The Income-tax Officer, Jammu V. Sh. Romesh Kohli, Jammu

ITA 610/ASR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 61020914 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 02-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 08-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K V K SINGHDR
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 69; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR [JAMMU CAMP, JAMMU] BEFORE HONBLE SHRI A.D.JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND HONBLE SHRI T.S.KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO 610(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 THE I . T .O , WARD-1(2), JAMMU. VS. S HRI ROMESH KOHLI , TRIKUTA NAGAR JAMMU PAN: (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI K.V.K. SINGH(DR.) RESPONDENT BY: SHRI P.N. ARORA (ADV.) DATE OF HEARING: 02.12.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEM ENT: 04.12 .2015 ORDER THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), JAMMU, DATED 23.07.2014 FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2005- 06 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT WHETHER THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), JAMMU WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT MADE BY THE ITA NO. 610(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2 005-06 2 ASSESSEE TO DREAM LAND CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING BUILDING SOCIETY FOR PURCHASE OF FLAT. 2. WHETHER THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), JAMMU WAS RIGHT IN LAW TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO DREAM LAND CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING BUILDING SOCIETY FOR PURCHASES OF FLAT WHEN IT WAS NOT CLEAR AS WHEN DID THE ASSESSEE MAKE PAYMENT WHETHER THE ENTIRE PAYMENT WAS MADE IN ONE DAY OR PART PAYMENT MADE DURING THE F.Y 2004-05. 3. WHETHER THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), JAMMU WAS RIGHT IN LAW TO DELETE THE ADDITION SINCE IF THE LD. CIT(A) HAS BEEN PROVI8DED WITH THE SALE DEED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FIRST TIME HE SHOULD HAVE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO TO EXAMINE THE SAME AND/OR CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT BUT HE DID NOT DO THE SAME AND ERRED IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, AS ARISING OUT O F ASSESSMENT ORDER, ARE THAT AO RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM THE AD IT, JAMMU THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED A FLAT FROM DREAM LAND CO-OP ERATIVE HOUSING BUILDING LTD. FOR RS. 20,50,000/-. PAYMENT FOR THE SAID PURCHASE WAS MADE BY CHEQUE FOR A AMOUNT OF RS. 12,50,000/- AND RS. 8 LAKHS IN CASH. NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T, 1961 [HEREINAFTER, REFERRED TO AS THE ACT] WAS ISSUED AFTER OBTAINING APPROVAL FROM THE JCIT AND WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSE SSEE ON 30.3.2012. THE SAME NOTICE SENT BY SPEED POST ON 2 93.2012 WAS ITA NO. 610(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2 005-06 3 RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT WITH THE REM ARK ADDRESSEE OUT OF STATION. AGAIN A LETTER DATED 2. 2.2012 WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE REQUIRING HIM TO FURNISH THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE FLAT. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, FAI LED TO APPEAR OR SEND REPLY TO THE SAME. A FINAL SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 8.2.2013 WHICH ALSO MET WITH THE SAME FATE AND THER E WAS NO REPLY FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOV E, THE AO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOTHING TO SAY IN THE MATTER AS HE HAD NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE EXCEPT TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT EX PARTE BY TREATING THE INVESTMENT AS UNEXPLAINED INV ESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE ACT. 3. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A ) WHO DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING THAT THE SAID INVESTMENT WA S MADE IN THE A.Y 2006-07 AND HENCE CANNOT BE ASSESSED IN A.Y 200 5-06. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE DE PARTMENT IN NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ITA NO. 610(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2 005-06 4 5. THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING RELIEF BY DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IT WAS NOT CLEAR WHEN THE ASSESSEE MADE THE PAYMENT AND WHETHE R THE ENTIRE PAYMENT WAS MADE IN ONE DAY OR PART PAYMENT DURING THE F.Y 2004- 05. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IF THE LD. CIT(A) WA S PROVIDED WITH THE SALE DEED, HE SHOULD HAVE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO TO EXAMINE THE SAME AND/OR CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE H IM. BEFORE US ALSO, HE PLEADED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO W AS NEVER SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. HIS FURTHER CONTENTION WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A REGULAR I.T. ASSESSEE AT KATHUA AS HE IS RESIDING THERE, BUT THE AO ASSESSED HIM AT JAMMU. THE FLAT WAS PURCHASED ON 9 .2.2006 AND THE INVESTMENT OF THE SAME FELL IN THE A.Y 2006-07. HENCE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS NOT TAXABLE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE PLEADED THAT THE SAME PROPERTY ITA NO. 610(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2 005-06 5 CANNOT BE ASSESSED TWICE, HENCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R IS ILLEGAL AND THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CANCELLING THE SAME . 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE PER USED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. AR THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE FLAT WAS PURCHASE D ON 9.2.2006 AND THE INVESTMENT OF THE SAME FELL IN THE A.Y 2006-07, HENCE THE AMOUNT WAS NOT TAXABLE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE S AME PROPERTY CANNOT BE ASSESSED TWICE. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT( A) IS QUITE JUSTIFIED AND FINDING NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE UPHOLD THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THE GROUN DS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT. ITA NO. 610(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2 005-06 6 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMEN T IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH DECEMBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- [T.S.KAPOOR,] (A.D.JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 4 TH DECEMBER, 2015 VL/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: 2. THE 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.