The Income-tax Officer,, Phagwara v. Smt. Gurbax Kaur,, Phagwara

ITA 284/ASR/2013 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 28420914 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN BBNPK6799K
Bench Amritsar
Appeal Number ITA 284/ASR/2013
Duration Of Justice 5 month(s) 28 day(s)
Appellant The Income-tax Officer,, Phagwara
Respondent Smt. Gurbax Kaur,, Phagwara
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 30-10-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 29-10-2013
Next Hearing Date 29-10-2013
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 02-05-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P. JAIN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 284 & 285 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 PAN: BBNPK6799K INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. SMT. GURBAX KAUR W/O- AV TAR WARD-1 PHAGWARA SINGH VPO KHAJURLA TEHSIL PHAGWARA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. AMRIK CHAND DR RESPONDENT BY: SH. PADAM BAHL CA DATE OF HEARING: 29.10.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.10.2013 ORDER PER BENCH 1. THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT TWO APPEALS AGA INST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) JALANDHAR EACH DATED 04.02.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 & 2006-07. SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN BOT H THE APPEALS ARE COMMON EXCEPT DIFFERENCE OF AMOUNTS WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEALS BY PASSING A CONSOLIDATED ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF CO NVENIENCE THE GROUNDS 2 I.T.A. NOS. 284 & 285 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NO. 284( ASR)/2013 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: I. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 12 75 000/- AFTER ADMI TTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF BANK DEPOSITS BEFORE THE FINALIZATION OF ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS DESPITE THE FACT THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES WERE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. II. NOT PASSING AN ORDER IN WRITING AND THEREFORE NOT COMPLYING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SUB RULE(2) OF RULE 46A WHILE ADM ITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IGNORING THE DECISION OF THE HO N'BLE I.T.A.T. CHANDIGARH BENCH CHANDIGARH IN THE CASE OF SMT. SU RINDER KAUR DATED 29.07.2011 PASSED IN I.T.A. NO. 596/CHD/2011. III. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BE SET-ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER BE RESTORED. IV. THE APPELLANT REQUESTS FOR LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND OR ALTER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD AND DI SPOSED OF. 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF RELATING TO THE ISSUE IN DISP UTE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. 2006-07 & 2007-08 ARE THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER RE-OPENED THE CASES OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 1 48 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 ON THE INFORMATION THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 4 00 000/- IN EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS DEPOSITED IN CASH IN HER SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH SBI KHAJURLA PHAGWARA. AS PER THE DATA BASE AVAIL ABLE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FIND THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE IS ASSESSED TO THE INCOME TAX NOR ANY RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN FILED BY HER. 3 I.T.A. NOS. 284 & 285 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 O F THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE RAISED OBJECTIONS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OVER THE RE-OPENING OF THE CASE. AT LAS T THE HEARING OF THE CASE WAS FIXED ON 03.12.2009 AND THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE PROOF OF RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT ALONG WITH OTHER DETAILS AND EXPLANA TION FOR THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS WHICH STOOD AT RS. 12 75 000/- FOR A.Y. 20 06-07 AND RS. 9 95 000/- FOR A.Y. 2007-08. ON 03.12.2009 THE ASS ESSEE ONCE AGAIN MADE OBJECTIONS ON THE RE-OPENING OF HER CASE BUT S HE HAD NOT GIVEN ANY FACTUAL REPLIES TO THE QUERIES MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDERS EAC H DATED 03.12.2009 PASSED FOR BOTH ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 & 2007-08 MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 12 75 000/- AND INTEREST FROM BANK AT RS. 15 250/- FOR A.Y. 2006- 07 AND RS. 9 95 000/- AND INTEREST OF RS. 8 338/- FOR A.Y. 2007-08 TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT IN DISPUTE. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS EACH DATED 03 .12.2009 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 & 2007-08 THE ASSESSEE FILED TWO APPEALS BEFORE THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORIT Y WHO VIDE A CONSOLIDATED IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.02.2013 ALLOW ED THE APPEALS OF 4 I.T.A. NOS. 284 & 285 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITIONS IN DISPUTE F OR THE BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LEARNED DR STATED THAT L EARNED CIT(A) JALANDHAR HAS WRONGLY DELETED THE ADDITIONS IN DIS PUTE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 & 2007-08 AFTER ADMITTING THE ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PR ODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF BANK DEPOSITS BEF ORE THE FINALIZATION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DESPITE THE FACT THAT SUFFIC IENT OPPORTUNITIES WERE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NOT PASSED SPEAKING ORDER ON THE APPL ICATION OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER RULE 46-A SUB-RULE (2) OF THE INCOM E TAX RULES 1962 AND HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF I.T.A.T. CHAD IGARH B BENCH IN THE CASE OF SMT. SURINDER KAUR VS. INCOME TAX OFFIC ER WARD 1(3) LUDHIANA DATED 29.07.2011 PASSED IN I.T.A. NO. 596 /CHD/2011. AT THE END HE REQUESTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER MAY BE CA NCELLED AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MAY BE UPHELD. 5. ON THE CONTRARY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E STATED THAT THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS RIGHTLY ADMIT TED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER GIVING FULL OP PORTUNITY TO THE 5 I.T.A. NOS. 284 & 285 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN COMPLIANCE OF RULE 46A SUB -RULE (2) OF THE SAID RULES. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE LEARNED FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY IN PARA 11 TO 14 (PAGE 13 TO 15) OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER APP RECIATED THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND EXPLAINED THAT UNDER W HAT CIRCUMSTANCES HE HAS ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY TH E ASSESSEE AND IN CONFORMITY WITH THE SAID RULES. HE ALSO DREW OUR AT TENTION TOWARDS PAPER-BOOK FILED BY HIM IN WHICH HE HAS ATTACHED W RITTEN SUBMISSIONS; LETTER NO. ITO/PHG-1/2012-13/1410 DATED 04-01-2013; LETTER NO. ITO/PHG-1/2012-13 DATED 21-12-2012; LETTER DATED 27 -12-2012 VIDE WHICH CONFIRMATION FOR AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 21.0 2.2004 WAS FURNISHED; ANNEXURE R ALONG WITH SUPPORTING DOCUM ENTS EXPLAINING SOURCES OF BANK DEPOSITS; COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 29-12-2009 UNDER RULE 46-A OF THE I.T. RULES; AND COPY OF LETTER OF I.T.O. WARD-I PHAGWARA BEARING NO. 264 DATED 5-7-2012 VIDE WHICH ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS OBJECTED TO. 6. AT LAST HE STATED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY EXAMINED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ON THE DIRECTION OF THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE SO URCES OF BANK DEPOSITS 6 I.T.A. NOS. 284 & 285 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 AS GENUINE. THEREFORE THERE DOES NOT REMAIN ANY CA SE FOR SUSTAINING THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH BANK DEPOSITS AND THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITIO N. HE ALSO RELIED UPON THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED FIRST APPELLAT E AUTHORITY AND REQUESTED THAT THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE MAY BE DISMISSED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ELEVANT MATERIALS ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF I.T.A.T. CHADIGARH B BEN CH IN THE CASE OF SMT. SURINDER KAUR VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) LU DHIANA DATED 29.07.2011 PASSED IN I.T.A. NO. 596/CHD/2011. WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION DATED 29.12.2 009 UNDER RULE 46A OF INCOME TAX RULES 1962 FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH IS ATTACHED AT PAGES 26-29 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS GIVEN FULL OP PORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENC E FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS ALSO GIVEN HIS COMMENTS AND OPPOSED THE REQUEST OF THE A SSESSEE FOR ACCEPTANCE OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. AS PER PARA 12 ( PAGE 14) OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY O N 15.11.2012 7 I.T.A. NOS. 284 & 285 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE SUBMI SSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS BY WAY OF SENDING LETTERS VIDE 1364 AND 1 630 DATED 15.11.2012 AND 26.12.2012 RESPECTIVELY. THE REPORT OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WAS RECEIVED ON 10.01.2013 WHICH THE LEARNED FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY HAS REPRODUCED IN PARA 12 AT PAGE 14 OF THE IMPUGNED OR DER. THIS SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO EXPLAINED THE SOURCES OF BANK DEPOSITS. 8. LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AFTER CAREFULL Y CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AS WELL AS THE REPOR T OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON MERIT HEL D THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED THE SUBMISSIONS AND ACCOMPANYI NG EVIDENCE FILED ON MERITS ALSO AND CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCES OF BANK DEPOSITS EXPLAINED AT ANNEXURE R FILED BE FORE HIM WHICH IS ANNEXED WITH THE PAPER BOOK AND EACH ENTRY IN THE B ANK ACCOUNT IS EXPLAINED IN DETAILS AND NARRATIONS HAVE DULY UNDER GONE THE SCRUTINY OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND NO ADVERSE INFERENCE IS DRAWN . LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ACCEPTED THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER FOR BOTH ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. 2006-07 & 2007-08 ON THE BASIS OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8 I.T.A. NOS. 284 & 285 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 9. THE DECISION OF THE I.T.A.T. CHANDIGARH B BEN CH IN THE CASE OF SMT. SURINDER KAUR (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASES BECAUSE IN THIS CASE THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY HAS NEITHER REJECTED NOR ACCEPTED THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE F OR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BUT IN THE PRESENT CASES THE L EARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ACCEPTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY PASSI NG A SPEAKING ORDER. 10. KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AU THORITY HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED ORDER BY RIGHTLY ADMITTING THE ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCE AFTER FULLY COMPLYING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46-A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES 1962 AND DELETED THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE. AC CORDINGLY WE DISMISS BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND UPHOLD TH E IMPUGNED ORDER. 11. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REV ENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH OCTOBER 2013 SD/./- SD/./- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30 TH OCTOBER 2013 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 9 I.T.A. NOS. 284 & 285 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 1. THE ASSESSEE: SMT. GURBAX KAUR W/O- AVTAR SINGH V PO KHAJURLA TEHSIL PHAGWARA 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 PHAGWARA 3. THE CIT(A) JALANDHAR 4. THE CIT JALANDHAR 5. THE SR DR I.T.A.T. ASR TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.