ACIT, Ludhiana V. Sh. Randip Singh, Ludhiana

ITA 733/CHANDI/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 95516 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 03-07-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS RAJINDER KAUR
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHWANI KUMAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Additional evidence; Agreed addition
• Section: 68; 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS.ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 733/CHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 THE ACIT, VS SHRI RANDIP SINGH, CIRCLE VI, 2914, GURDEV NAGAR, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: AEHPS1645A & CO 53/CHD/2009 IN ITA NO. 733/CHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 SHRI RANDIP SINGH, VS THE ACIT, 2914, GURDEV NAGAR, CIRCLE VI, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: AEHPS1645A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTENT BY : MRS. RAJINDER KAUR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR DATE OF HEARING : 20.08.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.08.2015 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AS WELL AS CROSS OBJECTION BY ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. 2 CIT(APPEALS)-II LUDHIANA DATED 30.04.2009 FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN TH E DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL, REVENUE HAS RAISED THE SOLE G ROUND CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN DELETI NG THE ADDITION OF RS. 9,91,358/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINE D CASH CREDIT. 3. BRIEFLY THE FACT OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD SHOWN AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 9,91,358/- FROM SAL E OF POPULAR TREES GROWN ON THE LAND. BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, CONFIRMED COPY OF THE ACCOUNT OF PARTIES T O WHOM POPLAR TREES HAVE BEEN STATED TO BE SOLD WERE FILED . THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, NOTED THAT SALE DEED OF THE LAND SHOWED THAT POPULAR PLANTATIONS STILL EXISTED ON THE LAND WHEN THE LAND WAS SOLD. FROM THE KHASRA GIRDA WARI OF THE LAND, ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT FOR SAWAN I CROP OF THE YEAR 2004 WHICH IS EFFECTED IN THE MONTH OF OCTOBER, POPLAR TREES WERE STILL STANDING. THE LAN D WAS, HOWEVER, SOLD IN THE MONTH OF AUGUST,2004. THEREFO RE, ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT IF SUCH PLANTS WERE EXISTING IN KHASRA GIRDAWARI EFFECTED IN THE MONTH OF OCTOBER,2004, HOW THE ASSESSEE COULD CLAIM TO HAVE SOLD THESE POPLAR TREES BEFORE THE SALE OF THE LAND IN AUGUT,2004. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT TR EES WERE STANDING IN THE LAND AT THE TIME OF SALE WERE POPLAR DE BUTE AND NOT POPLAR TREES WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTE D BY 3 ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFOR E, MADE THE ABOVE ADDITIONS UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 4. THE ADDITION WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEA LS) AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD IN FACT SOLD THE POPLAR TREES WHICH WAS SUPPORTED BY CONFIRMED COPIE S OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM POPLAR TREES WE RE SOLD. THEIR PAN NUMBERS WERE ALSO GIVEN. THE ASSES SEE RECEIVED THE PAYMENTS THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL WHICH IS NOT DENIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT PERUSAL OF THE SALE DEED OF THE AGRICUL TURAL LAND SHOWS THAT POPLAR PLANTS TILL EXISTED ON THIS LAND WHEN THIS LAND WAS SOLD, WHICH WAS ABSOLUTELY WRONG BECAUSE IN THE SALE DEED, IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THA T AGRICULTURAL LAND HAS BEEN SOLD ALONGWITH POPLAR D E BUTE . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT POPLAR DE BUTE ARE SMALL PLANTS AS COMPARED TO POPLAR TREES WHICH HAD ALREAD Y BEEN SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE B ETWEEN BOTH THESE PLANTATIONS. POPLAR TREES ARE FULLY GRO WN UP TREES WHEREAS POPLAR PLANT IS JUST THE BEGINNING OF THE GROWTH OF THE TREE. THEREFORE, THERE IS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POPLAR DE BUTE AND POPLAR TREES. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT POPLAR TREES WERE PLANTED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1997-98 AND A PERIOD MORE THAN SIX Y EARS HAD LAPSED AT THE TIME OF SALE OF THE POPLAR WOOD. THE POPLAR TREES ARE SOLD WHEN THEY ATTAIN THE HEIGHT. THEREFORE, MERE MENTIONING OF POPLAR DE BUTE WOUL D NOT 4 DENY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSEE HAS COR RECTLY SHOWN SALE OF THE POPLAR TREES WHICH WAS AGRICULTUR E INCOME. 5. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITION . THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN PARA 7 OF THE IMPUG NED ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 7. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE / APPELLANT AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORD. THOUGH THE APPELLANT HAS FILED NECESSARY EVIDENCE WIT H THE A.O. WITH REGARD TO SALE OF THE POPLAR TREES IN THE FORM OF CONFIRMED COPIES OF ACCOUNTS OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM THE POPLAR TREES WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE 'BEEN' SOLD, THE A.O. HAS NOT ACCEPTED THIS EVIDENCE WITHOUT DISCUSSING AS TO H OW THIS EVIDENCE COULD BE REJECTED. AS EXPLAINED IN THE WRIT TEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL ALL THESE PARTIES ARE IN COME TAX ASSESSEES AND THEIR PANS ARE DULY INDICATED IN THE RESPECTIVE COPIES OF ACCOUNTS. THE APPELLANT HAD DULY EXPLAINED BEFORE THE A.O. THAT THESE POPLAR TREES WE RE PLANTED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1997-98. EXPENSES OF T HESE POPLAR PLANTATION WERE SHOWN TO BE INCURRED BY THE AP PELLANT FROM YEAR TO YEAR. DETAILS OF THESE EXPENSES ARE DU LY FILED BEFORE THE A.O. AND AS PER WHICH TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS. 1,73,692/- HAVE BEEN INCURRED FROM THE YEAR 1997-98 TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05. ALL THESIS EVIDENCES VERY STR ONGLY SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER THE A.O. HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT ON THE GROUND T HAT IN THE SALE DEED OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND POPLAR PLANTS WER E SHOWN TO BE STILL STANDING. THOUGH THE A.O. HAS NOT ACCEPTE D THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT WHAT WAS STANDING ON THE LAND SOLD WERE 'POPLAR DE BUTE' AND NOT POPLAR 'TR EES', I AM INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLA NT. THE 5 POPLAR TREES WERE PLANTED IN THE YEAR 1997-98 AND, THEREFORE, THESE ARE FULLY GROWN TO BE CUT AND SOLD IN THE YEAR 2003-04. AS BROUGHT OUT IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION S WHEN POPLAR TREES ARE CUT, ROOTS ARE NOT GENERALLY EXTRACTED AND SOME PORTION OF STEM AND THE ROOTS IS LEFT IN TH E EARTH AND FROM THIS THE NEW TREE IMMEDIATELY GROWS FROM T HE SAME OLD ROOT. THE A.O. HAS CONSIDERED THAT POPLAR TREES WERE STILL STANDING IN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AT THE TIME OF SALE. HOWEVER AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE APPELLANT WHA T IS MENTIONED IN THE GIRDAWRI IS 'POPLAR DE BUTE'. THIS IS MENTIONED IN RESPECT OF POPLAR PLANTS WHICH ARE VER Y MUCH DIFFERENT FROM POPLAR TREES. THIS COUPLED WITH THE F ACT THAT THE POPLAR TREES WERE FULLY GROWN AT THE TIME OF SA LE OF THE LAND AND FURTHER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE EVIDENCE IN THE SHAPE OF CONFIRMATION OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM THESE T REES WERE SOLD BY THE APPELLANT AND WHICH EVIDENCE HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE INGENUINE, IN MY OPINION IT WOULD NOT BE J USTIFIED TO REJECT THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT. THE ADDITION O F RS.9,91,358/- MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 6.8 OF THE ACT BY REJECTING THIS CLAIM IS THEREFORE, DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, ALLOWED. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE DO NOT F IND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 6 8 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT IN THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, CL AIMED THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION HAVE BEEN RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF SALE OF THE POPLAR TREES TO VARIOUS PARTIES AND THEIR PAN NUMBERS HAVE BEEN GIV EN AND ALL THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED THROUGH BAN KING CHANNEL. THE ASSESSEE FILED NECESSARY EVIDENCES WI TH THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR SALE OF THE POPLAR TREES ALON GWITH 6 CONFIRMED COPIES OF THE ACCOUNT OF THE PARTIES. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT POPLAR TREES WERE PLANTED BEFORE SIX YEARS BACK AND ALL THE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR PLANTATIONS OF POPLAR TREES WERE ALSO FILED. THEREFORE, THESE EVI DENCES WERE SUFFICIENT TO HOLD THAT ASSESSEE EARNED AGRICU LTURE INCOME ON SALE OF POPLAR TREES. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER DENIED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE MERELY BECAUSE POPLAR PLANTATION WAS MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED. THE ASS ESSEE, HOWEVER, EXPLAINED THAT IN THE SALE DEED, IT WAS ME NTIONED AS POPLAR DE BUTE WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM POPLAR TREES. SINCE POPLAR TREES WERE PLANTED WAY BACK IN THE YEA R 1997-98, THEREFORE, SAME WERE CORRECTLY CUT AND SOL D IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE EXPLANATION OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS CORRECTLY ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT(APPE ALS). THEREFORE, THERE IS NO UNEXPLAINED CREDIT IN THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON P ROPER APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, CORRE CTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION. THEREFORE, DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE CROSS OBJECTION, ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 15,32,580/- UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN PROFIT ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT RS. 23,36,000/-. THE CAPITAL GAIN ON 7 SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS CLAIMED EXEMPT FROM I NCOME TAX. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT LAND IN QUESTION WAS LO CATED OUTSIDE THE MUNICIPAL LIMIT OF LUDHIANA AND WAS SIT UATED MORE THAN 8 KMS FROM MUNICIPAL LIMIT OF LUDHIANA. ACCORDINGLY, CAPITAL GAIN FROM SALE OF LAND WAS CLA IMED EXEMPT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, MADE ENQUI RIES BY DEPUTING HIS INSPECTOR ALONGWITH FATHER OF THE A SSESSEE AND HIS CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT FOR MAKING SPOT INSPEC TION. THE LAND WAS REPORTED TO BE SITUATED AT A DISTANCE OF 7.7 KMS FROM OCTROI POST OF LUDHIANA ON CHANDIGARH ROAD . OCTROI POST ON CHANDIGARH ROAD IS AT A DISTANCE OF 5.1 KM FROM KOHARA CHOWK AFTER TURNING' TO LEFT TO LAKHOWA L ROAD, THE LAND WAS REPORTED TO BE SITUATED AT FURTH ER DISTANCE OF 2.6 KM. THE LAND IS SITUATED ADJOINING TO FACTORY PREMISES OF M/S SHARMAN YARNS. THUS, THE DISTANCE OF LAND BY ROAD FROM OCTROI POST WAS CALCU LATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT 7.7 KMS. HOWEVER AS TH IS WAS NOT THE DIRECT DISTANCE AND AFTER DIRECT DISTANCE O F 5.1 KM THERE WAS A TURN TOWARDS LEFT AND ANOTHER DISTANCE OF 2.6 KM WAS INVOLVED, THE A.O. WORKED OUT THE DIAGONAL DISTANCE. OF LAND FROM OCTROI POST AT 5.1 KM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, OBSERVED THAT THE DIS TANCE OF THE LAND FROM THE NEAREST POINT ON MUNICIPAL BOUNDA RY WILL BE STILL LESS AND THIS MIGHT BE SOMEWHERE NEAR 5.1 KM ONLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, CAME TO TH E CONCLUSION THAT THE LAND WAS SITUATED AT A DISTANCE OF 5.1 KM TO 5.6 KM FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS. IN THE LETT ER DATED 26.9.2007 FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH 8 IS ALSO REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASS ESSEE STATED THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS SITUATED AT A DISTANCE OF 7.8 KMS BY ROAD FROM OCTROI POST AT CHANDIGARH ROAD, LUDHIANA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF AGRE ED THAT THE LAND WAS SITUATED AT A DISTANCE OF LESS THAN 8 KM OF MUNICIPAL LIMITS. THEREFORE, CAPITAL GAIN TAX WAS LEVIED AT RS. 15,32,580/- AND CHARGED TO TAX. 9. THE ADDITION WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE ASSESSING OFF ICER AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE REPRODUCED I N THE APPELLATE ORDER IN WHICH ASSESSEE BRIEFLY EXPLAINED THAT THERE IS NO REASON TO ADOPT THE MEASUREMENT OF THE DISTANCE OF THE LAND DIAGONALLY. THE DIFFERENCE IS MERE NEGLIGIBLE AND THAT ASSESSEE HAD WRONGLY AGREED THA T AGRICULTURAL LAND IS SITUATED WITHIN 8 KMS. OF MUNI CIPAL LIMITS OF LUDHIANA. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DID NOT AC CEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY SPECIFIC EVIDENCE AGAINST THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) NOTED THAT IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THROUGH NECESSARY EVIDENCE TH AT LAND WAS SITUATED AT THE DISTANCE OF MORE THAN 8 KM S. FROM MUNICIPAL LIMITS AS WAS CLAIMED. IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT SINCE ASSESSEE HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT LAND IN Q UESTION IS SITUATED AT THE DISTANCE OF 7.8 KMS. FROM THE OC TROI POST AT CHANDIGARH ROAD, LUDHIANA, THEREFORE, ASSES SEE AGREED THAT CAPITAL GAIN TAX IS LEVIABLE. THE LD. 9 CIT(APPEALS), ACCORDINGLY, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION A ND DISMISSED APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED PETITION UNDER RULE 29 OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH IS CERTIFICA TE DATED 02.01.2012 FROM SUB TEHSILDAR, SAHNEWAL, LUDHIANA SPECIFYING THE DISTANCE OF THE PROPERTY SOLD FROM L UDHIANA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION LIMIT IS APPROXIMATELY 8 KMS. AWAY. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO INADVERTENT OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE, T HIS CERTIFICATE COULD NOT BE OBTAINED EARLIER, THEREFOR E, THE SAME MAY BE ADMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND MAT TER MAY BE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FO R RE- CONSIDERATION. 11. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR OBJECTED TO THE ADMIS SION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BECAUSE ASSESSEE AGREED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT LAND IN QUESTION SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WAS WITHIN 8 KMS. BY ROAD FROM OCTROI POST , CHANDIGARH ROAD, LUDHIANA, THEREFORE, ON ADMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, NO FURTHER ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE MAY BE ADMITTED. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL IS 2005-06 AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED ON 12.12.2007. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER DEPUTED THE INSPECTOR ALONGWITH F ATHER OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT FOR 10 MEASURING THE DISTANCE OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND FRO M MUNICIPAL LIMIT. THE INSPECTOR REPORTED THE PROPER TY IN QUESTION TO BE WITHIN 8 KMS. AND THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AFTER MAKING HIS CALCULATION FOUND THE LAND IN QUES TION AS SITUATED AT A DISTANCE OF 5.1 KMS. TO 5.6 KM. FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMIT. THE ASSESSEE AGREED BEFORE THE AS SESSING OFFICER THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION IS SITUATED AT A DISTANCE OF 7.8 KMS. BY ROAD FROM OCTROI POST AT CHANDIGARH ROAD, LUDHIANA. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE AGREED THAT THE LAND IS SITUATED AT A DISTANCE OF LESS THAN 8 KMS. OF MUNIC IPAL LIMIT, THEREFORE, CAPITAL GAIN TAX WAS LEVIABLE. 13. THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BANTA SINGH KARTAR SINGH 125 ITR 239 HELD THAT NO APPEAL LIES ON AGREED ADDITIONS. FURTHER, TEN YEARS HAVE ELAPSED NOW FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASON WHY THE CERTIFICA TE FROM TEHSILDAR WAS NOT OBTAINED DURING THIS PERIOD. THE CERTIFICATE OF THE TEHSILDAR SHOWS THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION IS APPROXIMATELY 8 KMS. AWAY FROM LUDHIANA MUNICIPAL LIMIT. NO EXACT MEASUREMENT IS GIVEN IN THIS CERTIFICATE ALSO AND FURTHER, NO REASONS HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED WHY IT WAS NOT OBTAINED EARLIER. FURTHER , THIS CERTIFICATE IS IN CONTRADICTION WITH THE ADMISSION MADE BY ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT LAND IS SITUATED WITHIN 8 KMS. FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMIT. 11 14. THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAWAHAR LAL JAIN (HUF) VS CIT 370 ITR 712 HELD A S UNDER : NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION HAD BEEN FURNISHED TO DEMONSTRATE WHY THE MATERIAL SOUGHT TO BE PRODUCED NOW COULD NOT BE PRODUCED EARLIER. THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 15. FROM THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I T IS CLEAR THAT NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION HAS BEEN FIL ED AS TO WHY THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE SHAPE OF CERTIFI CATE OF THE TEHSILDAR WAS NOT PRODUCED EARLIER. FURTHER, T HE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS CONTRARY TO THE ADMISSION MA DE BY ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, GENUINENESS OF THE CERTIFICATE IS IN DOUBT. THEREFO RE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE F OR THE PURPOSE OF DECIDING THE MATTER IN ISSUE. WE, THERE FORE, REJECT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE I.E. CERTIFICATE OF THE SUB TEH SILDAR, LUDHIANA. SINCE, NO MATERIAL IS PRODUCED BEFORE US TO CONTRADICT THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THIS ISSUE, THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN MAKING ADDITION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL GAINS. THIS GR OUND OF 12 CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY, DIS MISSED. 16. IN THE RESULT, CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS DISMISSED. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AS WELL AS CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH AUGUST,2015. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA) (BHAVNESH SAIN I) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 27 TH 2015. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH