Shri Sikander Singh Shaliwal, Ludhiana V. ITO, W-2, Jagaon

ITA 992/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1189 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-05-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 08-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARVIND SUDERSHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S ARUN GUPTA
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Set aside
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH , !' # $ % &' , '( BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.992/CHD/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2016-17 SHRI SIKANDER SINGH DHALIWAL, VPO LAKHA, TEHSIL JAGRAON, DISTT. LUDHIANA THE ITO, WARD-2,JAGRAO;N ./PAN NO: EXZPS1968F / APPELLANT /RESPONDENT ! /ASSESSEE BY : S/SHRI ARUN GUPTA, CA & SHRI ASIM AGGARWAL, CA ' ! / REVENUE BY : SHRI ARVIND SUDERSHAN, JCIT # $ % /DATE OF HEARING : 03.03.2020 &'() % / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.05.2020 ')/ ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.05.2019 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS)-3, LUDHIANA [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT (A)]. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN EYES OF LAW AND FA CTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.8,50,250/- MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 69 ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURE INCOME DISCLOSED BY ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. ITA NO. 992-CHD-2019 SHRISIKANDER SINGH DHALIWAL, LUDHIANA 2 2. THAT ID CIT(A) ARBITRARILY HELD ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE WHEN CO PY OF ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION AGENTS SUPPORTED BY J FORMS I N NAME OF ASSESSEE WERE AVAILABLE IN THE FILE OF THE CIT(A). 3. THAT ID CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT J FORMS REL ATED TO EARLIER YEARS WHILE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT J FORMS REL ATED TO SUBSEQUENT YEAR WHILE IN FACT J FORMS AMOUNTING TO GROSS AGRICULTURE RECEIPTS OF RS.22,56,816.28 RELATED TO RELEVANT F/Y I.E 2015-16 WERE AVAILABLE IN THE FILE OF THE OFFIC ERS WHICH WERE MUCH MORE THAN NET AGRICULTURE INCOME DISCLOSED BY ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. 4. THAT ID CIT(A) WRONGLY HELD THAT CASE OF ASSESSE E WAS SELECTED UNDER CASS, FOR REASON OF CASH DEPOSITS, DURING THE DEMONIZATION, WHEN CASE RELATED TO F/Y 15-16, MUCH BEFORE DEMONETIZATION. 5. THAT ID CIT(A) WRONGLY NOTED IN THE ORDER THAT A SSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT WHEN ONLY RS.52000 WERE DEPOSITED BY ASSESSEE IN BANK. 6. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ARBITRARILY REJECTING T HE EXPLANATION AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSE IN A SUMMARY MANNER, WITHOUT FINDING ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE SAME AND UPHOLDING A DDITION INVOKING SECTION 69. 7. THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVES TO LEAVE, AMEND, ALTER OR TAKE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT TIME OF H EARING. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR CLAIMED GROSS AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS OF RS. 225 6816.28. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TOPROVE THE AFORESAID RECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL I NCOME. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE RELEVANTEVIDENCES / PROOF INCLUDING J FORMS WHICH ARE ITA NO. 992-CHD-2019 SHRISIKANDER SINGH DHALIWAL, LUDHIANA 3 PROOF OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE, COPY OF JAM ABANDI /LAND RECORD PROVING OWNERSHIP / POSSESSIONOVER AGRICULTURAL LAN D AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT MORE THAN 90% OF THE RECEIPTS WERE T HROUGH CHEQUES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT SOME OF TH E JFORMS PRODUCED WERE OF SUBSEQUENT YEARS. HE, THEREFORE, DOUBTED TH E AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS BY THE ASSESSEE TO SOME EXTENT AND MADE A DISALLOWA NCE OF RS. 8,50,250/- AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE REITE RATED HIS SUBMISSIONS THAT THE J FORMS PRODUCED BY THE ASSE SSEE BELONGED TO THE FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, THE LD . CIT(A) HELD THAT THE J FORMS RELATING TO THE EARLIER YEARS WERE ALSO P RODUCED. HE, THEREFORE, DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. BEING AGGRIEV ED BY THE SAID ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS COME IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE REQUISITEDOCUMENTSINCLUDINGJ FORMSRELATING TO THE FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE CIT(A) . HE, IN THIS RESPECT HAS RELIED UPON THE PAPER BOOK PAGES 3 & 4, WHICH I S COPY OF THE INDEX OF PAPERS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) TO SUBMIT THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A). FURTHER, THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US HAS FURTHER RELIE D UPONTHE FOLLOWINGDOCUMENTS:- SR. PARTICULARS PAGE NO. ITA NO. 992-CHD-2019 SHRISIKANDER SINGH DHALIWAL, LUDHIANA 4 NO. 1 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE CIT (A) 1-2 2 COPY OF ACCOUNT WITH M/S MOHAN LAI BHUSHAN KUMAR ALONGWITH COPY OF FORM J ISSUED FOR F.Y. 2015-16 FO R RS. 1,27,163.28 3-4 3 COPY OF ACCOUNT WITH M/S VIJAY KUMAR & CO. ALONGWIT H COPY OF FORM J ISSUED FOR F.Y. 2015-16 FOR RS. 9,74,729. 16 5-8 4 COPY OF ACCOUNT WITH M/S R RGOYAL& CO. ALONGWITH COPY OF FORM J ISSUED FOR F.Y. 2015-16 FOR RS. 11,29,653.00 . 9-12 5 COPY OF JAMABANDHI DEPICTING THE NAME OF S. SIKA NDER SINGH DHALIWAL AND FAMILY 13-30 6 ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSTT YEAR 2017-18 31-32 7 INDEX OF PAPERS AVAILABLE IN THE CIT(A) FILE DURI NG FILE INSPECTION 33-34 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY A PPRECIATED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE J FORMS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT OF THE TOTAL AGRI CULTURAL RECEIPTS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE COPY OF THE KHASRA GIRDAWARI WHICH IS A DOCUMENT PREPARED BY THE LAND REVENUE OFFICER OF THE STANDING CROPS ON THE LAND.HOWEVER, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE I S REQUIRED TOBE REEXAMINED AT THE END OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO. 992-CHD-2019 SHRISIKANDER SINGH DHALIWAL, LUDHIANA 5 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IN VI EW OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES THAT THE DOCUMENTS EVIDENCES / FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY EXAMINED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SINCE IT IS CASE OF BOTH THE PARTIESTHAT THE DO CUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE REQUIRE DEEP SCRUTINY, HENCE, INOUR VIEW, THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WILL BE WELL SERVED IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO TH E FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THIS ISSUE AFRESH. WE ACCORDIN GLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THECIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO ADMIT INTO EVIDENCE THE NECESSA RY DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS FURNISHED / SOUGHT TO BE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, CONSIDER THE SAME AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH BY WAY OF A SPEAKI NG ORDER. NO OTHER GROUND HAS BEEN RAISED OR PRESSED. IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS GIVEN ABOVE, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 20.05.2020. SD/- SD/- ( # $ % &' / ANNAPURNA GUPTA) '( / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( / SANJAY GARG) / JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 20.05.2020 .. '+ ,- .- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. # / / CIT 4. # / ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. -01 2 , % 2 , 34516 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 157$ / GUARD FILE