Pawan Kumar, Panipat V. ITO, Ward-4, Panipat

ITA 7914/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5346 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L ANURAGI
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Additional evidence
• Section: 148; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.7914/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 PAWAN KUMAR, C/O SAUBHAGYA AGARWAL, K-185/14, SURYA PLAZA, 1 ST FLOOR, NEW FRIENDS COLONY, NEW DELHI. VS. ITO, WARD-4, PANIPAT. TAN/PAN: ADDPN 0339P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S.L. ANURAGI, SR.D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 25 07 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16 10 2019 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM: THE AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.10.2018 PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KARNAL FOR TH E QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S.144/147 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING U/S.147 AND ALSO THE ADDITION OF RS.6, 98,250/- BY TREATING IT AS AN UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. I.T.A. NO.7914/DEL/2018 2 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT ASSESSEES CASE WAS REOPENED U/S.147 ON THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- THERE IS INFORMATION ON RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED PROPERTY AND THE ASSESSEES SHARE HIS 1/5TH IN INVE STMENT OF RS. 33,25,000/- DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 RELEVANT TO A. Y, 2009- 10. THUS AMOUNT OF HIS SHARE IN RS.33,25,000/- CHAR GEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008- 09 RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2009-10 BY REASON OF THE FAILURE ON THE PA RT OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A RETURN UNDER SECTION 139 OF THE INCOME-TAX, ACT, 1961 AND TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL F ACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE T HAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT OF HIS S HARE ON PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AMOUNTING TO RS. 33,25,000/- HAVE ESCAP ED ASSESSMENT FOR THE A Y. 2009- 10. TO ASSESS THE ESC APED INCOME AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME WHICH MAY COME TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION, NOTICE UNDER SECTIO N 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 IS REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED. AS S UCH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX, ACT, 1961 IS ISSUED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, ASSESSEE HAD FILED A LETTER STATING THAT A RETURN FILED ON 27.08.2010 U/S.139(1) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10 MAY BE TREATED AS RETURN FILED U/S. 139 WHEREIN THE ASS ESSEE HAS DECLARED INCOME OF RS.1,43,220/- AND AGRICULTURE IN COME OF RS.18,000/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT RS.6,65,000 /- BEING I.T.A. NO.7914/DEL/2018 3 1/5 TH OF THE TOTAL INVESTMENT OF THE PROPERTY OF RS.33,2 5,000/- BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVE N FOLLOWING REPLY WITH REGARD TO SOURCE OF INVESTMENT: 1. WITH REFERENCE TO AFORESAID NOTICE DATED 02.06. 2016 SERVED ON 10. 06.2016 FIXED FOR 13.06.2016, IT IS POINT WISE SUBM ITTED AS UNDER: 2. AS STATED IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED RS.75365/- FROM TRADING OF CLOTHS, RS, 60350 /- EARNED FROM PCO AND RS 7500/- FROM OTHER INCOMES. THIS INFORMAT ION IS SELF DECLARED WHILE FILING ITR. THE CASE PERTAINS TO LON G BACK PERIOD OF F.Y. 2008-09 AND NOW PCO BUSINESS HAS BEEN CLOSED DOWN. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NO RECORD ON DATE AS RELATES TO PC O BUSINESS AND CLOTHING BUSINESS. 3. COPY OF SAHKARI STATEMENT IS BEING FURNISHED HER EWITH. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE LAND TO SH. AJMER S/O SH. RAM KRISHAN R/O VPO DAHAR (PANIPAT) FOR CULTIVATION. COPY OF FA RD/JAMABANDI OF THE CONCERNED AGRICULTURE LAND IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH . 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS ENCLOSED THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDEN CE JUSTIFYING PURCHASE OF GUN, BILLS FOR PURCHASE OF GUN MAY BE SUBMITTED IS REQUIRED. 6. COPY OF PURCHASE DEED BEING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR INVESTMENT MADE FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FROM SH. LAH NA SINGH IS BEING FURNISHED. THE ASSESSEE'S FATHER FUNDED THE PURCHAS E OF ABOVE-SAID LAND. THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE GLAND TO FURNISH THE DESIRED INFORMATION/DETAIL/DOCUMENT/DATA TO COMPLETE THE AS SESSMENT ON ITS MERITS. 4. HOWEVER, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS NO GENUINE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT FOR THE PURCHAS E OF PROPERTY NOR ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FILE D. I.T.A. NO.7914/DEL/2018 4 ACCORDINGLY, HE ADDED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.6,65, 000/- AND ALSO ASSESSEES SHARE ON ACCOUNT OF STAMP DUTY PAYMENT OF RS.33,250/-. 5. BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), ASSESSEE HAD RAISED VARI OUS OBJECTIONS AND ALSO FILED APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46 A FOR SUBMITTING VARIOUS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. HOWEVER, T HE LD. CIT (A) HAS CONFIRMED ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE. 6. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CHALLENGED VALIDITY OF NOTICE U/S. 148 ON VARIOUS GROUNDS, VIZ., FIRSTLY , IT WAS NOT SERVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW; SECONDLY , NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OTHER THAN THE ONE WHO HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE; THIRDLY , ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPOSED OF THE ASSESSEES OBJECTION RAISED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U /S 148; AND LASTLY , MANDATORY NOTICE U/S.143(2) HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED T O THE ASSESSEE BY THE JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICE R. BESIDES THIS, CATENAS OF OTHER OBJECTIONS WERE ALSO RAISED. LD. CIT (A) IN HIS ORDER THOUGH HAS INCORPORATED ALL THE OBJECT IONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN DETAIL AND ALSO CALLED FOR THE REMAND R EPORT, BUT HE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY PROPER FINDING ON ANY OF THE L EGAL ISSUES RAISED INCLUDING ON MERITS. NONE OF THE OBJECTIONS AND ISSUE RAISED INCLUDING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN PRO PERLY ADJUDICATED OR DEALT WITH. ACCORDINGLY, UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ARE REMITTING BACK THE ENTIRE ISSUES RAISED BEFORE US TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER GIVING EFFECT IVE I.T.A. NO.7914/DEL/2018 5 OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE ON EACH AND EVERY GROUN D RAISED BEFORE US INCLUDING THE VARIOUS LEGAL ISSUES AND ME RITS ON ADDITIONS. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH OCTOBER, 2019. SD/- SD/- [PRASHANT MAHARISHI] [AMIT SHUKLA] [ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 16 TH OCTOBER, 2019 PKK: