Sh. Satnam Singh, Ludhiana V. ITO, Ludhiana

ITA 580/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 81033 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 580/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI SATNAM SINGH VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, PROP.DOG CLINIC, H.NO.868, WARD VII(2), KRISHNA NAGAR, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: ADVPS5081P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 11.11.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.11.2014 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S)-I, LUDHIANA DATED 22.2.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-1 0, CHALLENGING THE ADDITION OF RS.46,52,450/-. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE LEAR NED CIT (APPEALS) NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING NUMBERS OF TIMES BUT EVERY TIME ADJOURNMENT HAD BEEN SOUGHT ON ONE PRETEXT OR THE OTHER. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) NOTED 16 DATES O F HEARING 2 ON WHICH THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE HIM AND ASSESSEE DID NOT ARGUE THE APPEAL AND ON THE LAST D ATE OF HEARING, EVEN NOBODY APPEARED BEFORE HIM, THEREFORE THE APPEAL WAS DECIDED EX-PARTE. THE LEARNED CIT (APP EALS) NOTED THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS OBSER VED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A PLOT MEASURING 600.66 SQ.YD. FOR RS.64,10,000/- HAVING WORTH OF RS.3.17 CRORES. THE DETAILS OF THE SAME ARE NOTED AT PAGE 4 OF THE APPE LLATE ORDER. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DDIT (INVESTIGATI ON)-II, LUDHIANA ON OATH THAT THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF RS.6 4 LACS WAS LOAN FROM FAMILY FRIENDS AND HE COULD NOT REMEM BER THE NAMES OF SUCH FAMILY FRIENDS AND ALSO COULD NOT TEL L AS TO HOW MUCH AMOUNT WAS PAID BY EACH OF SUCH FRIENDS. DU RING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED TO THE IMPUGNED PROPERTIES PURCHASED AS PER AGREEMENT DATED 9.5.2008 IN WHICH HIGHER SALE CONSIDERATION WAS NOTED. THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SAID AGREEMENT FILED BY ANY PERSON AND PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE IS CLEARLY VIND ICATION OF FORGERY TO PUT THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE DEPARTME NT TO UNNECESSARY HARASSMENT. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED TH E SOURCE OF INVESTMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY PRODU CING THREE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE SAID LOANS HAVE BEEN RAISED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF SHRI MO HINDER SINGH, SON OF SHRI JAGIR SINGH, WHO HAS STATED BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE HAD PAID RS.25 LACS TO TH E ASSESSEE IN LIEU OF HIS OWN SHARE IN THE PROPERTY. THE DEP ONENT HAD, 3 HOWEVER, SUBMITTED IN THE AFFIDAVIT THAT THE SAID A MOUNT OF RS.25 LACS HAD BEEN GIVEN AS LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS, THEREFORE, FOUND THAT THE STATEMENT OF SHRI MOHINDE R SINGH WAS NOT RELIABLE AT ALL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AL SO BROUGHT ON RECORD THE FACT THAT SHRI MOHINDER SINGH WAS A PETT Y FARMER AND COULD NOT BE IN POSSESSION OF RS.25 LACS TO MAK E ANY INVESTMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, PRO CEEDED TO WORK OUT ASSESSEES HALF SHARE IN THE PROPERTY AND THE INVESTMENT THEREOF TO THE TUNE OF RS.19,02,450/- WA S CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDITIO N WAS ACCORDINGLY, MADE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER CONFRONTED THE FACT OF DEPOSITS OF THE CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUN TS OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE TUNE OF RS.27,50,000/-. IT WAS SU BMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNED AGRICULTURAL LAND AT VILLAG E CHOWKIMAN WHERE TEAK PLANTS AND OTHER PLANTS HAD BE EN DEVELOPED AND THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCO UNT WAS THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER , HOWEVER, FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE SINGLE ACRE OF LAND AND MOST OF THE LAND WAS IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP OR OF CULTIVA TION OF LAND IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AL SO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOWN ANY AGRICULTURAL IN COME. IT WAS, THEREFORE, FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO E XPLAIN THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND ACCORDINGLY, THE A DDITION OF RS.27,50,000/- WAS ALSO MADE. THE LEARNED CIT (AP PEALS) CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 3. NONE PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE S ERVICE OF NOTICE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. THE RECORD FURTHER REVEALS THAT THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED MANY TIMES ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL WAS HEARD EX-PARTE. 4. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS IN THE LIGHT OF SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW TO EXPLAIN THE ADDITION OF RS.46,52,450/- DES PITE GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER . EVEN BEFORE HE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), THE CASE WAS ADJOU RNED 16 TIMES BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR TO ARGUE THE APPEAL OR TO FILE ANY RELEVANT EVIDENCE TO EXPLAIN THE ADDITI ONS. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ALSO, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY SI NGLE DOCUMENT OR PAPER BOOK TO EXPLAIN THE ABOVE ADDITIO NS. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE AND ANY REPRESENTATIVE ON THE DATE OF HEARING, WE DO NOT FI ND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LEAR NED CIT (APPEALS) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION. 5 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 18 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 18 TH NOVEMBER, 2014 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH