IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. I.T.A. NOS.639 & 640(ASR)/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1999-2000 & 2000-01 PAN:BAFPS3479H SHRI SURJIT SINGH THROUGH VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFI CER, L/H SH. NAVRAJ SINGH, NAWANSHAHR. NAWANSHAHR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND I.T.A. NO.641(ASR)/2009. (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-01 PAN:BAFPS3479H SHRI NAVRAJ SINGH, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAWANSHAHR. NAWANSHAHR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANTS BY: SHRI J.S. BHASIN, ADV. RESPONDENT BY: SH.MAHAVIR SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 13/02/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:24/02/2014 ORDER PER BENCH: THE ASSESSES HAVE FILED THE PRESENT THREE APPEALS AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(A), JALANDHAR EACH DATED 07. 08.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 AND 2000-01.AS THE ISSUE S INVOLVED IN ALL THESE ITA NOS. 639 TO 641(ASR)/2013 2 APPEALS ARE COMMON, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND A RE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENC E. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED IDENTICAL GROUNDS IN ALL TH E APPEALS. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO.639(ASR)/2009 WHICH ARE ID ENTICAL IN OTHER TWO APPEALS, EXCEPT VARIATION IN AMOUNTS, ARE REPRODUCE D, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN ASSUM ING JURISDICTION ON ISSUES, AS WERE NOT RESTORED TO HIS FILED BY THE HONBLE ITAT AMRITSAR VIDE ORDER DATED 24.11.2009 IN ITA NO.352- 353(ASR)/2009, SO AS TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,37,180/- FOR THE ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO ERRED TO HOLD, WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON/FINDING WHATSOEVER, THAT THE ASSESSED INCOME OF ASSESSEE WOULD REMAIN AT RS.19,60,.730/- PLUS AGRICULTURE IN COME OF RS.120000/-. 3. THAT BEFORE SUSTAINING THE ABOVE ADDITION BY SIM PLY FOLLOWING HIS PREDECESSORS FINDINGS, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT T O HAVE ALLOWED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO ASSE SSEE, SANS WHICH, HIS ACTION IS PERSE ILLEGAL BEING CONTRARY T O CARDINAL PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, AND HENCE UNSUSTAINA BLE. 4. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), TO THE EXTENT DISPUTED HEREIN, IS AGAINST LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 3. THE FACTS AS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO RE PEAT THE SAME FOR THE SAKE OF REPETITION. 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDERS IN COMPLIANCE TO THE DIRECTION S GIVEN BY THIS BENCH ITA NOS. 639 TO 641(ASR)/2013 3 VIDE ORDER DATED 24.11.2009 IN ITA NOS. 352 TO 354( ASR)/2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 & 2000-01. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED MISC. APPLICATIONS NO. 116 TO 118(ASR)/2013 FOR RECALL O F THE SAID ORDER OF THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH DATED 24.11.2009, WHICH ORDER HAS SINCE BEEN RECALLED VIDE OUR ORDER OF EVEN DATE FOR FRESH ADJU DICATION. 5. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT APPEALS AS WELL AS THE RECORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDERS BY THE LD. CIT(A) HAVE BEEN PASSED IN COMPLIANCE TO ORDER DATE D 24.11.2009 PASSED BY THIS BENCH IN THE ASSESSES OWN CASES. SINCE MAIN OR DER DATED 24.11.2009 OF THIS BENCH HAS BEEN RECALLED THEN PRESENT APPEALS I N ITA NOS. 639 TO 641(ASR)/2013 HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. WE ORDER ACC ORDINGLY. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASS ESSES IN ITA NO. 639 TO 641(ASR)/2013 ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24TH FE BRUARY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 24TH FEBRUARY, 2014 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:SH.SURJIT SINGH THROUGH L/H NAVRAJ SI NGH (II) SH.NAVRAJ SINGH, NAWANSHHAR. 2. THE ITO, NAWANSHAHAR. 3. THE CIT(A), JLR. 4. THE CIT,JLR. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER