Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2022] 103 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9582 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
27-10-2022
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
SMC
Next Hearing Date
25-10-2022
Assessment Year
2011-2012
Appeal Filed On
09-08-2021
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.953/DEL/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Nakli Ram Nakli Ram S/o Sh. Sarup VPO – Atolapur, P.O. Bapoli, Panipat-132103 Vs ITO Ward- 3 Panipat (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Jai Bhagwan Sharma, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 26/10/2022 Date of Pronouncement: 28/10/2022 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM The present appeal has been filed by the assessee wherein the correctness of the order dated 22.06.2021 passed by NFAC, Delhi as per First Appellate Authority, pertaining to A.Y.2011-12 assessment year is assailed on various grounds of appeal which reads as under :- ITA No.953/Del/2021 2 ITA No.953/Del/2021 3 2. The Ld. Sr. DR inviting attention to Form No.36 took preliminary objection and submitted that the assessee has quoted a wrong PAN Number. Inviting attention to the impugned order it was submitted that the correct PAN was DUXPR0096D. Inviting attention to Form No.36 filed by the assessee it was shown that the assessee has mentioned PAN No.CSGPS9068A. 2.1. The AR inviting attention to the copy of Revised Form No.35 filed submitted the assessee has corrected the defect as in the same correct PAN number has been mentioned. 3. Considering the same the Ld. Sr. DR withdrew his objection. 4. Both the parties argued the appeal. 5. The relevant facts of the case are that the ancestral agricultural land belonging to two brothers was sold at a specific price. The ITA No.953/Del/2021 4 assessee’s brother Sh. Roshan Lal was represented through his widow Bugly Devi. It is an admitted fact that both the brothers had equal share in the ownership of the said agricultural land. It is a fact that the Assessing Officer was seized of deposits made in the bank account of Smt. Bugly Devi widow of Sh. Roshan Lal. During these enquiries her son Sh. Krishan Kumar stated that the amount has been deposited in the name of his parents. The Assessing Officer considering the deposits made in the present assessee’s bank account concluded that the Sh. Krishan Kumar has already accepted the fact that money were deposited in the bank account of Sh. Bugli Devi and hence made the addition in the hands of the assessee by passing an order u/s. 144/147 of the Act. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the First Appellate Authority pleading lack of opportunity etc. 6. The Ld. Sr. DR on going through the assessment record available to him which had been directed by the Coordinate Bench on 11.07.2022 submitted that notice had been sent by speed post though it had been returned back unserved. Accordingly lack of valid notice is emanating for the record itself. Reverting back to the other arguments advanced before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee agitated that the AO has relied on the submission of Sh. Krishan Kumar who was his nephew and not his ITA No.953/Del/2021 5 son and had no authority to make any statement on behalf of the assessee. Reliance has been was placed upon the sale deed of the agricultural land and lack of opportunity has also been pleaded before the First Appellate Authority. The Ld. AR in the said back drop submitted that the ownership of the land at village Shehrpur, Teshsil Nukud District Saharanpur U.P. belonging to the assessee and his brothers Late Sh. Roshan Lal at the relevant point of time is not disputed. It has been sold at a specific price; Copy of agreement between the parties was filed as an additional evidences which had any way been seen by the Assessing Officer in the case of Late Sh. Roshan Lal the sale of the said property is also not in dispute, the amounts are deposited in terms of the same sale deed always available to the Assessing Officer. In the situation the addition made in the hands of the assessee both an assumption of jurisdiction as well as on merits it was prayed may be deleted. 7. The Sr. DR relies on the order. 8. I have heard the submissions on facts and gone through the orders of the authorities below. It is seen that the assessee has vehemently contested the issue before the CIT(A) on assumption of ITA No.953/Del/2021 6 jurisdiction as well as on merits. The reliance placed on statement of a nephew under the incorrect assumption that it was the assessee’s son is misplaced lack of opportunity is patently evident from the record. Even on merits considering the facts wherein the ownership of the assessee of the stated property consisting of ancestral agricultural land at the relevant point of time is not in dispute. It sale at the price at the relevant point of time is also not in dispute; the share of assessee in the said property is also not in dispute. In these circumstances the addition made and sustained on facts cannot be upheld. On considering the record and going through the submission the addition is directed to be deleted. The said order was pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself. 9. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Said order was pronounced in the open court on 28 th October, 2022. Sd/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ` *NEHA, Sr. Private Secretary* Date:- 28.10.2022 ITA No.953/Del/2021 7 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Date 1. Draft dictated on PS 2. Draft placed before author PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member JM/AM 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. JM/AM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on PS 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk PS 8. Date on which file goes to the AR 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. 10. Date of dispatch of Order.
Mehul