Sh charan Dass, Muktsar V. The Income Tax Officer, Muktsar

SA 1/ASR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3256 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (International Taxation) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K SHARDA
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA
• Keywords: Application of stay; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S.A. NO.01(ASR)/2016 ITA NO.342(ASR)/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 PAN: SH. CHARAN DASS PROP. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, M/S. CHANNA AGRI. WORKS. WARD II(2), MUKTSAR. BARIWALA, DISTT. MUKTSAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH. P.N.ARORA, DR RESPONDENT BY:SH. R.K. SHARDA, DR DATE OF HEARING: 22/01/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22/01/2016 ORDER PER A.D. JAIN,JM: BY MEANS OF THE PRESENT STAY APPLICATION, THE ASSE SSEE SEEKS TO GET THE DEMAND STAYED OF RS.8,99,323/- FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2011-12 AND SAME ARISES FROM APPEAL IN ITA NO.342(ASR)2015 . 2. IN THE STAY APPLICATION, THE ASSESSE HAS STATED THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL OUTSTANDING DEMAND OF RS.11,45,740/-, THE ASS ESSEE HAS ALREADY PAID RS.2,46,417/- AND THAT THE BALANCE DEMAND OF RS.8,99,323/-, MAY BE STAYED TILL THE FINAL DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED T HAT THE LD. CIT(A), INTER-ALIA, ERRED IN REJECTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THOUGH THE SAME GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER. ACC ORDING TO THE LD. SA NO.01(ASR)/2016 ASSTT. YEAR 2011-12 2 COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE H AS A PRIMA FACIE CASE AND THE LIKELIHOOD OF THE SUCCESS OF THE ASSESSEE I N THE APPEAL IMMINENT. ON THIS BASIS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE LIES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE. IT HAS FURTHER BEEN SUBMITTED THAT MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN A P OSITION TO MAKE THE PAYMENT OF THE OUTSTANDING DEMAND OF RS.8,99,323/- DUE TO FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS CONTENDED THAT IT IS ON THE BASIS OF LIQUID CASH THAT THE GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS AND EV EN OTHERWISE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS WELL VERSED AND T HE ASSESSEE IS WRONG IN CONTENDING THAT HE HAS A PRIMA FACIE CASE AND THE B ALANCE OF CONVENIENCE IS IN HIS FAVOUR. 5. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE FIND THAT WHILE REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: THE PURCHASE DEEDS WERE SOUGHT TO BE ADDUCED AS ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A(4). HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS DECLINED AS IT WAS FELT THAT IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RELEVANT TO CO ME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE CASH ARISING OUT OF SALE PROCEE DS WHICH WAS PURPORTED TO HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUN T WAS WITHDRAWN AND UTILIZED FOR THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULT URAL LAND BY LATE SH. HARBANS SINGH. SINCE THE ENTIRE IMPUGNED TRANSA CTION HAVE BEEN IN CASH, THE ADMISSION OF NEW EVIDENCE WOULD N OT HAVE BEEN MATERIAL IN DECIDING THE OWNERSHIP OF THE CASH HAVI NG BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE APPELLANTS ACCOUNT. 6. WE, FURTHER, FIND THAT THE EVIDENCE FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE, BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN REJECTE D BY THE LD. CIT(A) BY MAKING THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, AS HAS BEEN DONE. AS SUCH, THE ASSESSEE SA NO.01(ASR)/2016 ASSTT. YEAR 2011-12 3 DOES HAVE A PRIMA FACIE CASE IN HIS FAVOUR AND HEN CE, THE BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE IS ALSO TILTING TOWARDS HIM. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE GRANT THE STAY OF DEMAN D TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL OR FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT BE ENT ITLED TO SEEK ANY FRIVOLOUS ADJOURNMENT IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IN CASE ANY SUCH ADJOURNMENT IS SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE F IXED FOR HEARING, THE STAY GRANTED HEREIN SHALL STAND VACATED. THE REGIST RY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 02.03.2016. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE STAY APPLICATION IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22/01/2016 SD/- SD/- (T.S. KAPOOR) (A.D. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED: 22/01/2016 /SKR/ COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: SH. CHARAN DASS, BARIWALA, DISTT. MUKTSAR. 2. THE ITO, WARD-II(2), MUKTSAR 3. THE CIT(A), BATHINDA 4. THE CIT, BATHINDA 5. THE SR. DR, ITAT, ASR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.