Sh. Devinder Singh, Kurukshetra V. ITO, Kurukshetra

ITA 667/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 66721514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 09-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Gift; Opportunity of being heard; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147; 68; 69; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES SMC CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO. 667/CHD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) SH.DEVINDER SINGH, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, OPP.HOTEL HERITAGE, WARD 1, SECTOR 7, URBAN ESTATE, KURUKSHETRA. KURUKSHETRA. PAN NO. ATQPS1986A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI AJAY JAIN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.K.GUPTA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 09.06.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.06.2015 O R D E R PER H.L.KARWA, VP : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIR ECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KARNAL DATED 3.3.2011 RELATING TO ASSESS MENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWI NG GROUNDS : 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME (APPEAL) KARNAL HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS 12 LAKHS WITHOUT 2 APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE FATHER & UNCLES (DON ORS) HAS CONFIRMED THE GIFTS TO THE APPELLANT OUT OF THEIR JOI NT FAMILY AGRICULTURAL INCOME & ALSO PRODUCED THE PROOF OF JOI NT OWNERSHIP OF AGRICULTURAL LAND MEASURING APPROX 50 ACRES AT VILLAG E CHAK IN HISSAR . 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EAL) KARNAL HAS ERRED BY ACCEPTING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 147 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE REOPENING UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE ACT IS BAD AS THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HA S ESCAPED ASSESSMENT & THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS ON THE BASIS OF REASON TO SUSPECT ONLY. 4. VIDE GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHO RT THE ACT). 5. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 20.11.2006 DECLA RING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.74,850/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT ON 1.3.2007 AND RETURNED INCOME WAS ACCEPTED. SUBSEQUENTLY, ON BEHALF OF INFORMATI ON RECEIVED FROM THE JOINT SUB-REGISTRAR, AMBALA CANTT , NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 12.12.20 08. THE REASONS RECORDED FOR ISSUING THE NOTICE IS REPRODUC ED AS UNDER: 'AS PER INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE JOINT-REGISTR AR, AMBALA CANTT. THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED LAND FOR A CONSID ERATION OF 3 RS. 15,00,000/- + REGISTRATION CHARGES OF RS.L.50 L AC ON 01.7.2005. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 20.11.2 006 DECLARING TAXABLE INCOME OF RS. 74,850/-, THE TRANSACTION OF RS. J5,00,000/- MADE FOR PURCHASES OF LAND IS NOT VERIF IABLE FROM RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. I HAVE, THEREFORE, REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.15,00,000/- (RS. FIFTEEN LAC ONLY) HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. ' AFTER RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HIS REPLY ON 15.01.2009 CONTENDING THAT 'THAT THE RETUR N OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 HAD BEEN FILED WITH YOU R GOOD OFFICE ON 20.11.2006 VIDE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO. 15,67 1 AND THE SAME SHOULD BE TREATED TO BE RETURN OF INCOME U NDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. ' 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DECLARED AFORESAID PROPERTY IN HIS RETURN. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS AND SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION. IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE QUERY, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE REPLY AS UNDER : 'THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL LAND MEASUR ING 9 KANAL AT SHAHPUR, G.T. ROAD, DISTT.- AMBALAON 01.7.2 005 FOR RS.15.00 LAC. FURTHER AN EXPENDITURE OF RS. 1.50 LA C WAS BORNE FOR REGISTRATION AND MISC. EXPENDITURE BY MY ASSESSEE MA KING AN TOTAL INVESTMENT OF RS. 16.50 LACS. THE TOTAL INVESTMENT OF R S.16.50 LACS WAS MADE OF MONEY RECEIVED BY MY CLIENT FROM HIS FATHER /UNCLES AS PER THE DETAILS GIVEN BELOW:- 4 (A) GIFT OF RS. 7.00 LAC FROM FATHER:- THE ASSESSEES FATHER SH. PRITHVI SINGH GOT RETIRED AS DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER AND GIFTED RS. 5.00 LAC FROM HIS TERM INAL BENEFITS. MOREOVER, HIS FATHER JOINTLY OWNS AGRICULTURAL LAND OF APPROX 50 ACRES AT HIS NATIVE VILLAGE OF PANIHAR CHAK CHAUDHARY VAS IN DISTT. HISSAR AND ALSO GIFTED RS. 2.00 LAC FROM HIS AGRICULT URAL INCOME TO ENABLE HIS SON TO PURCHASES THE SAID PROPERTY. THE F ATHER OF MY CLIENT WITHDREW SUCH AMOUNT FROM HIS SAVING BANK ACC OUNT NO. 676010100019252 WITH BANK OF INDIA, HISSAR BRANCH. THE COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT, AFFIDAVIT OF HIS FATHER IS ATTACHED HE REWITH AND COPY OF JAMABANDI/FURD OF AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDI NG OF HIS FATHER IS ATTACHED HEREWITH TO SUBSTANTIATE OUR CLA IM. (B) GIFT OF RS. 5.00 LACS FROM UNCLE (MAHENDER SING H) ASSESSEES UNCLE SH. MAHENDER SINGH JOINTLY OWNS AGRIC ULTURAL LAND OF APPROX 50 ACRES AT HIS NATIVE VILLAGE OF PAN IHAR CHAK CHAUDHARY VAS IN DISTT. HISSAR AND GIFTED RS.5.00 LA C FROM HIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO ENABLE HIS NEPHEW TO PURCHAS E THE SAID PROPERTY. THE AFFIDAVIT AND COPY OF JAMABANDI/FURD O F AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDING OF SHRI MOHINDER SINGH ARE AT TACHED HEREWITH TO SUBSTANTIATE OUR CLAIM. (B) GIFT OF RS. 5.00 LACS FROM UNCLE (UMED SINGH):- ASSESSEES UNCLE SH. UMED SINGH JOINTLY OWNS AGRICUL TURAL LAND OF APPROX 50 ACRES AT HIS NATIVE VILLAGE OF PANIHA R CHAK CHAUDHARY VAS IN DISTT. HISSAR AND GIFTED RS.5.00 LAC FROM HIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO ENABLE HIS NEPHEW TO PURCHAS E THE SAID PROPERTY. THE AFFIDAVIT AND COPY OF JAMABANDI/FURD OF AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDING OF SH. UMED SINGH ARE ATTA CHED HEREWITH TO SUBSTANTIATE OUR CLAIM.' 7. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF SHRI PRITHVI SINGH, FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO HAS STAT ED THAT RS.5 LACS WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE OUT OF HIS TERMINAL BENEFITS AND RS.2 LACS FROM HIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE A SSESSING 5 OFFICER ACCEPTED THE GIFT OF RS.5 LACS AS GENUINE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE GIFT OF RS .2 LACS STATING THAT SHRI PRITHVI SINGH (FATHER OF THE ASSE SSEE) HAS STATED THAT HE OWNS NO AGRICULTURAL LAND INDIVIDUAL LY. THEREFORE, THE FACTUM OF PAYMENT MADE TO HIS SON OU T OF HIS AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE DOES NOT ARISE. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER ALSO RECORDED STATEMENT OF S/SHRI MOHINDER SINGH AN D UMED SINGH (UNCLES OF THE ASSESSEE) ON 1.12.2009 AS BOTH THE UNCLES OF THE ASSESSEE GIFTED RS.5 LACS EACH TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THEIR STATEMENTS, S/SHRI MOHINDER AND UMED SINGH STATED THAT THEY GIFTED THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION TO HIS NEPH EW (THE ASSESSEE) OUT OF THE INCOME FROM THEIR AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT BOTH THE DONORS FAILED TO PRODUCE J FORM WHICH RELATE S TO SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED RS.12 LACS (RS.2 LACS + RS.5 LACS + RS.5 LACS = 12 LACS) AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTIONS 68 AND 69 OF THE ACT. 8. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LE ARNED CIT (APPEALS). IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CH ALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). HOWEVER, ON MERITS, THE LEARNED CIT (A PPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.12 LACS, AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6 9. VIDE GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HA S CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESS MENT. 10. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE AL SO PERUSED THE REASONS RECORDED FOR RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. AS PER THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM JOINT SUB- REGISTRAR, AMBALA CANTT, THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.16.50 L ACS ONLY (RS.15 LACS, COST OF THE LAND + RS.1.50 LACS, REGIS TRATION AND OTHER CHARGES). ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED RE TURN OF INCOME ON 20.11.2006 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED FACT THAT T HE ASSESSEE DID NOT DECLARE THIS LAND/PROPERTY AND THE INVESTME NT MADE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE PROPERTY; AND FOR THE FIRST TIME THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED HIS REPLY ON 10.11.2009. NOW, I HAVE TO EXAMINE AS TO WHETHER THE RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS VALID OR NOT? IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS PVT . LTD., 291 ITR 500 (SC). THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAD OBSER VED THAT IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR WHATEVER REASON HAS RE ASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, IT CONFERS JURISDICTION TO RE-OPEN THE ASSESSMENT. THE HON'B LE SUPREME COURT ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE WORD REASON IN THE P HRASE REASON TO BELIEVE WOULD MEAN CAUSE OR JUSTIFICATI ON TO KNOW OR SUPPOSE THAT THE INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, IT CAN BE SAID TO HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME H AD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT CATEGORICALL Y 7 OBSERVED THAT THAT EXPRESSION CANNOT BE READ TO MEA N THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE FINALLY ASCERTAINED T HE FACT BY LEGAL EVIDENCE OR CONCLUSION. WHAT IS REQUIRED IS REASON TO BELIEVE BUT NOT THE ESTABLISHED FACT OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ALSO HELD THAT AT THE STA GE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, THE O NLY QUESTION IS WHETHER THERE WAS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON WHICH A R EASONABLE PERSON COULD HAVE FORMED THE REQUISITE BELIEF. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT THAT WHETHER MATERIAL WOULD CONCLUSIVELY PROVE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IS NO T THE CONCERN AT THIS STAGE BECAUSE THE FORMATION OF THE BELIEF IS WITHIN THE REALM OF THE SUBJECTIVE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO, THE R ETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AND NOTIC E UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 12.12.2008. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE ABOVE CASE HELD THAT TAXING INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF AN INTIM ATION UNDER SECTION 143(1)(A) IS COVERED BY THE MAIN PROVISION OF SECTION 147 AND INITIATING RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF INTIMATION WOULD BE COVERED BY THE MAIN PROVISION O F SECTION 147 AND NOT THE PROVISO THERETO . IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR WHATEVER REASON HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, IT CONFERS JURISDICTION TO RE-OPEN THE ASSESSMENT. THE QUEST ION WHETHER THE MATERIAL WOULD CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THE ESCAPEMEN T OF INCOME IS NOT THE CONCERN AT THIS STAGE. IN THE I NSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVED THE INFORMATION FROM THE JOINT SUB-REGISTRAR, AMBALA CANTT. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED 8 AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.15 LACS . AND INCURRED REGISTRATION CHARGES AND OTHER CHARGES OF RS.1.50 LACS ON 1.7.2005. IT MEANS THAT THERE WAS A CREDI BLE INFORMATION WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT VIDE A REGISTERED SALE DEED THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL L AND FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.15 LACS AND PAID REGISTRATION C HARGES AND OTHER CHARGES OF RS.1.50 LACS. ON 1.7.2005. IN MY OPINION, THE ABOVE INFORMATION/MATERIAL RECEIVED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WAS RELEVANT AND AFFORDED A LIVE LINK OR NE XUS TO THE FORMATION OF THE PRIMA FACIE BELIEF THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IN ASSESSEES HANDS. I HAVE ALREADY OBSERVED HERE-IN-ABOVE THAT IN THE RETURN O F INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE NO SUCH INVESTMENT MADE OR AS SETS CREATED WAS DISCLOSED. NO ONE CAN SAY THAT THE IN FORMATION AS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS VAGUE OR I NCOMPLETE IN ANY SENSE. IN THE CASE OF RAJAT EXPORT IMPORT INDIA PVT. LTD VS. ITO (2012) 341 ITR 133 (DELHI) WHEREIN THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER:- ' AT THE STAGE WHEN REASONS ARE RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT REQUIRED TO BUILD A FOOL PROOF CASE FOR MAKING ADDITION TO THE ASSESSEE'S INCOME ; ALL THAT HE IS REQUIRED TO DO AT THAT STAGE IS TO FORM A PRIMA FACIE OPINION OR BELIEF THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE RELEVANCY OF THE MATERIAL BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TO BE JUDGED ONLY FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE AND NOT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE AS TO -WHETHER THE MATERIAL IS SUFFICIENT OR ADEQUATE TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION ULTIMATELY. THAT WILL BE AN ASPECT WHICH THE 9 ASSESSING OFFICER WILL EXAMINE AND DECIDE IN THE COURSE OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSES IN THE MANNER REQUIRED BY LAW.' 8. IN THE ABOVE CASE, INVESTIGATION WING PROVIDED THE INFORMATION ALONG WITH CHEQUE NUMBER AND BANK DETAI LS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN CHEQUE FROM ENTRY PROVIDER A ND THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT THERE IS REASON TO BELIEVE PRIMA-FACIE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAP ED ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE HON'BL E HIGH COURT FURTHER HELD THAT MATERIAL BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER WAS RELEVANT AND AFFORDED A LIVE LINK OR NEXUS TO T HE FORMATION OF THE PRIMA FACIE BELIEF THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IN THE ASSESSEE'S HANDS. 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THE GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL STATING THAT THE RE-OPENI NG OF THE ASSESSMENT IS BAD AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO R EASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAP ED ASSESSMENT. ACCORDINGLY, I DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 10. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL, SHRI AJA Y JAIN, APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DONORS (ASSESSEES FATHE R AND TWO UNCLES) HAVE JOINTLY OWNED 50 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT VILLAGE PANIHAR CHAK CHAUDHARY VAS IN DISTT. HISSAR AND PROOF OF OWNERSHIP (FARD/JAMABANDI) OF THE SAID LAN D WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME O F 10 ASSESSMENT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE STATEMEN TS OF THREE DONORS WERE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE DONORS HAVE CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THEY HAVE MAD E THE GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE. SHRI AJAY JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE GRAND-FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE, SH RI AMAR SINGH DIED ON 13.9.2002. AFTER THE DEATH OF SHRI AMAR SINGH, ASSESSEES FATHER SHRI PRITHVI SINGH AND HIS TWO UN CLES S/SHRI MOHINDER SINGH AND UMED SINGH INHERITED ABOUT 50 AC RES OF LAND. SHRI AJAY JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LEARNED C IT (APPEALS) HAS NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATED THE STATEMENTS OF THE DONORS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DONORS HAD GIVEN RS.1 2 LACS AS GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE PROOF OF OWNERSHIP OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE, THE BEST EVIDENCE IS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REAS ON. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE BE ACCEPTED. SHRI R.K.GUPTA, LEARNED D.R FOR THE REV ENUE, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONG LY STATED THAT SHRI PRITHVI SINGH, FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED IN HIS STATEMENT THAT HE HAD NO AGRICULTURAL LAND IN H IS NAME. THE RELEVANT PARA OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI PRIITHVI SINGH (ENGLISH VERSION) READS AS UNDER: 11 QUESTION: PLEASE TELL THE FIRM NAME WHERE YOU SELLI NG THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCE AND FROM WHERE YOU GET MONEY, J FARM IF ANY PLEASE SUBMIT THE SAME. YOU HAVE HOW MUCH AGRICULTURE LAND? ANS. I HAVE PERSONALLY NEVER PURCHASED ANY LAND. MY FATHER AND MY UNCLES HAVE ABOUT 150 ACRES AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE SALE BY MY UNCLE AND AFTER SELLING THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE THE AMOUNT WILL BE KEPT AT HOME. WE RIPE KAPAS, BAJRA, CHANA, JAWAR ETC. IN THEIR FIELDS. 11. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT SHRI PRITHVI SINGH HAS STATED THAT HE HAS PERSONALLY NEVER PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL LAND. BUT HIS FATHER AND HIS UNCLES HAD ABOUT 150 ACRES AGRICULTURAL LAND. THEREFORE, THE OBSER VATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT SHRI PRITHVI SINGH WA S NOT HAVING ANY AGRICULTURAL LAND IN HIS NAME IS INCORRE CT. AS PER JAMABANDI FOR THE YEAR 2005-06, ALL THE THREE DONOR S ARE RECORDED AS OWNERS IN POSSESSION OF AGRICULTURAL LA ND APPROXIMATELY 50 ACRES AT THEIR NATIVE VILLAGE PANI HAR CHAK CHAUDHARY VAS IN DISTT. HISSAR. IT IS CLAIMED THA T THE DONORS GROW KAPAS, BAJRA, CHANA, JAWAR, ETC. ON THEIR AGRI CULTURAL LAND. SHRI AJAY JAINL LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT THERE ARE ENTRIES IN THE KHASRA GIRDAWARI TO P ROVE THAT THE DONORS ARE GROWING DIFFERENT CROPS ON THEIR AGR ICULTURAL LAND. IT APPEARS THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT PROPERLY CONSIDERED THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEY HAVE REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE DONORS FAILED TO PROD UCE J FORM TO PROVE THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. I N MY 12 OPINION, NON PRODUCTION OF J FORM CANNOT BE A GRO UND FOR REJECTION OF THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT C ASE, I THINK IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNE D CIT (APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE AND REMAND THE MATTER TO TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING DUE AND REAS ONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED PARTLY FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 16 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015. SD/- (H.L.KARWA) VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 16 TH JUNE, 2015 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH