Sh. Amarjit Singh, Ropar V. ITO, W-2(4), Ropar

ITA 896/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0641 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 21-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO.896/CHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SHRI AMARJIT SINGH VS. THE ITO VILL- RAUNI KHURD WARD-2(4), ROPAR P.O. CHAKLAN, DISTT: ROPAR PAN NO. BFPPS3242K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. TEJ MOHAN SINGH, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SH. Y.K. MITTAL, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 27/03/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27/03/2019 ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 23/01/2015 OF LD. CIT(A)-1, CHANDIGARH. 2. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FO LLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS ERRED IN LAW IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL ON SUMMARY BASIS WITHOUT AFFO RDING ANY OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WHICH IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPALS OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND AS SUCH THE ORDER PASSED IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN U PHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 18,80,000/- FOR DEPOSITS MADE IN AXIS BANK ACCOUNT WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 3. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HA S FURTHER ERRED IN SUSTAINING AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,94,000/- OUT OF TOT AL ADDITION OF RS.8,38,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSIT IN PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 4. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 12,60,000/- TREATING AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO BE INCOME FROM PROPERTY DEALING BUSINESS WHICH IS ARBI TRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 5. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS, ARBITRARY, OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE AND IS, THUS, UNTENABLE. 3. GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 ARE COMMON AND RELATES TO THE PASSING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER EXPARTE BY THE LD. CIT(A). 4. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 06/07/2011 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 1,65,890/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 12,60,000/- WHICH WAS PR OCESSED UNDER 2 SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINA FTER REFERRED TO AS ACT), LATER ON THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. THE AS SESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED REPLY BY ENCLOSING THEREWITH PHOTOCOPY OF BANK ACCOUNT AND ALSO TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSI TS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER WAS NOT SATISFIED FROM THE EXPLANATION OF T HE ASSESSE AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 18,80,000/- AND RS. 8,38,000/- BEIN G THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN AXIS BANK AND PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK RESPECTIVELY, HOWEVER HE ACCEPTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 12,60,000/- FOR RATE PUR POSES. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY OBSERVING IN PARA 1.1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER: 1.1 THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 15.10.201 4, WHICH WAS ADJOURNED TO 10.11.2014 AND THEN TO 23.01.2015 AT THE REQUEST OF LD. COUNSE L FOR THE APPELLANT, BUT NOBODY ATTENDED ON THIS DATE. NO ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION W AS FILED AND NO WRITTEN SUBMISSION WAS RECEIVED. HENCE, IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE APPELL ANT DOES NOT WANT TO SAY ANYTHING AND THE APPEAL IS DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAI LABLE ON RECORD. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESS EE AND ALSO DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE AGRICULTURAL INCO ME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 7. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 8. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS PAGE NO. 35 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK WHICH IS THE COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 10/11/2014 WRITTEN TO THE LD. CIT(A) FOR SEEKING THE ADJOURNMENT THE S AID LETTER READ AS UNDER: 10 TH OF NOVEMBER, 2014 TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), CHANDIGARH. SUBJECT: IN THE MATTER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL OF SHRI AMARJI T SINGH. VILLAGE - RAUNI KHURD, P. O. CHAKLAN, DISTT. ROPAR RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-1 1 FIXED FOR HEARING TODAY THE 10'' OF NOVEMBER ,2014. APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF HEARING . RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH AS UNDER: THE ABOVEMENTIONED APPEAL STANDS FIXED FOR HEARING TODAY THE 10 TH OF *NOVEMBER,2014. BUT I HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS UNDER GOING RIGROUS IMPRISONMENT AND THE REFERRING COUNSEL SH.HARBHAJAN SINGH ITP HAS NO DOC UMENTS PERTAINING TO THE APPEAL AS OF TODAY. HE CONTACTED THE FAMILY OF THE ASSESSEE WHO HAVE REQUESTED FOR TWO MONTHS TIME FOR COLLECTING THE DOCUMENTS AS THEY ARE BUSY WITH THE VARIOUS CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LITIGATION FILED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. COPY OF THE CUSTODY CERTIFICATE IS ANNEXED HEREWITH. 3 IT IS. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT HEARING IN THE ABOVE APPEAL MA) PLEASE BE ADJOURNED TO SOME OTHER DATE CONVENIENT TO YOUR GOO DSELF IN THE MONTH OF JANUARY 2015. SD/- (TEJ MOHAN SINGH) ADVOCATE FOR: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, DISTT. ROPAR 8.1 IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSE E HAD UNDER GONE RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT, THEREFORE THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE COULD NOT COLLECT THE DOCUMENT AS SUCH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS T HE LD. CIT(A) WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING /SUSTAINING THE ADDITION. LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED CERTAIN NEW DOCUMENTS WITH THE APPLICATION FOR ADMI SSION OF THE SAME AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. LD. DR OBJECTED TO THE ADMI SSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND ALTERNATIVELY STATED THAT IF THOSE ADDITIONAL E VIDENCES ARE TO BE ADMITTED THEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE GIVEN TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR CONSIDERING THE SAME. 9. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PAR TIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CA SE IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY COULD NOT PRODUC E THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE L D. CIT(A) WHICH HAD NOW BEEN FURNISHED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. SINCE THOSE DOCU MENTS RUNNING INTO PAGE 5 TO 9 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK ARE IN THE NATURE OF J FORM WHICH HAD BEEN PRODUCED FIRST TIME AND WERE NOT AVAILABLE EITHER T O THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE LD. CIT(A). IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) FOR THE REASONS TH AT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY, THEREFORE THIS EXPLANATION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO BE PLAUSIBLE THAT NEW DOCUMENTS NOW FURN ISHED WERE NOT AVAILABLE EARLIER. I THEREFORE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASI DE THIS CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN A CCORDANCE WITH LAW BY PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27/03/2019.) SD/- (N.K. SAINI) VICE PRESIDENT PLACE: CHANDIGARH DATED : 27/03/2019 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR