SHRI JIT SINGH, NAWANSHAHAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER , NAWANSHAHAR

ITA 603/ASR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6861 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 15-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GHANSHAM SHARMA
• Section: 148; 133(6); 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.603/Asr/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 Sh. Jit Singh S/o Dhannu Ram, Village, Neelowal, P.O. Rahon, Nawanshahar. [PAN:-IPVPS8267H] (Appellant) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Nawanshahar. (Respondent) Appellant by None Respondent by Sh.Ghansham Sharma, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 13.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 15.09.2022 ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jalandhar, [in brevity the ld. CIT(A)] bearing appeal no. CIT(A)-1/JAL/10115/18-19,date of order 20.06.2019, the order passed u/s 250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Y. 2011- 12.The impugned orders was originated from the order of the Income Tax Officer, I.T.A. No. 603/Asr/2019 2 Nawanshahar, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 143 (3) /147 of the Act date of order 31.10.2018. 2. The brief fact of the case is that the assessee is individual and filed its return accordingly. The reopening was made u/s 148 on basis of the AIR Information for depositing cash amount of Rs.33,52,000/- in his saving bank account at Punjab National Bank, Rahon during the F.Y. 2010-11 relevant to A.Y. 2011-12. The verification was completed u/s 133(6) of the Act but the assessee was unable to substantiate its claim. As per the submission of the assessee that the assessee had entered into an agreement for selling of agricultural land amount of Rs.45,75,000/- and the agreement with Smt. Jagbir Kaur W/o Sh. Malkit Singh on dated 23.02.2010. The registration was executed declaring the valuation of Rs.16,60,000/-. The ld. AO during assessment had also considered about the cash trail of the assessee related withdraw from bank account and had allowed the credit amount to Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of the assessee. The total cash was deposited Rs.33,52,000/- in the bank account. The ld. AO allow the claim of the assessee to the extent of Rs.8,62,000/- and balance which is worked out Rs.14,90,000/- was added back with the total income of the assessee. I.T.A. No. 603/Asr/2019 3 3. Being aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) after considering the fact upheld the order of the ld. AO. Against the order of the CIT(A) the assessee filed an appeal before us. 4. During the hearing before the ITAT, the counsel of the assessee had filed an adjournment petition. As the matter is long pending, so the matter is taken for hearing after the consent of ld. Sr.DR. During the assessment proceeding and in appeal, the revenue allowed the several times to explain the issue before the authorities. The assessee claimed that the excess amount was received on basis of the agreement with the party who purchased the land from assessee. During verification u/s 133(6) of the Act, the cross verification was completed with Smt. Jagbir Kaur and details of cash payment with dates are mentioned. But the issue was not considered or verified during the proceeding before the authorities. The party Smt. Jagbir Kaur and her family was tenant, and the letter was returned back during verification. The reason of difference in value in agreement & executed deed, was not properly discussed by any of the authority. Lot of factual difference was found during the assessment proceeding. 5. The ld. Sr Dr argued & only relied on the order of revenue authorities. I.T.A. No. 603/Asr/2019 4 5. We heard the rival submission and considered the orders of both the authorities. In factual matrix there is a clear difference of vaule in between amount declared in agreement and in registered executed deed. The issue of the assessee was not properly adjudicating during the appeal proceeding and the assessment proceeding. We find that the issue should be further adjudicated by the ld. AO on basis of the factual matrix in reason of difference in value. We are setting aside the matter before the ld. AO. Needless to say, that the assessee shall get proper opportunity of being heard during the assessment proceeding for substantiate its claim and evidences should be considered in legal manner. 6. In the result, the appeal in ITA No. 603/Asr/2019 is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 15.09.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) Accountant Member Judicial Member AKV Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent I.T.A. No. 603/Asr/2019 5 (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order