Sh.Jasbir Singh Bassi, Mohali V. ITO, Mohali

ITA 674/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5362 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.674/CHD/201 7 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) SH.JASBIR SINGH BASSI, VS. THE I.T.O., MOHALI. WARD 6(3), MOHALI. PAN NO. : AELPB5882Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL RESPONDENT BY : SMT. MANJIT SINGH, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 28.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.01.2018 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILIN G THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 10.02.2017 OF CIT(APPEALS) -2, GURGAON PERTAINING TO 201011 ASSESSMENT YEAR. VARIOUS GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, HOWEVER, THE LD. AR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RE VISED GROUNDS PURSUANT TO THE DEFECT POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY. AC CORDINGLY, IT WAS HIS PRAYER THAT THE GROUNDS MAY BE SUBSTITUTED. THE LD. SR .DR CONSIDERING THE GROUNDS HAD NO OBJECTION TO THAT SUBSTITUTION. ACCORDI NGLY, THE REVISED GROUNDS RAISED ARE ADMITTED AND ARE REPRODUCED HEREUN DER FOR READY REFERENCE: 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF BANK DEPOSITS TO THE TUNE OF RS.22,12,600/- IN ICICI BANK, IGN ORING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE, INCLUDING THE CERTIFICATE OF PATWARI AND OF THE COMMISSION AGENT. 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS IGNORED THE FACT THAT T HE AGRICULTURAL LAND BELONGED TO JOINT FAMILY CONSISTING OF FATHER AND THREE BROTHER S, WHO HAD BEEN LIVING TOGETHER AND ALL THE SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL WERE BEING DE POSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE LE ARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT GIVING THE BENEFIT OF CASH WITHDRAWALS OF RS.45,00, 000/- MADE ON 2 ND JANUARY 2010 AND WHICH WAS RE-DEPOSITED IN THE MONTH OF JANUARY 2010 AND MARCH 2010. ITA 674/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 2 OF 3 2 2. INVITING ATTENTION TO GROUND NO. 3 IN THE APPEAL, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID GROUND COULD NOT BE RAISED BEFORE THE TAX AUT HORITIES, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE TAXPAYER BEING IGNORANT HAVING LARGELY AGR ICULTURAL INCOME COULD NOT RAISE THE SAID GROUND. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE SAID GROUND MAY APPEAR TO BE A FRESH GROUND BUT INFACT IT IS AN ARGUMEN T WHICH THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE TAKEN BEFORE THE TAX AUTHORITIES TO EXPLA IN THE DEPOSITS OF RS. 22,12,600/- WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN. THESE FACTS WOULD BE EVIDENT ON A PERUSAL OF THE VERY SAME BANK ACC OUNT, WHICH WOULD SHOW THAT SPECIFIC WITHDRAWALS HAD BEEN MADE ON THE SPEC IFIC DATES AS MENTIONED IN THE REVISED GROUND NO. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS HIS LIMITED PRAYER THAT ADMITTING THE GROUND THE ISSUE MAY BE REMANDED BA CK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION OF FACTS. APART FROM THAT , IT WAS ALSO H IS PRAYER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS LED EVIDENCE TO SHOW OWNERSHIP OF LAND, FROM WHICH AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN EARNED AND THOUGH PART EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FILED IN SUPPORT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME, HOWEVER, SINCE THE MERE O WNERSHIP OF THE LAND ITSELF IS HELD TO BE NOT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF AGRICULTURAL ACT IVITY WHILE REMANDING, THE ASSESSEE MAY ALSO BE PERMITTED TO FILE NECE SSARY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. 3. THE LD. SR. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE SAID AMOUNT IS STATED TO B E AVAILABLE BY WAY OF WITHDRAWALS FROM THE VERY SAME BANK ACCOUNT, WHICH ARGUM ENT, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT RAISE BEFORE THE TAX AUTHORITIES, IT WAS HIS SUBM ISSION THAT HE WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE ARGUMENT BEING ADVANCED AND CONSIDERED HOWEVER CORRECTNESS OF THE SAME MAY BE LEFT OPEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND CONSIDERING THE ISSUES RAISED IN GROUND NUMBE RS, 1 AND 2 OF THE REVISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL, I FIND THAT THOUGH THE TAXPAYE R DEMONSTRATED ITS CLAIM IN REGARD TO OWNERSHIP OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, HOWEVER, TH E ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE BY WAY OF FACTS AND EVIDENCES THE AVAILA BILITY OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME THEREFROM. QUA GROUND NO. 3 WHICH IS STATED TO BE AN ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS WITH THE TAXPAYER, I FIND THAT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES BEFORE THE BENCH, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIA TE TO SET ASIDE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WIT H A DIRECTION TO CONSIDER THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE IS PERMITTED TO PLACE EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM AND THE AO IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE SAME AND THEREAFTER PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IT IS HOPED THAT T HE OPPORTUNITY SO PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABUSED AND IS UTILISED FU LLY AND FAIRLY BY ITA 674/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 3 OF 3 3 MAKING PROPER COMPLIANCES. IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT IN THE EV ENTUALITY OF ABUSE OF THE SAME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO P ROCEED WITH THE PRESENT APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECOR D AND THUS IN THE INTERESTS OF THE TAXPAYER ITSELF IT IS ADVISED THAT FULL FACTS AND EVIDENCES ARE PLACED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04.01. 2018. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *RATI*/POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT,CHANDIGARH.