SHRI RAGHU RAJ CHETHLEY, MOGA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, MOGA

SA 02/ASR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6245 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Application of stay; Reassessment proceedings; Set aside
• Section: 142(1); 147; 131; 68; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, A MRITSAR BEFORE SH. N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT M EMBER AND SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.645(ASR)/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:201 1-12 RAGHU RAJ CHETHLEY, 139-142, MAIN BAZAR, MOGA [PAN:ABYPC 2989H ] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, MOGA. (APPELLANT/ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) S.A.NO.02(ASR)/2019 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.645(ASR)/2018) ASSESSMENT YEAR:201 1-12 RAGHU RAJ CHETHLEY, 139-142, MAIN BAZAR, MOGA [PAN:ABYPC 2989H ] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2, MOGA. (APPELLANT/ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. Y.K.SUD (LD. CA) RESPONDENT BY: SMT. RATIN DER KAUR (LD. DR) DATE OF HEARING: 20.02.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22.03.2019 ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM: THE INSTANT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS APPELLANT) AGAINST THE ORDER D ATED 24.10.2018 IMPUGNED HEREIN, PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) -3, LUDHIANA U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREI NAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT) WHEREBY THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 147/143(3) OF THE ACT. 2. THE APPELLANT HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPE AL. ITA NO.645 /ASR/2018 (A.Y.2011-12) S.A NO.02(ASR)/2019 RAGHU RAJ CHETHLEY VS. ITO 2 A. THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INITIATING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. ( NOT PRESSED) B. THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINI NG AND ADDITION OF RS.50 LACS MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. ( NOT PRESSED) C. THAT BOTH AO & CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE T HAT THERE WAS NO CASH CREDIT APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS O F THE APPELLANT WHICH COULD BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CAS H CREDIT. D. THAT EVEN OTHERWISE THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTI FIED TO SUSTAINED THE ACTION OF THE AO OF TREATING THE AGRE EMENT TO SELL AS BOGUS AGREEMENT. E. THAT THE ORDERS OF AO & CIT(A) ARE AGAINST THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE APPELLANT CLAI MED TO BE MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL RUNNING AN X-RAY CLINIC AND A LSO DOING PART TIME JOB IN A HOSPITAL AND HAD FILED ITR FOR A. Y.2011-12 DISCLOSING THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,48,880/- FROM BUSINESS. LAT ERON THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT WAS RE-OPENED U/S 147 OF THE ACT, ON THE INFORMATION THAT THE APPELLANT HAD MADE CASH DEPO SITS OF RS.36 LACS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF HIS WIFE SMT. HEATHER CH ATELY BEARING NO.0200 1030 0079 70 MAINTAINED WITH HDFC BA NK LTD. MOGA FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 . THE APP ELLANT IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF HIS WIFE FOR THE A.Y.2011 -12, ADMITTED THE DEPOSIT OF RS.36 LACS, HOWEVER REASONED TH AT THE APPELLANT HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT DATED 26.12 .2010 FOR SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY SITUATED AT MITTAL ROAD, M OGA FOR ITA NO.645 /ASR/2018 (A.Y.2011-12) S.A NO.02(ASR)/2019 RAGHU RAJ CHETHLEY VS. ITO 3 RS.1,05,00,000 WITH SH. HARJIT SINGH S/O SH. KARTAR SINGH DHANOA R/O VPO KOKRI KALAN, DISTT. MOGA THROUGH HIS ATTORNEY MR. MANJIT SINGH CHAHAL S/O SH. ISHAR SINGH CHAHAL R/O VPO KOKRI KALAN, DISTT. MOGA AND RECEIVED RS.50 LACS AS EARN EST MONEY IN CASH, OUT OF WHICH AMOUNT OF RS.36 LACS WAS DEPOSI TED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF HIS WIFE SMT. HEATHER CHATELY. THE SAID CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AND THE APPELLANT WAS CALLED UPON TO PRODUCE THE SAID P URCHASER SH. HARJIT SINGH, BUT ON THE PRETEXT THAT THE SAID PU RCHASER IS RESIDING AT CANADA, COULD NOT BE PRODUCED FOR VERIFICAT ION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUMMONED SH. MANJIT SINGH CHAHAL (MEDI ATOR OF TRANSACTION) U/S 131 OF THE ACT AND RECORDED HIS STATE MENT QUA TRANSACTION OF PROPERTY AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT . WHILE CONSIDERING THE STATEMENT OF THE MEDIATOR AS WELL AS FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT SATISFY QUA TRANSACTIONS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT AND ADDED T HE AMOUNT OF RS.50 LACS IN THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 4. THE APPELLANT CHALLENGED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A) WHO ALTHOUGH GIVEN EIGHT OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT, HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT DID NOT A PPEAR ON EACH OCCASION AND ON SOME OF THE OCCASIONS I.E. 08.01.2018, 22.01.2018 AND 06.09.2018 ATTENDED AND FILED SUBMISSIO NS HOWEVER SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT AND FINALLY THE LD. CIT(A ) ON DATED 24.10.2018 WHILE ISSUING NOTICE DATED 04.10.2018 GIVEN A FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT BY FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 24.10.2018. ON THE SAID DATE ALSO THE APPELLANT REMAI NED UNATTENDED THEREAFTER IN THE CONSTRAINED CIRCUMSTANCES, T HE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT FROM THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT NEITHER THE APPELLANT NOR HIS COUNSEL ATTENDE D THE HEARING ON EACH OCCASION, ALTHOUGH HE HAS BEEN ISSUED NOT ICES ITA NO.645 /ASR/2018 (A.Y.2011-12) S.A NO.02(ASR)/2019 RAGHU RAJ CHETHLEY VS. ITO 4 FOR HEARING ON VARIOUS DATES, WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY SERV ED ALSO. FURTHER, IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT AS THE APPELLANT HAS NOT AVAILED ANY OF THE OPPORTUNITIES AL LOWED TO HIM TO REPRESENT THE CASE THEREFORE I (SHE) AM (IS) OF THE OPINION THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL MATTER AND HAS NOTHING TO SAY IN THE MATTER IN ADDITION TO G ROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY HIM. SO, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AP PELLANT IS BEING DISPOSED OFF EX-PARTE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL A VAILABLE ON RECORD WITHOUT ALLOWING ANY FURTHER OPPORTUNITY OF B EING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE CONSIDERING THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT ON MERITS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLA NT BY OBSERVING THAT THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE THAT AFTER A LAPSE OF SIX YEARS THE AGREEMENT STILL HOLDS GOOD WHEREIN THE HUGE AMOUN T OF RS.50 LACS HAS BEEN PAID IN ADVANCE. FURTHER NO LEGAL PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING FOR RECOVERY OF THIS AMOUNT FR OM THE BUYER. FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT COULD HAVE PRODUCED THE WITNESSES PRESENT AT THE TIME OF AGREEMENT, IN SU PPORT OF ITS CONTENTION HOWEVER NO WITNESSES WERE PRODUCED FOR VERIFI CATION AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN ORDER TO DISCHARG E ITS ONUS ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE TRANSACTIO NS WERE GENUINE. NEITHER THE AFFIDAVIT OF ANY WITNESS WITH R EGARD TO PAYMENT OF HUGE CASH BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF THE BUYER HAS BEEN FILED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. APPARENTLY THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS OF AGREEMENT AND RECEIPT OF HUGE AMOUNT OF 50 LACS BY THE APPELLANT AS CLAIMED HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WE LL AS APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND THE COPY OF AGREEMENT TO SA LE PRESENTED AND RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT WITHOUT I NCORPORATING EVIDENCE. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FAILED TO ADDUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD AND THE APPELLANT ALSO ITA NO.645 /ASR/2018 (A.Y.2011-12) S.A NO.02(ASR)/2019 RAGHU RAJ CHETHLEY VS. ITO 5 COULD NOT FILE ANY LEGAL DOCUMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS CON TENTION OF ANY FAMILY DISPUTE DUE TO WHICH THE PROPERTY COULD NOT BE REGISTERED AS PER THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPE LLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO FILE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPP ORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT DUE TO FAMILY DISPUTE EVEN AFTER RECE IPT OF RS.50 LACS, 6 YEARS BACK AS PER THE AGREEMENT, THE PROPERTY CO ULD NOT BE REGISTERED AND HUGE MONEY OF RS.50 LACS KEPT LYING W ITH THE APPELLANT WITHOUT ANY CHARGE OF INTEREST ON THE PART OF THE BUYER. FINALLY THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT. 5. ON AGGRIEVED THE APPELLANT CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY FILING THE INSTANT APPEAL AND SUBMITTED THAT APPE LLANT HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT DATED 26.12.2010 FOR THE SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY SITUATED AT MITTAL ROAD, MOGA FOR RS.1,05,00,000 WITH SH. HARJIT SINGH THROUGH HIS ATTOR NEY MR. MANJIT SINGH CHAHAL AND RECEIVED RS.50 LACS AS EARNEST MO NEY IN CASH, OUT OF WHICH AMOUNT OF RS.36 LACS WAS DEPOSITED IN TH E BANK ACCOUNT OF HIS WIFE SMT. HEATHER CHATELY AND REST AMOUNT OF RS. 14,00000/- WAS DEPOSITED IN HIS ACCOUNT THEREFORE THE DEPOSITS STANDS EXPLAINED. THE LD. A.R. SPECIFICALLY EMPHA SIZED THAT REVENUE DEPARTMENT DETECTED THE AMOUNT OF 36 LA CS IN THE ACCOUNT OF APPELLANT'S WIFE AND THEREFORE THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT COULD HAVE MADE THE ADDITION IN HER ASSESSME NT ONLY BUT AT ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, THE AMOUNT O F RS. 36,00,000/- CANNOT BE ADDED IN THE INCOME OF THE APP ELLANT. 6. HAVING HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE OBSERVE THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/ S 147 HAVE ALSO BEEN INITIATED AGAINST THE APPELLANT'S WIFE CASE, WHEREIN WHILE RESPONDING THE NOTICES U/S 148 DATED 10.0 1.2014 ITA NO.645 /ASR/2018 (A.Y.2011-12) S.A NO.02(ASR)/2019 RAGHU RAJ CHETHLEY VS. ITO 6 AND 142(1) OF THE ACT ISSUED IN THE APPELLANTS WIFE N AME, THE APPELLANT RESPONDED ON BEHALF OF HIS WIFE BY SIGNING T HE REPLIES HIMSELF. FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY AND READY REFERENCE T HE SAID REPLIES ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN IN BELOW. TO THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-I, MOGA REF: YOUR NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 10.01.2014 IN THE CAS E OF MRS. HEATHER CHATHLEY, MOGA FOR THE. AY 2011 -12 SIR, WITH DUE RESPECT AND IN REFERENCE TO YOUR ABOVE REF ERRED LETTER IT IS SUBMITTED 1. THAT THE APPELLANT IS A FOREIGN NATIONAL HAVING NO PAN. THE COPIES OF THE PASSPORT ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR YOUR P ERUSAL. 2. THAT THE APPELLANT IS A TRAINED NURSE AND WHENEVER SHE CAME TO INDIA SHE GETS RS. 10000/- FOR TOWARDS HER SERVIC ES TO HER HUSBANDS HOSPITAL. 3. THAT THE TRANSACTIONS OF RS. 3600000/- AS MENTIONED I N YOUR LETTER ARE CASH DEPOSITED BY THE HUSBAND OF THE APPELLANT , WHICH HE HAS RECEIVED AS ADVANCE AGAINST HIS PROPERTY FROM MR. MANJIT SINGH CHAHAL S/O ISHAR SIN GH CHAHAL R/O VPO KOKRI KALAN, DISTRICT MOGA. THE EVIDE NCE OF THE TRANSACTIONS MAY BE PRODUCED IF REQUIRED. YOURS FAITHFULLY SD/- (R.R. CHATLEY) HUSBAND OF HEATHER CHATLEY TO THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-I, MOGA REF: YOUR NOTICE U/S 142(L)IN THE CASE OF MRS. HE ATHER CHATHLEY, MOGA FOR THE AY 2011-12 SIR, WITH DUE RESPECT AND IN REFERENCE TO YOUR ABOVE REF ERRED LETTER IT IS SUBMITTED ITA NO.645 /ASR/2018 (A.Y.2011-12) S.A NO.02(ASR)/2019 RAGHU RAJ CHETHLEY VS. ITO 7 1. THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ALREADY SUBMITTED IN HER PRE VIOUS REPLY THAT SHE IS A FOREIGN NATIONAL MARRIED TO AN INDIAN CITIZEN. SHE HAS NO SOURCE OF INCOME IN INDIA FOR WHICH SHE IS ASSESSED IN INDIA. SHE IS NOT HAVING ANY PAN. 2. THAT DURING THE AY 2011-12 SHE OPENED A BANK ACCOUN T WITH HER HUSBAND MR. RAGHU CHATLEY IN HDFC BANK MOGA. HER HU SBAND MR. RAGHU CHATLEY DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS. 3600000/- DURI NG THE AY 2011-12 OUT OF THE PROCEEDS OF AGREEMENT TO SELL HIS PROPER TY. A DECLARATION FORM OF MR. RAGHU CHATLEY IS ATTACHED HEREWITH FOR YOUR PERUSAL. 3. THAT AS PER THE AGREEMENT AS REFERRED IN PARA 2 ABO VE MR. RAGHU CHATLEY ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO SELL HIS PROPE RTY AND RECEIVED RS. 5000000/- FROM MR. MANJIT SINGH CHAHAL S/O ISHAR SI NGH, VPO KOKRI KALAN, TEHSIL & DISTT MOGA. MR. MANJIT SINGH ENTERE D INTO SUCH AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF HAIJIT SINGH S/O KARTAR SING H RESIDENT OF VPO KOKRI KALAN, DISTT MOGA, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 79 M IDDLETON AVENUE, GREENFORD MIDDLESEX UB6 8BG UNITED KINGDOM. MR. MANJIT SINGH CHAHAL, GIVEN SUCH AMOUNT OF RS. 5 0.00 LACS TO MR. RAGHU CHATLEY OUT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SALE OF AGRICU LTURAL LAND WHICH BELONGS TO MR. HAIJIT SINGH, INDEIJIT SINGH AND MR. CHAHAL AS THEIR ATTORNEY. THE COPIES OF AGREEMENT TO SALE, GPA, JAMABANDI AND SALE DEED OF LAND AND AN AFFIDAVIT OF MR. MANJIT SINGH CHAHAL AR E ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR YOUR PERUSAL. 4. THAT A COPY OF A CERTIFICATE FROM NOTARY PUBLIC ADV. KEWAL KRISHAN GUPTA, WITH WHOM THE AGREEMENT TO SALE IS REGISTERE D IS ALSO ENCLOSED HEREWITH. 5. THAT KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 3600000/- IN THE AY 2011-12 DOES NOT BELONG TO THE APPELLANT BUT OF HER HUSBAND. THE SOURCE OF SUCH DEPOSIT AND THE SOURCE OF THE SOURCE IS DULY EXPLAINED ALONG WITH ALL EVIDENCES RELEVANT FOR YOU FOR THE ASSESSMENT PURPOSE. IN THIS REGARD YOU ARE REQUESTED TO DO THE NEEDFUL AND OBLIGE. IT YOUR GOODSELF REQUIRE ANY OTHER INFORMATION, KIN DLY DO THE NEEDFUL. YOURS FAITHFULLY. SD/- (R.R. CHATLEY) HUSBAND OF HEATHER CHATLEY. 6.1 IN THE AFORESAID REPLIES, THE APPELLANT IN HIS WIF E'S ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT'S WIFE IS A FOREIGN NATIONAL HAV ING NO PAN AND IS A TRAINED NURSE AND WHENEVER SHE CAME TO INDIA SHE ITA NO.645 /ASR/2018 (A.Y.2011-12) S.A NO.02(ASR)/2019 RAGHU RAJ CHETHLEY VS. ITO 8 GETS RS. 10000/- FOR TOWARDS HER SERVICES TO HER HU SBAND'S HOSPITAL. THAT THE TRANSACTIONS OF RS. 3600000/- AS MENTIONED IN YOUR LETTER ARE CASH DEPOSITED BY THE HUSBAND OF THE ASS ESSEE , WHICH HE HAS RECEIVED AS ADVANCE AGAINST HIS PROPER TY FROM MR. MANJIT SINGH CHAHAL S/O ISHAR SINGH CHAHAL R/O VPO KOKRI KALAN, DISTRICT MOGA. THAT DURING THE AY 2011-12 SHE OPENE D A BANK ACCOUNT WITH HER HUSBAND MR. RAGHU CHATLEY IN HDFC BANK MOGA. HER HUSBAND MR. RAGHU CHATLEY DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS . 3600000/- DURING THE AY 2011-12 OUT OF THE PROCEEDS OF AGREEM ENT TO SELL HIS PROPERTY. A DECLARATION FROM MR. RAGHU CHATLEY IS A TTACHED HEREWITH FOR YOUR PERUSAL. THAT AS PER THE AGREEMENT AS REFE RRED IN PARA 2 ABOVE MR. RAGHU CHATLEY ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT T O SELL HIS PROPERTY AND RECEIVED RS. 5000000/- FROM MR. MANJIT SINGH CHAHAL S/O ISHAR SINGH, VPO KOKRI KALAN, TEHSIL & DISTT MO GA. MR. MANJIT SINGH ENTERED INTO SUCH AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF HAIJ IT SINGH S/O KARTAR SINGH RESIDENT OF VPO KOKRI KALAN, DISTT MOG A, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 79 MIDDLETON AVENUE, GREENFORD MIDDLESE X UB6 8BG UNITED KINGDOM. MR. MANJIT SINGH CHAHAL, GIVEN SUCH AMOUNT OF RS. 50.00 LACS TO MR. RAGHU CHATLEY OUT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH BELONGS TO MR. HAIJIT SINGH , INDEIJIT SINGH AND MR. CHAHAL AS THEIR ATTORNEY. THE COPIES OF AGR EEMENT TO SALE, GPA, JAMABANDI AND SALE DEED OF LAND AND AN AFFIDAV IT OF MR. MANJIT SINGH CHAHAL ARE ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR YOUR PERUSAL. THAT A COPY OF A CERTIFICATE FROM NOTARY PUBLIC ADV. KEWAL KRISHAN GUPTA, WITH WHOM THE AGREEMENT TO SALE IS REGISTERED IS AL SO ENCLOSED HEREWITH. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 3600000/- IN THE AY 2011-12 DOES NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE BUT OF HER HUSBAND. THE SOURCE OF SUCH DEPOSIT AND THE SOURCE OF THE SOURCE IS DULY EXPLAINED ALONG WI TH ALL EVIDENCES RELEVANT FOR YOU FOR THE ASSESSMENT PURPOSE. IN THI S REGARD YOU ARE REQUESTED TO DO THE NEEDFUL AND OBLIGE. ITA NO.645 /ASR/2018 (A.Y.2011-12) S.A NO.02(ASR)/2019 RAGHU RAJ CHETHLEY VS. ITO 9 FROM THE REPLIES, IT CLEARLY REFLECTS THAT THE APPELLA NT CATEGORICALLY TAKEN THE STAND THAT AMOUNT OF RS.36 LACS F OR THE ASST. YEAR: 2011-12, DOES NOT BELONG TO THE APPELLANT S WIFE BUT BELONGS TO THE APPELLANT HIMSELF. FROM THE CATEGORICAL ACCEPTANCE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT, THE ARGUMENT TO THE EFFECT THAT AS THE AMOUNT OF RS. 36 LAKHS WAS FOUND IN T HE ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANTS WIFE BY THE REVENUE DEPARTM ENT THEREFORE COULD HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO ADDITION IN THE APPELLANTS WIFE ASSESSMENT ONLY, IS DEVOID OF MERITS AND HENCE REJECTED. 6.2 THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS EX-PARTE ON NON- APPEARANCE OF THE APPELLANT AND IN IMPUGNED ORDER IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT FROM THE ABOVE SEQUEN CE OF EVENTS IT CAN BE SEEN THAT NEITHER THE APPELLANT NOR H IS COUNSEL ATTENDED THE HEARING ON EACH OCCASION ALTHOUGH HE HAS BE EN ISSUED NOTICES FOR HEARING ON VARIOUS DATES, WHICH HAVE B EEN DULY SERVED ALSO. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT APPELLA NT HAD ALSO FAILED TO FILE ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT O F VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL. FURTHER AS THE APPELLANT HAS NOT AV AILED ANY OF THE OPPORTUNITIES ALLOWED TO HIM TO REPRESENT THE CASE, THEREFORE IN HER OPINION, THE APPELLANT IS NOT INTE RESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL MATTER AND HAS TO SAY NOTHING IN T HE MATTER IN ADDITION TO GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY HIM. HOWEVER, WE OBSERVE FROM THE DATES OF HEARING AS MENTIONED IN PARA NO.4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE A PPELLANT ON 20.12.2017, 22.01.2018 & 06.09.2018 ATTENDED THE AP PELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND ALSO FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND PAPER B OOK, THEREFORE THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE E FFECT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT AVAILED ANY OF THE OPPORTUNITI ES ALLOWED TO ITA NO.645 /ASR/2018 (A.Y.2011-12) S.A NO.02(ASR)/2019 RAGHU RAJ CHETHLEY VS. ITO 10 HIM TO REPRESENT THE CASE AND ALSO FAILED TO FILE ANY W RITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE CON TRARY TO THE FACTS ON RECORD WHEREIN IT REFLECTS THAT THE APP ELLANT HAD FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND PAPER BOOK AND IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD RAISED SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL THEREF ORE FILLING OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPE AL AS OBSERVED, DID NOT ARISE. HENCE, FOR THE END OF JUSTICE, WE FEEL IT APPROPRIATE TO REMAND BACK THIS CASE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE AFRESH THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE WHILE AFFORDIN G REASONABLE OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD. IT IS SUFFICE T O SAY THAT THE APPELLANT SHALL CO-OPERATE WITH THE APPELLANT PR OCEEDINGS AND SHALL APPEAR AS AND WHEN REQUIRED BY THE LD. CIT( A) AND IN CASE OF DEFAULT THE LD. CIT(A) AT LIBERTY TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERIT EX-PARTE . AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE ORDER EX- PARTE THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT ADVERTING TO THE OTHER GROUNDS/ISSUES RAISED IN THE APPEAL AND THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL DECIDE THE APPEAL WITHOUT BEING INFLUENCED BY ANY OF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE ABOVE. 6.3 WE CLARIFY THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT RAISE THE G ROUNDS NO.1 & 2 FOR WANT OF ASSESSMENT ORDER OF HIS WIFE, REASON S RECORDED U/S 147 AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS THERETO, AS WE HAVE REMANDED THE CASE TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR DECISION AFRESH THEREFORE THE APPELLANT SHALL BE AT LIBERTY T O AGITATE THE ORIGINAL GROUND OF APPEAL AS RAISED EARLIER BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A). 7. S.A.NO.02(ASR)/2019 AS WE HAVE SET ASIDE THE ORDER IMPUGNED HEREIN AND REMANDED THIS CASE TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR DECISIO N AFRESH, HENCE THE STAY APPLICATION BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND NEEDS N O ADJUDICATION. ITA NO.645 /ASR/2018 (A.Y.2011-12) S.A NO.02(ASR)/2019 RAGHU RAJ CHETHLEY VS. ITO 11 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22.03.2019. SD/- SD/- (N.S.SAINI) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDI CIAL MEMBER DATED: 22.03.2019 /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) RAGHU RAJ CHETHLEY, 139-142, MAIN BAZAR, MOGA (2) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, MOGA (3) THE CIT(A)-3, LUDHIANA (4) THE CIT CONCERNED (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., AMRITSAR TRUE COPY BY ORDER