Income Tax Officer, Patiala V. Sh. Amandeep Sharma, Patiala

ITA 944/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4057 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEEPIKA MOHAN
• Keywords: Unexplained investment

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 944/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 THE ITO, VS. SH. AMANDEEP SHARMA, WARD-1, # 97-B,MODEL TOWN, PATIALA PATIALA PAN NO. AUPPS7771K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MS. DEEPIKA MOHAN, JCIT RESPONDENT BY : SH. DEEPAK AGGARWAL, ADVOCA TE DATE OF HEARING : 15.05.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09. 08.2018 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.03.2017 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX(A), PATIALA [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)]. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 52,97,696/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF UNSECURED LOANS US/ 68 OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF UNSECURED LOANS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT ONLY ITA NO. 944/CHD/2017- SH. AMANDEEP SHARMA, PATIALA 2 THOSE UNSECURED LOANS WERE DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WERE NOT GENUINE. 3. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 37,00,000/- MADE U/S 69 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 4. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF BOGUS ADVANCES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SALE AGREEMENTS WERE UNREGISTERED HAVING NO LEGAL SANCTITY. 5. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTORED . 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ABOVE ISSUES IN RELATION TO THE OLD ENTRIES RELATING TO THE EARL IER YEARS. THAT DURING THE YEAR THERE WAS NO INTRODUCTION OF ANY AMOUNT WA RRANTING ANY ADDITION. THAT CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDI NG THAT THERE WAS NO UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE IN THE RELEVANT YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. NEITHER THERE WAS ANY INVESTMENT MAD E DURING THE YEAR NOR ANY ADVANCE WAS RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR. HE, THEREFORE, HELD THAT ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE IN RESPECT OF THE OPENING BALANCE WHICH WAS DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE EARLIER YEAR. 4. THE LD. DR HAS ALSO FAIRLY AGREED THAT THE ADDI TIONS IN THIS CASE WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE ENTRIES OF THE EARLIER YEARS. ITA NO. 944/CHD/2017- SH. AMANDEEP SHARMA, PATIALA 3 5. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS. THER E IS NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE SAME IS ACCORDING LY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09.08.2018 SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 09.08.2018 RKK COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT THE CIT(A) THE DR