S. Kartar Singh, Barnala V. ITO, Barnala

ITA 98/CHANDI/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8395 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 10-08-2010
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 22-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K SAINI
• Assessee Lawyers: SUBHASH KUMAR GARG
• Keywords: Unexplained investment

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BEN CH (SMC) BEFORE HONBLE SHRI D K SRIVASTAVA, A.M. ITA NO.98 /CHANDI/2010 ( A.Y. 2003-04 ) S.KARTAR SINGH S/O, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, S.GURDEV SINGH VILLAGE BARNALA. CHANNA GUOAB SINGH WALA DISTT. BARNALA. PAN: BGMPS4444M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUBHASH KUMAR GARG RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.K.SAINI ORDER THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A) ON 27. 11.2009 BY WHICH HE HAS CONFIRMED ADDITION OF RS.52,000/- MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE PURCHASED LAND ON 25.10.2002 FOR RS.2,52,000/-. ON BEING CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE AFORESAID A MOUNT, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT A SUM O F RS.2 LAKHS WAS WITHDRAWN FROM BANK AND REMAINING SUM OF RS.52,000/ - WAS MET OUT OF CASH AVAILABLE WITH HIM. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE AFORESAID CASH OF RS.52,000/- WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE OUT OF ADVANCE RECEIVED ON SALE OF LAND AND ALSO OUT OF AGRICULTUR AL INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE AFOR ESAID EXPLANATION AND CONSEQUENTLY ADDED A SUM OF RS.52,000/- AS UNEX PLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND. ON APPEAL, THE COM MISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A) CONFIRMED THE AFORESAID DELETION. A GGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID, THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THI S TRIBUNAL. 2 S.KARTAR SINGH VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER I.T.A.NO.98/CHANDI/2010 3. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. IT WAS PLEADED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT RS.52,000/- HAD C OME OUT OF ADVANCE RECEIVED ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE AFORESAID PLEA ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE ME, THE LE ARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INVITED MY ATTENTION TO PARA 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED TH E SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A SUM OF RS.3 ,36,208/- AND SUBMITTED THAT THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REJECTING THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WAS UNTENABLE. THE LEARNED D.R. COULD NOT REBUT THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE. BESIDES, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DECLARED AGRICULTURA L INCOME OF RS.3 LAKHS IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN A CCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN VIEW, IT CANNOT BE SAI D THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS BEHALF IS UNSATISFACTORY. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER O F INCOME-TAX (A) IS DELETED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.11.2010. SD/- ( D K SRIVASTAVA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 30 TH NOV.,2010 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. 3