF ADDITIONAL ITA NO.562(AS)/2011 5 EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND AFTER GIVING FULL OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO. THEREFORE, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND DESERVES TO BE DISM ISSED. NO OTHER POINT HAS BEEN ARGUED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. 5.2. KEEPING IN VIEW HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DIS CUSSED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS C ALLED FOR IN THE WELL REASONED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AU THORITY. THEREFORE, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE BY UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27TH SEPTEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 27TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:SH. JOGA SINGH, VPO APRA, THE. PHILLAU R 2. THE DCIT, CC-II, JLR 3. THE CIT(A), JALANDHAR. 4. THE CIT, JALANDHAR. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ITA NO.562(AS)/2011 6 (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.