Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 294141 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
04-11-2024
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
B
Next Hearing Date
21-10-2024
Assessment Year
2018-2019
Appeal Filed On
30-09-2024
Judgement Text
"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, चǷीगढ़ Ɋायपीठ “बी” , चǷीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE ŵी आकाश दीप जैन, उपाȯƗ एवं ŵी क ृणवȶ सहाय, लेखा सद˟ BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO.1017/Chd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Tirloki Nath Singla SCO 80-81, 3rd Floor Sector 17-C Chandigarh बनाम The Asst. CIT Central Circle-2, Chandigarh ˕ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABXPS6730K अपीलाथŎ/Appellant ŮȑथŎ/Respondent Stay Application No. 26/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO.1017/Chd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Tirloki Nath Singla SCO 80-81, 3rd Floor Sector 17-C Chandigarh बनाम The Asst. CIT Central Circle-2, Chandigarh ˕ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABXPS6730K अपीलाथŎ/Appellant ŮȑथŎ/Respondent िनधाŊįरती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri T.N. Singla, C.A, राजˢ की ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 21/10/2024 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 04/11/2024 आदेश/Order PER AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP : This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dt. 27/09/2024 pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Ground No. 1 is general in nature. 3. Apropos Ground Nos. 2 & 3, the AO made addition of Rs. 14,95,368/- on account of investment made by the Assessee with the Punjab Sand Mining Department. The AO observed that the assessee had not disclosed these investments. 2 4. It was further held that the details of the investment had not been furnished by the assese and that the assessee had failed to explain these transactions satisfactorily. It was on this basis that the AO made addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, as unexplained investment. The ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee did not give complete details of correct entries in his HDFC Bank Account and that he also did not give any cogent evidence to prove as to how the source of payment for the bidding process from their explained sources. 5. As before the ld. CIT(A), the assesssee has contended that he paid the amount of Rs. 14,95,368/- from explained sources as earnest money to participate in the bidding of sand mines in Punjab. The appellant also submitted that, the said tender for e-auction of mines was cancelled and the earnest money paid by prospective bidders was refunded by the Mining Department in the same bank account and these transactions are duly reflected in the bank account statement of the assessee submitted during the assessment proceedings. 6. The ld. DR, on the other hand, placed strong reliance on the impugned order. It has been contended that since the assessee had not filed complete details of the correct entries in his bank account with HDFC Bank Account, nor was he able to prove that the payment for the bidding process had been made from explained source, the ld. CIT(A) has correctly confirmed the addition. 7. It has not been disputed that that before the authorities below, the assessee had provided, as part of the statement of affairs, narration and source of each debit and credit entries during the year, in his bank statement. 8. The bank account statement of the assessee is at APB-14 to 20. This bank statement was furnished before the AO as well as the ld. CIT(A). However, the same 3 has not been discussed while making / confirming the addition. A perusal there of shows that it was the earnest money paid by prospective bidders, which was refunded by the Mining Department in that very bank account. Such transaction, undisputedly, stands reflected in the bank account statement of the assessee. It has not been taken into consideration by either of the authorities below. It was the refunded amount which was again paid to the Mining Department when the occasion for bidding came about / arose once again. 9. In view of the above, the grievance of the assessee by way of Ground Nos. 2 and 3 is found are justified it is accepted. The addition of Rs. 14,95,368/- is, accordingly hereby order to be deleted. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 11. In view of the aforesaid, where the matter has been decided in favour of the assessee, the stay application has become infructuous and the same is accordingly dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 04/11/2024 Sd/- Sd/- क ृणवȶ सहाय आकाश दीप जैन (KRINWANT SAHAY) (AAKASH DEEP JAIN) लेखा सद˟/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपाȯƗ/VICE PRESIDENT AG आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/ The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुƅ/ CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, चǷीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाडŊ फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar "
AI Insights
The case revolves around an appeal by Shri Tirloki Nath Singla against the order of the CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon, which pertained to the Assessment Year 2018-19. The primary issue was the addition of Rs. 14,95,368 by the AO, which was alleged to be unexplained investment by the assessee with the Punjab Sand Mining Department. The AO and CIT(A) had both rejected the assessee's explanations regarding the source of the funds used for the bidding process. However, the Tribunal found that the bank statements provided by the assessee, which detailed the transactions including the refund of the earnest money, were not adequately considered by the lower authorities.
