Shri Aman Deep Singh, Sonepat v. ITO, Sonepat

ITA 16/DEL/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 09-07-2010 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 1620114 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN BAQPS8285N
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 16/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 6 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant Shri Aman Deep Singh, Sonepat
Respondent ITO, Sonepat
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 09-07-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 09-07-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 30-06-2010
Next Hearing Date 30-06-2010
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 04-01-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL ITA NO.16(DEL)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SHRI AMAN DEEP SINGH INCOME-TAX OFFICER S/O SHRI BHANWAR SINGH VS. WARD-3 SONEPAT. 240/9 SHASTRI NAGAR (HARYANA). GANAUR DISTT. SONEPAT. PAN-BAQPS 8285N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K. SAMPATH ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: MS . PRATIMA KAUSHIK SR. DR ORDER PER K.G. BANSAL : AM THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) ROHTAK PASSED ON 03.11.2009 IN APPEAL NO. 276/SPT/ 08-09 AND IT PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THREE GROUNDS IN THE APPEAL TO THE EFFECT THAT THE LD. CIT(APP EALS) ERRED IN (I) UPHOLDING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 144 READ WITH SECT ION 148 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT 1961; (II) HOLDING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2. 00 LAKH AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES; AND (III) UPHOLDING THE AD DITION OF RS. 66 000/- IN RESPECT OF LOW HOUSE-HOLD EXPENSES. ITA NO. 16(DEL)/2010 2 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN REGARD TO GROUND N OS. 1 AND 2 ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF SMT. ANGOORI DEVI IN ITA NO. 15(DEL)/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 WHICH WAS HEARD ALONG W ITH THIS CASE AND WHEREIN THE APPEAL WAS REPRESENTED BY THE SAME LD. COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THAT CASE IT WAS HELD THAT ONLY THE ADDITION MADE TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT IN THIS YEAR CAN BE ADDED TO TH E TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAPPENS TO BE RS. 1.00 LAKH IN T HIS CASE. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH 4 AN D 4.1 IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE:- 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PLA CED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE US BY WAY OF AFFID AVIT OF THE COUNSEL AND THE AFFIDAVIT OF RAJINDER THE SEL LER OF THE LAND AT PAGE NOS. 7 TO 9 OF THE PAPER BOOK. NO PRAYE R HAS BEEN MADE TO ADMIT THIS EVIDENCE. NO APPLICATION HAS BEEN MOVED FOR ADMISSION OF THIS EVIDENCE. IN FACT IT WAS POINTED OUT ONLY IN THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT THE SE AFFIDAVITS CONSTITUTE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. LOOKING TO THE FACT THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES HAVE BEEN GRANTED BY THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN HE R CASE OR FILE EVIDENCE WE THINK IT FIT NOT TO ADMIT THIS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. ITA NO. 16(DEL)/2010 3 4.1 COMING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE ACCOU NTS PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 WERE TH ERE BEFORE THE AO WHICH CLEARLY SHOWED THAT SHE HAD ADVANCED A SUM OF RS. 2.00 LAKH AS EARNEST MONEY FOR LAND. THUS THE REVENUES RECORD SHOWS THAT SUCH MONEY WAS ADVANCED AL THOUGH THE NAME OF SELLER AND OTHER PARTICULARS OF LAND W ERE NOT FURNISHED. NONETHELESS IT STANDS ESTABLISHED T HAT THE MONEY WAS ADVANCED FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. THERE IS NO OTHER LAND IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE MONEY WAS ADVANCED EXCEPT THE ONE BELONGING TO RAJINDER. IN THIS YEAR THE A SSESSEE RECEIVED RS. 4.00 LAKH AND CREDITED EXTRA AMOUNT OF RS. 2.00 LAKH TO HER CAPITAL ACCOUNT. THE ONLY INFERENCE WHICH CAN BE DRAWN ON THE BASIS OF FACTS ON RECORD IS THAT TH E ASSESSEE CREDITED A SUM OF RS. 2.00 LAKH TO HER CAPITAL ACCOUNT FOR WHICH THERE IS NO SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE ON RECO RD. IN ABSENCE OF TENDERING PROPER EVIDENCE BEFORE LO WER AUTHORITIES WE ARE UNABLE TO HOLD THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM SHRI RAJINDER IN RESPECT OF BREA CH OF AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF LAND. IN OTHER WORDS TH E CREDIT OF RS. 2.00 LAKH IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT REMAINS UNEXPLAINED . IN VIEW THEREOF THIS AMOUNT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE CONNE CTED WITH ANY LAND DEAL. CONSEQUENTLY WE NEED NOT CONSID ER THE CASE LAW CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL. THEREFORE IT IS H ELD THAT ONLY A SUM OF RS. 2.00 LAKH COULD BE TAXED IN THE HAN DS OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 16(DEL)/2010 4 2.1 RELYING ON THAT ORDER GROUND NO. 1 IS DISM ISSED AS NOT PRESSED AND GROUND NO. 2 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 3. IN REGARD TO GROUND NO. 3 IT IS MENTIONED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE AO ESTIMATED HOUSE-HOLD EXPENDITURE AT RS. 1 14 000/- COMPUTED @ RS. 12 000/- PER MONTH. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THE EXPENDITURE AT RS. 2 500/- PER MONTH. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BE FORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE ARBITRARILY WITH OUT GOING INTO THE SIZE OF THE FAMILY AND THE STANDARDS OF ITS LIVING. TH E LD. CIT(APPEALS) MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE ARE STAYING WITH HIS PARENTS WHO ARE EARNING INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIV ITIES. CONSEQUENTLY HE ESTIMATED THE EXPENDITURE @ RS. 8 000/- P.M. FO R THIS YEAR. 3.1 THE CASE OF THE LD. COUNSEL IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE INCOME OF THE PARENTS FROM AGRICULTUR AL ACTIVITIES. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE ADDITION COULD NOT HAV E BEEN MADE IN AN ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 147 AS IT IS NOT IN THE NA TURE OF ESCAPED INCOME. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). ITA NO. 16(DEL)/2010 5 3.2 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE A ND SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE US. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT MAD E OUT A CASE THAT THE ADDITION IS IN THE NATURE OF AN ESCAPED INCOME L IABLE TO BE TAXED U/S 147. THIS POINT WAS ALSO NOT TAKEN UP IN THE REASO NS RECORDED BY THE AO FOR THE PURPOSE OF BRINGING TO TAX THE ESCAPED INC OME. THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS AMOUNT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE A SUBJECT MATTER OF TAXATION IN RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 3.3 THUS THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 JULY 2010. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (K.G.BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF ORDER: 9TH JULY 2010. SP SATIA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- SHRI AMAN DEEP SINGH SONEPAT. ITO WARD-3 SONEPAT. CIT(A) CIT THE DR ITAT NEW DELHI. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.