Sh. Taranjeet Singh, Ludhiana V. ITO, Ludhiana

ITA 633/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9894 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 08-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 25-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: E PASS LUDHIANA PAN NO ADJPSF
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES SMC CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO. 633/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-08 SHRI TARUNJEET SINGH, VS. THE ITO, C/O KARTAR COMPLEX, WARD III (3), G.T. ROAD, LUDHIANA. JALANDHAR BYE PASS, LUDHIANA. PAN NO. ADJPS6794F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.K.GUPTA DATE OF HEARING : 08.06.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.06.2015 O R D E R PER H.L.KARWA, VP THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS)-II, LUDHIANA DATED 21.04.2014 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSES SEE HAS RAISED TWO EFFECTIVE GROUNDS, WHICH READ AS UNDER : 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING TH E ADDITION OF RS 2,01,247.00./-(RS.50000/-+ RS.151247.00/-) IN RESPE CT OF COMMISSION PAID ON SALE OF PROPERTY & DEVELOPMENT C HARGES OF LAND RESPECTIVELY, AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APP ELLANT. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE A DDITION OF RS.50000.00/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID FOR THE PURPOSE OF SALE OF LAND. ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMED CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM THE AGENT (SH. SURINDER SINGH) AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDING U/S 143(3) OF L.T ACT, 1961. COMMISSION ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF LAND SHALL BE ALLOWED AS IT HAS BEEN PAID DURING THE NOR MAL COURSE OF BUSINESS. NATURE OF SALE/ PURCHASE OF PROPERTY SUGG EST THAT TRANSACTION WITHOUT LAND DEAL IS NOT POSSIBLE. SO P AYMENT OF COMMISSION SHALL BE ALLOWED. MERE ASSESSEE FAILED T O PRODUCE THE 2 PARTY (SUNDER SINGH ), DOES NOT DISENTITLED FOR CLA IMING THE EXPENDITURE . 2 THE ABOVE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 08.06.2 015. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY REGIS TERED POST. IT APPEARS THAT THE NOTICE OF HEARING HAS BEEN RECEIVE D BY THE ASSESSEE. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE, NOBODY APPEAR ED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE THE MATTER AND HENCE, I DECIDE THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. I HAVE HEARD SHRI R.K.GUPTA, LD. DR AT LENGTH AN D HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE RETURN ON 26.02.2008 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 4,02,622/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 1,90,738/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SEC TION 143(1) OF THE ACT ON 31.10.2008. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WA S SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND STATUTORY NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO T HE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE SERVED UPON ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS EA RNING HIS INCOME FROM SALE AND PURCHASE OF COMMODITIES. DURI NG THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS. ON VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS OF C OMPUTATION OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTI CED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF DEVE LOPMENT CHARGES FOR PAYMENT OF 40 TRUCKS OF EARTH. THE ASS ESSEE HAD ALSO CLAIMED COMMISSION ON PURCHASE OF LAND. THE ASSESS EE FURNISHED COMPUTERIZED BILL REGARDING THE PAYMENT O F DEVELOPMENT CHARGES. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED A COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF COMMISSION PAYMENT. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE PAYMENTS MAD E BY 3 PROVIDING THE DATE AND MODE OF PAYMENTS, THE ASSESS EE COULD NOT FURNISH THE REQUISITE DETAILS/EVIDENCE. IN THE ABSE NCE OF THE REQUISITE EVIDENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED ON DEVELOPMENT CHARGES AND COMM ISSION PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE WAS NOT GENUINE. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER COMPUTED THE ASSESSEE'S SHARE IN THESE EXPENSES AT RS. 1,51,247/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO DISALLOWED COMMISSION PAYMENT OF RS. 50,000/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF PROPERTIES. 4. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVING AS UNDER : 3.6. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISS IONS. I HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT NO EVIDENC E REGARDING THE PAYMENTS OF COMMISSION TO SH. HARPREET SINGH AND SH . SURINDER SINGH WAS FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT EXCEPT THE CERTIFICA TES WRITTEN ON PLAIN PAPERS CERTIFYING THAT SH. HARPREET SINGH HAD RECEI VED RS. 57,0007- FROM SH. TARUNJEET SINGH FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AND SH. SU RINDER SINGH HAD RECEIVED RS. 48,9007- FROM SH. TARUNJEET SINGH AS C OMMISSION ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. (COPIES OF THESE CERTIFICA TES ARE ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE - I & II TO THIS ORDER). PERUSAL OF THESE CERTIFICATES REVEALS THE FOLLOWING DISCREPANCIES :- 1. BOTH THE CERTIFICATES ARE WRITTEN IN THE SAME HAND WRITING. 2. CERTIFICATE SIGNED BY SH. HARPREET SINGH DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY ADDRESS. 3. IN BOTH THESE CERTIFICATES NO DATE OF RECEIPT OF C OMMISSION AMOUNTS HAS BEEN MENTIONED. 4. IN BOTH THESE CERTIFICATES THE MODE OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED. 5. THE AMOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID TO SH. SURINDER SING H AS PER THE CERTIFICATE IS RS. 48,900/- WHEREAS THE AMOUNT OF C OMMISSION AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS RS. 50,000/- 6. IN BOTH THE CERTIFICATES IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THA T SH. TARUNJEET SINGH, THE APPELLANT HAS PAID THE COMMISSION ON ACC OUNT OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY WHEREAS THE COMMISSION CLAIMED TO ONE PERSON IS ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE AND TO THE OTHER P ERSON IS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF PROPERTY. 4 7. AS REPORTED BY THE AO, PAN NUMBER MENTIONED IN THE CERTIFICATE GIVEN BY SH. HARPREET SINGH IS NOT CORRECT. 5. ON PERUSAL OF RECORDS, IT IS CLEAR THAT IN THE I NSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM FOR THE EXPENSES OF RS.1,51,247/- AND RS. 50, 000/- CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ON LAND A ND COMMISSION RESPECTIVELY. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW TH AT THE ONUS LIES ON THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE NECESSARY EVIDENCE IN SU PPORT OF CLAIM OF ANY EXPENDITURE. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATT ER, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE FULLY JUSTIFIED IN THEIR RES PECTIVE ACTION. I DO NOT SEE ANY GROUND FOR INTERFERING WITH THE ORDE R OF THE CIT(APPEALS) AND ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED . CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH JUNE,2015. SD/- (H.L.KARWA) VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 8 TH JUNE, 2015 POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR