Shri Satya Pal Saini, Ex-MLA, Pathankot V. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Pathankot

ITA 63/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 6320914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 19-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA

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.63(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08 PAN :APUPS5712C SH. SATYA PAL SAINI, VS. DY.COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, EX-MLA, PATHANKOT. CIRCLE VI, PATHANKOT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH.P.N.ARORA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY:SH. TARSEM LAL, DR DATE OF HEARING: 19/05/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:20/05/2014 ORDER PER BENCH ; IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE MISC ELLANEOUS APPLICATION FROM OUR ORDER DATED 19.08.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IN WHICH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT GROUNDS NO. 4 & 5 RAISED IN THE SAID APPEAL WERE NOT DECIDED BY THIS BENCH. ACCORDINGLY, THE MISC. APPLICATION WAS DECIDED VIDE OUR ORDER DATED 30.01.2014 WHERE T HERE WAS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD FOUND AND ACCORDINGLY THE ORDE R TO DECIDE GROUNDS NO. ITA NO.63(ASR)/2013 2 4 & 5 WAS RECALLED AND HENCE, THE PRESENT APPEAL B EFORE US BY THE ASSESSEE. GROUNDS NO. 4 & 5 ARE READ AS UNDER: 4. THAT THE AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN DISALLOWING DE DUCTION OF RS.45.00 LACS PAID EXTRA TO SH. VIJAY UMMAT FOR RES CINDING THE SALE AGREEMENT TO WHOM ASSESSEE SOLD ONE HALF OF HI S PLOT, ON THE BASIS OF UNCORROBORATED STATEMENT WITHOUT CONFR ONTING THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ER RED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. 5. THAT THE AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATIN G THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD ONE HALF SHARE OF HIS SHARE T O SH. MOHIT KUMAR GARG AND HARJINDER SINGH AND THE ADDITION OF ONE HALF OF THE ADDITION OF RS.161,18,658/- SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE ONE HALF SHARE BELONGS TO SH. MOHIT KUMAR GARG AND SH. HARJINDER SINGH AND IF AT ALL, THE ADDITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THEIR HANDS. THE DEVELOPERS TATA HOUSING HAD ALSO PAID THE ADVANCE/EARNEST MONE Y TO SH. MOHIT GARG AND SH. HARJINDER SINGH DIRECTLY. 2. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.4, THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THERE IS ASSESSEES GRIEVANCE OVER NON-DEDUCTION OF RS.45 LACS PAID TO SH. VIJAY UMAT FOR RESCINDING WITH THE SALE AGREEMENT BY THE ASSESSE E WHILE COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN. THIS GROUND WAS RAISED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) , WHO REJECTED THE SAME VIDE PARA 6 OF HIS ORDER. 3. WE HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND MATERI AL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE CONCUR WITH THE VIEWS OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT AS PER THE A.O. SH. VIJAY KUMAR UMAT, CA HAS ABSOLUTELY DENIED OF ENTER ING INTO ANY SUCH ITA NO.63(ASR)/2013 3 AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSESSEE. SECONDLY, WITHOUT PRE JUDICE TO ABOVE, FOR ARGUING AND NOT ADMITTING THAT AS PER COPY OF THE A FFIDAVIT/STATEMENT DT. 26.08.2008 OF THE ASSESSEE GIVEN BEFORE THE SUB-COM MITTEE OF PUNJABI CO- OP. HOUSE BLDG. SOCIETY LTD., MOHALI, IT IS STATED THAT HE HAS RECEIVED IN ADVANCE EARNEST MONEY OF RS. 45 LACKS FROM S/SH. VI JAY KUMAR UMAT AND KANWAR JAGDIP SING OF AMRITSAR AND NON-MATURITY OF SALE AGREEMENT WHEREAS RS. 40 LACS HAVING BEEN REPAID ON 27.11.200 7, ANOTHER INSTALMENT OF REPAYMENT OF RS.40 LAKH IN CASH HAS FURTHER BEEN PA ID ON 2.4.08 ( IN SUPPORT CASH RECEIPT ISSUED BY BOTH THE INTENDENT BUYERS HA S BEEN ADDUCED AT PAGE BOOK. SR. NO. 56 & 56 RESPECTIVELY) AND RS. 10 LAKH HAS BEEN BROUGHT IN CASH FOR REPAYMENT IN FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT OF THE HOWRA/AGREEMENT, WHICH GOES TO SHOW THAT THE SECOND SALE TRANSACTION REMAINED UNMATURED/UNMATERIALIZED. ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND NO I NFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS RIGHTLY DISMISSED GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, GROUND NO.4 OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 4. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.5, THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS THE GRIEVANCE OVER NOT ENTERTAINING HIS DEAL OF FIRST P ART OF 500 SQ.YD (PLOT NO.51 AT MOHALI) ALLEGED TO BE SOLD FOR RS. 10 LAKHS TO S H. MUKESH KUMAR GARG AND S.HARJINDER SINGH OF ROPAR. THIS PLEA WAS NOT A DMITTED BY THE AO ITA NO.63(ASR)/2013 4 BEING ONLY AND AFTER-THOUGHT, MADE UP STORY AND SEL F SERVING DEVICE. NO PRUDENT MAN SELLS SAME PLOT OF LAND OF THE SAME DIM ENSIONS AND IN THE SAME VICINITY DATED 2.5.2006 FOR RS.10 LAKHS AND ANOTHER PLOT OF THE SAME MEASUREMENT AFTER 9 MONTHS ON 24.02.2007 FOR RS.777 5000/- [LAST DEAL REMAINED NOT MATURED, REPAYMENT OF RS. 45 LAKHS HAS BEEN CLAIMED, THE SAID TRANSACTION OUTRIGHTLY DENIED BY THE SO-CALLED BUYE R]. THE LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND MATERI AL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A), WHO HAS RIGHTLY CONCURRED WITH THE VIEWS OF THE A.O. AND HAS NOT AD MITTED THE ADDITIONAL GROUND UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I.T.RULES, 1962 SINCE ALL THE DOCUMENTS WERE FRESH WHICH WERE NOT FURNISHED BEFORE THE A.O. AND WERE NOT RIGHTLY ADMITTED AND ENTERTAINED. MOREOVER, ALL THE DOCUMEN TS ARE NOT REGISTERED WITH THE LAND REVENUE AUTHORITIES. NO SUFFICIENT CA USE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR NOT SUBMITTING THE SAME BEFORE THE A.O. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WHO HAS RIGHTLY DISMISSED THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, GROUND NO.5 OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.63(ASR)/2013 5 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.63(ASR)/2013 WITH REGARD TO GROUNDS NO. 4 & 5 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20TH MAY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 20TH MAY, 2014 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:SH.SATYA PAL SAINI, EX-MLA, PATHANKOT. 2. THE DCIT, CIR VI, PATHANKOT. 3. THE CIT(A), ASR 4. THE CIT, ASR 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR