Sh. Hari Singh, Ludhiana V. ITO, Ludhiana

ITA 645/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2416 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-04-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 645/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 SHRI HARI SINGH, V THE ITO, WARD III(2), VILLAGE - KHANJARWAL, LUDHIANA. TEHSIL - MULLANPUR, LUDHIANA. PAN: BLGPS-6530P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHG AL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA DATE OF HEARING : 20.06.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.06.2013 ORDER PER T.R.SOOD, AM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS)-II LUDHIANA DATED 22.03.2011 PASSED U/ S 250(6) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT ). 2. IN THIS APPEAL ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS : 1. THAT THE WORTHY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS), LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IN INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 AND ALSO ASSUMING JURISDICTION U/S 148, WHICH IS BAD IN LAW. 2. THAT THE WORTHY CIT (A) HAS ALSO ERRED TO CONSID ER THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 HAS NO T APPLIED HIS OWN MIND INDEPENDENTLY, BUT HAS FOLLOWED THE DICTATES OF TH E ITO- TDS FOR REOPENING THE CASE U/S 148 AND WHICH IS NOT PROPER. 3. NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABOVE SAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL , THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 15,82 ,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. THAT THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY US DURING THE COURS E OF HEARING HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED PROPERLY. 5. NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION OF THE RETIRED ARMY MAN THAT THE 2 SAME AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS OUT OF 'ON MONEY' RECEI VED FROM THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. 3. OUT OF ABOVE, GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 WERE NOT PRESSED . THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. GROUND NOS. 3, 4 & 5 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT INF ORMATION CAME TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM ITO (TDS) THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE AN FDR FOR RS.28,00,000/- AND ACCORDINGLY, CASE WAS REOPEN ED U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO GIVE THE SOURCES. IT WAS BASICALLY STATED THAT ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE WERE HOLDING SOME AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THE SAME WAS SOLD. THE LAND IN THE NAME OF ASS ESSEE'S WIFE SMT.HARBANS KAUR WAS SOLD FOR RS.6,40,000/- AND LAN D IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE WAS SOLD FOR RS.5,78,000/- ON 5.7.2006 AND 27.8.2006 AND THIS AMOUNT WAS UTILIZED FOR PURCHASE OF FDR. IT WAS FU RTHER STATED THAT ASSESSEE IS OWNER OF 6 ACRES OF LAND, OUT OF WHICH 2 ACRES WAS SOLD ONLY IN THE YEAR 2006. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CULTI VATING THIS LAND FOR GROWING WHEAT, PADDY AND VEGETABLES AND THE SAME WE RE BEING SOLD IN THE LOCAL MARKET. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSEE WAS EX-SERVICEMAN AND WAS ALSO RECEIVING SOME PENSION. ALL THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE CULTIVATION WERE KEPT AT HOME AND WERE NEVER DEPOSI TED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THE MONEY OUT OF THE PAST SAVINGS FROM PENSION AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS USED FOR MAKING FDR. THE A SSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FIND ANY FORCE IN THIS SUBMISSION AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.15,82,000/- TOWARDS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(APP EALS). 5. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT BEFORE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, ASSESSEE WAS HAVING 6 ACRES O F LAND WHICH WAS CULTIVATED FOR GROWING VEGETABLES, WHEAT ETC. WHICH WERE BEING SOLD IN 3 THE OPEN MARKET. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO HAVING PENS ION INCOME AND THEREFORE LOT OF SAVING WAS GENERATED FOR THE LAST MANY YEARS WHICH WAS KEPT IN CASH AT HOUSE. THIS MONEY WAS UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF FDR. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(APPEALS). 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIND SOME FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS. THE ASSESSEE IS AN EX-SERVICEMAN AND THEREFORE WAS HAVING PENSION INCOME. IN ADDITION, ASSESSEE WAS H AVING 6 ACRES OF LAND WHICH CAN GENERATE SOME INCOME IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENT OF THE FOOD AND VEGETABLES FOR THE HOUSEHOLD. HOWEVER , AT THE SAME TIME IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT ASSESSEE WAS KEEP ING ALL THE CASH AT HOME FOR THE LAST 25 YEARS. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE OVERALL CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT SOURCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3 LACS MAY BE ACCEPTED FOR MAKING FDR OUT OF PAST AGR ICULTURAL AND PENSION INCOME BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT SOM E SAVINGS MAY HAVE BEEN GENERATED. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF RS. 3 LACS FOR PAST SAVINGS AND MAKE ADDITION ONLY FOR RS.12,8 2,000/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH JUNE, 2013. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 28 TH JUNE, 2013. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT,CHD.