Sh Tejinder Singh, Kapurthala v. The Asstt .Commissioner of .Income-tax, Jalandhar

ITA 299/ASR/2011 | 1996-1997
Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2014 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 29920914 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN ABMPS4581P
Bench Amritsar
Appeal Number ITA 299/ASR/2011
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
Appellant Sh Tejinder Singh, Kapurthala
Respondent The Asstt .Commissioner of .Income-tax, Jalandhar
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-04-2014
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 28-04-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 25-03-2014
Next Hearing Date 25-03-2014
Assessment Year 1996-1997
Appeal Filed On 19-05-2011
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.314 315 & 316(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS:1991-92 1992-93 & 1993-94 PAN :ABMPS4581P SH.TEJINDER SINGH VS. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOM E TAX 40 LINKE ROAD RANGE-IV KAPURTHALA. JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO.310(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR:1993-94 PAN :ABMPS4581P THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX VS. SH.TEJINDER SI NGH RANGE-IV 40 LINKE ROAD KAPURTHALA. JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NOS.450 298 299 & 300(ASR)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS:1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 & 1997-98 PAN :ABMPS4581P SH.TEJINDER SINGH VS. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOM E TAX 40 LINKE ROAD INV. CIRCLE 2(2) KAPURTHALA. JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY:SH.ASHWANI KALIA CA DEPARTMENT BY:SH.TARSEM LAL DR ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 2 DATE OF HEARING:21/04/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:28/04/2014 ORDER PER BENCH ; THESE SEVEN APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ONE APPE AL OF THE REVENUE ARISE FROM DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) JALANDHA R AS PER DETAILS GIVEN HEREUNDER: S. NO. ITA NO. ASSTT. YEAR APPEAL BY DATE OF ORDER CIT(A) 1 314(ASR)/2010 1991-92 ASSESSEE 25.03.2010 JALANDHAR 2. 315(ASR)/2010 1992-93 -DO- 25.03.2010 JALANDHAR 3. 316(ASR)/2010 1993-94 -DO- -DO- -DO- 4. 310(ASR)/2010 1993-94 REVENUE -DO- -DO- 5. 450(ASR)/2011 1994-95 ASSESSEE 31.05.2011 -DO- 6. 298(ASR)/2011 1995-96 ASSESSEE 25.02.2011 -DO- 7. 299(ASR)/2011 1996-97 ASSESSEE 25.02.2011 -DO- 8. 300(ASR)/2011 1997-98 ASSESSEE 25.02.2011 -DO- 2. SINCE THE ISSUES IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE INTER- RELATED AND IDENTICAL IN SOME YEARS ARISING OUT OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERAT IONS THEREFORE ALL THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DECIDED BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 3 3. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.314(ASR)/2010 FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 1991- 92 HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 IS ILLEGAL BAD IN LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3 ) R.W.S. 148 IS ALSO ILLEGAL BAD IN LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTIO N AND ARE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 2. THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 WERE WRONGLY AN D ILLEGALLY INITIATED AND THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 143(3)/147 IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN U PHOLDING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS: A) RS.3 25 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED INVESTMENT I N JAIN BAGH COLONY. B) RS.3 01 800/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNTS.(WRONGLY MENTIONED AS 2 01 800/- IN THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL). 4. THAT THE OBSERVATIONS MADE ARE AGAINST FACTS AND AR E BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES AND DO NOT AFFORD ANY LEGA L JUSTIFICATIONS TO THE ADDITIONS MADE AND UPHELD. 5. THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED WITHOUT GIVI NG PROPER AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT AND THE SAME IS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AND THE SAME HAS BEEN WRONGLY UPHELD. 6. THAT THE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD EXPLANATION S GIVEN AND THE REPLIES FILED HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY CONSIDERE D AND JUDICIALLY INTERPRETED AND THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN WRONGLY MADE AND THE SAME ARE UNJUST AND UNLAWFUL. THE ADDI TIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN MADE WITHOUT ALLOWING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT AND THE SAME ARE ILLEGAL. ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 4 7. THAT IN ANY CASE THE ADDITIONS MADE ARE NOT JUSTIF IED BY ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE ADDITIONS ARE ALSO ILLEG AL AND HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 8. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OVERLAPPING ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE WHICH ALSO AM OUNTS TO DOUBLE ADDITION AND THE SAME ARE LIABLE TO BE DELET ED. 4. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.315(ASR)/2010 FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 1992- 93 HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 IS ILLEGAL BAD IN LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3 ) R.W.S. 148 IS ALSO ILLEGAL BAD IN LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTIO N AND ARE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 2. THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 WERE WRONGLY AN D ILLEGALLY INITIATED AND THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 143(3)/147 IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN U PHOLDING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS: A) RS.1 80 150/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED SALE PROCEED S OF LAND TRANSACTION.. B) RS.4 85 965/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNTS. 4. THAT THE OBSERVATIONS MADE REGARDING ANOTHER ADD ITION OF RS.5 30 000 TELESCOPED WITH ABOVE ADDITIONS ARE ALS O UNJUST UNLAWFUL AND UNCALLED FOR. NO SEPARATE ADDITION OF RS.5 30 000/- IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE. 5. THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED WITHOUT GIVI NG PROPER AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT AND THE SAM E IS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THE SAME IS LIABL E TO BE QUASHED AND THE SAME HAS BEEN WRONGLY UPHELD. ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 5 6. THAT THE OBSERVATIONS MADE ARE AGAINST FACTS AND AR E BASED ON SURMISES & CONJECTURES AND DO NOT AFFORD ANY LEGAL JUSTIFICATIONS TO THE ADDITIONS MADE AND UPHELD. 7. THAT THE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD EXPLANATION S GIVEN AND THE REPLIES FILED HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY CONSIDERED AN D JUDICIALLY INTERPRETED AND THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN WRONGLY MA DE AND THE SAME ARE UNJUST AND UNLAWFUL. THE ADDITIONS HAVE AL SO BEEN MADE WITHOUT ALLOWING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLAN T AND THE SAME ARE ILLEGAL. 8. THAT IN ANY CASE THE ADDITIONS MADE ARE NOT JUSTIF IED BY ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE ADDITIONS ARE ALSO ILLEG AL AND HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 9. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OVERLAPPING ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE WHICH ALSO AMOUNTS TO DOU BLE ADDITION AND THE SAME ARE LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 5. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.316(ASR)/2010 FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 1993- 94 HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 IS ILLEGAL BAD IN LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3 ) R.W.S. 148 IS ALSO ILLEGAL BAD IN LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTIO N AND ARE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 2. THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 WERE WRONGLY AN D ILLEGALLY INITIATED AND THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 143(3)/147 IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN U PHOLDING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS: A) RS.3 45 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF PLOT PURCHASED. B) RS.7 30 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT OF S. NIRMAL SINGH. ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 6 C) RS.3 38 423/- ON ACCOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION EXPENSE S. D) RS.40 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOU NT OF S. GURCHARAN SINGH. E) RS.22 22 222/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF PLOTS IN BR IG. JAIN SINGH COMPLEX. F) RS.1 10 250/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED INVESTMENT I N PURCHASE OF LAND FOR CITY COMPLEX. G) RS.1 32 300/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED PROFIT ON SA LE OF LAND. 4. THAT THE OBSERVATIONS MADE REGARDING ANOTHER ADD ITION OF RS.14 50 000/- TELESCOPED WITH ABOVE ADDITIONS ARE ALSO UNJUST UNLAWFUL AND UNCALLED FOR. NO SEPARATE ADDITION OF RS.14 50 000/- IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE. 5. THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED WITHOUT G IVING PROPER AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT AND THE SAME IS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AND THE SAME HAS BEEN WRONGLY UPHELD. 6. THAT THE OBSERVATIONS MADE ARE AGAINST FACTS AND ARE BASED ON SURMISES & CONJECTURES AND DO NOT AFFORD ANY LEGAL JUSTIFICATIONS TO THE ADDITIONS MADE AND UPHELD. 7. THAT THE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD EXPLANAT IONS GIVEN AND THE REPLIES FILED HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY CONSIDERE D AND JUDICIALLY INTERPRETED AND THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN WRONGLY MADE AND THE SAME ARE UNJUST AND UNLAWFUL. THE ADDI TIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN MADE WITHOUT ALLOWING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT AND THE SAME ARE ILLEGAL. 8. THAT IN ANY CASE THE ADDITIONS MADE ARE NOT JUS TIFIED BY ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE ADDITIONS ARE ALSO ILLEG AL AND HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 7 9. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OF THE ABOVE GROU NDS OVERLAPPING ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE WHICH ALSO AM OUNTS TO DOUBLE ADDITION AND THE SAME ARE LIABLE TO BE DELET ED. 6. THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.310(ASR)/2010 FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 1993- 94 HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE A DDITION OF RS.2 39 166/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN LAND . 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF RS.66.66 LACS TO RS.22.22 LACS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF I NVESTMENT MADE IN THE PURCHASE OF LAND OF BRIG. JAIN SINGH. 3. WHILE DELETING THE ABOVE ADDITION THE LD. CIT(A ) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT SMT. NARINDER JASPAL WIDOW OF ONE SON OF SH. BRIG JAI SINGH SOLD HER SHARE OF LAND (1/3 RD SHARE) FOR RS.65 LACS AT ABOUT SAME TIME. FURTHER A DOCUMENT SEIZED AT PAGE -8 OF ANNEXURE A-4 SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE O F SG. TAJIDNER SINGH SAHAI ONE OF THE OTHER PURCHASER ALO NGWITH THE ASSESSEE AS PER WHICH THE SUM OF RS.66.66 LACS PERT AIN TO ONLY ONE SHARE AND NOT THREE SHARES. 4. IT IS PRAYED THAT ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. RESTORED. 5. THE APPELLANT REQUESTS FOR LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND OR ALTER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD AND DI SPOSED OF. 7. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 450(ASR)/2011 FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 1994- 95 HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE LD. ACIT RANGE IV JALANDHAR HAS IN V IEW OF FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT IN MAKING ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) AT INCOME OF RS.86 57 397/- BY ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.10.1997. THE ASSESSMENT M ADE WAS ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 8 ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSS LY ERRED IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMENT AND IN UPHOLDING TH E ADDITIONS WITH ENHANCEMENT UNDER ONE HEAD AS UNDER: I. 19 83 335/- ENHANCED FROM RS.12 84 595/- ADDED B Y THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED PROFIT ON SALE OF PLOTS IN BRIG JAIN SINGH LAND. II. 5 00 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED INVESTMENT IN BRIG. JAIN SINGH LAND. III. 2 66 710/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IV 9 40 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN SHOPPING COMPLEX ON THE MALL KAPURTHALA. V. 1 15 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED PROFIT OF SHOPP ING COMPLEX ON THE MALL KAPURTHALA. VI. 1 55 620/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE CAR VII 9 520/- ON ACCOUNT OF ACCESSORY FITTINGS IN THE CAR VIII 27 62 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS IN THE LAND OF SH. PIARE LAL IX 23 51 942/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN LIQUOR BUSINESS. 2. THAT THE AO WRONGLY MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.12 94 5 95/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED PROFIT ON SALE OF PLOTS IN BRIG. JAI SINGH LAND AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN ENHANCING T HE SAME TO RS.19 83 335/-. THE ADDITION AS WELL AS THE ENHANCE MENT ARE ILLEGAL BAD IN LAW AND WRONGLY MADE. 3. THAT ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE S UBMISSIONS MADE EXPLANATIONS FILED AND THE EVIDENCE PLACED ON RECORD HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY CONSIDERED AND JUDICIALLY IN TERPRETED AND THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN WRONGLY MADE AND WRONGL Y UPHELD. 4. THAT THE OBSERVATIONS MADE ARE AGAINST FACTS AND AR E BASED ON SURMISES & CONJECTURES AND DO NOT AFFORD ANY LEGAL JUSTIFICATIONS TO THE ADDITIONS MADE AND UPHELD. ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 9 5. THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE WRONGLY MADE WITHOUT ANY BA SIS AND THE SAME HAVE BEEN WRONGLY UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) . IN ANY CASE ADDITIONS MADE AND UPHELD ARE HIGHLY EXCESSIV E. 6. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE LD. AO HAD FURTHER ERRED IN NOT SETTING OFF/MISCROSCOPING ONE ADDITION AGAINST ANOT HER AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITIONS WITHOUT SETTING OFF/MISCROSCOPING. 7. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IS UNJUST UNLAWFU L AND ALSO TIME BARRED AND THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE WITHOU T AFFORDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. 8. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 298(ASR)/2011 FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 1995- 96 HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE LD. ACIT RANGE-IV JALANDHAR HAS IN VIEW OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE GROSSLY ERRED IN LA W AND ON FACTS IN MAKING ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3)/147 BY ASSESSMENT O RDER DATED 30.07.2008. THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 WAS ILLEGAL BAD IN LAW AND TIME BARRED AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS ALSO TIME BA RRED . THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW IN UPHOLDING TH E SAME. 2. THAT THE ITO HAD ERRED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.2 00 000/- FOR ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND ALSO IN ESTIMATI NG THE ADDITIONS OF RS.27 600/- FOR H.H. WITHDRAWALS RS.2 8 667/- FOR 1/ERD SHARE OF PROFIT ON SALE OF LAND AND RS.42 100 /- FOR SHARE OF PROFIT ON SALE OF SHOPS WHICH WERE SET OFF AGAINST ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.2 00 000/-. THE LD. CIT(A) HAD GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE SAID ADDITIONS. 3. THAT ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E SUBMISSIONS MADE EXPLANATIONS FILED AND THE EVIDENCE PLACED ON RECORD HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY CONSIDERED AND JUDICIALLY IN TERPRETED AND THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN WRONGLY MADE AND WRONGL Y UPHELD. 4. THAT THE OBSERVATIONS MADE ARE AGAINST FACTS AND ARE BASED ON SURMISES & CONJECTURES AND DO NOT AFFORD ANY LEGAL JUSTIFICATIONS TO THE ADDITIONS MADE AND UPHELD. ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 10 5. THAT IN ANY CASE THE PROFIT ON SALE OF LAND AND SALE OF SHOPS WAS ASSESSABLE AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND THE SA ME HAS BEEN WRONGLY ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME. 6. THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE WRONGLY MADE WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND THE SAME HAVE BEEN WRONGLY UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) . IN ANY CASE ADDITIONS MADE AND UPHELD ARE HIGHLY EXCESSIV E. 9. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 299(ASR)/2011 FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 1996- 97 HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE LD. ACIT RANGE-IV JALANDHAR HAS IN VIEW OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE GROSSLY ERRED IN LA W AND ON FACTS IN MAKING ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) BY ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.07.2008. THE ASSESSMENT WAS TIME BARRED AND THE SAME WAS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE SAME. 2. THAT THE ITO HAD ERRED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 76 400/- FOR SHARE OF PROFIT ON SALE OF SHOPS. THE LD. AO HA D FURTHER ERRED IN ESTIMATING UNDISCLOSED AT RS.1 00 000/- WH ICH WAS SET OFF AGAINST ALLEGED SHARE OF PROFIT OF RS.1 76 400/ - ON SALE OF SHOPS. THE LD. CIT(A) HAD GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDIN G THE SAID ADDITIONS. 3. THAT ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E SUBMISSIONS MADE EXPLANATIONS FILED AND THE EVIDENCE PLACED ON RECORD HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY CONSIDERED AND JUDICIALLY IN TERPRETED AND THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN WRONGLY MADE AND WRONGL Y UPHELD. 4. THAT THE OBSERVATIONS MADE ARE AGAINST FACTS AND ARE BASED ON SURMISES & CONJECTURES AND DO NOT AFFORD ANY LEGAL JUSTIFICATIONS TO THE ADDITIONS MADE AND UPHELD. 5. THAT IN ANY CASE THE PROFIT ON SALE OF LAND AND SALE OF SHOPS WAS ASSESSABLE AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND THE SA ME HAS BEEN WRONGLY ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME. ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 11 6. THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE WRONGLY MADE WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND THE SAME HAVE BEEN WRONGLY UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) . IN ANY CASE ADDITIONS MADE AND UPHELD ARE HIGHLY EXCESSIV E. 10. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 300(ASR)/2011 FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 1997- 98 HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE LD. ACIT RANGE-IV JALANDHAR HAS IN VIEW OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE GROSSLY ERRED IN LA W AND ON FACTS IN MAKING ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) BY ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.07.2008. THE ASSESSMENT MADE WAS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW IN UPHO LDING THE SAME. 2. THAT THE ITO HAD ERRED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.90 000/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE LD. AO HAD FURTHER ERRED IN TAKING SHARE OF PROFIT FROM SALE OF SHOPS AT RS.24 500/- W HICH WAS SET OFF AGAINST UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.90 000/-. THE LD. CIT(A) HAD GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE SAID ADDITIONS. 3. THAT ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E SUBMISSIONS MADE EXPLANATIONS FILED AND THE EVIDENCE PLACED ON RECORD HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY CONSIDERED AND JUDICIALLY IN TERPRETED AND THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN WRONGLY MADE AND WRONGL Y UPHELD. 4. THAT THE OBSERVATIONS MADE ARE AGAINST FACTS AND ARE BASED ON SURMISES & CONJECTURES AND DO NOT AFFORD ANY LEGAL JUSTIFICATIONS TO THE ADDITIONS MADE AND UPHELD. 5. THAT IN ANY CASE THE PROFIT ON SALE OF LAND AND SALE OF SHOPS WAS ASSESSABLE AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND THE SA ME HAS BEEN WRONGLY ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME. 6. THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE WRONGLY MADE WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND THE SAME HAVE BEEN WRONGLY UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) . IN ANY CASE ADDITIONS MADE AND UPHELD ARE HIGHLY EXCESSIV E. ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 12 11. FIRST OF ALL WE TAKE UP APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.314(ASR)/2010 FOR THE A.Y. 1991-92. IN THIS APP EAL THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL WHICH READS AS UN DER: THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE BAS IS OF ORDER OF THE AO IS VOID ABINITIO SINCE THE LD. AO HAD NO JURISDIC TION TO PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A) IS NULL AND VOID. 11.1. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MR. ASHWANI KALIA CA ARGUED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IS A LEGAL ISSUE WHICH ARISES FROM THE ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND GOES DEEP INTO THE ROOT OF M ATTER AND PRAYED TO ADMIT THE SAME IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD VS. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC). 11.2. THE LD. DR MR. TARSEM LAL ON THE OTHER HAND DID NOT OPPOSE THE SAME. 11.3. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES WE ADMIT THE A DDITIONAL GROUND BEING A LEGAL ISSUE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD VS. CIT (SUPRA). 11.4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MR. ASHWANI KALIA CA STARTED HIS ARGUMENT WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITIONAL GROUND FIRST OF ALL AND SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SUB SECTION (2) OF SECTION 245F ON ADMITTANCE OF APPLICATION BY SETTLEMENT COMMISSION U/S 245D EXCLU SIVE JURISDICTION OF THE ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 13 CASE GETS TRANSFERRED TO SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. THE SUB SECTION (2) OF SECTION 245F IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- WHERE AN APPLICATION MADE U/S 245C HAS BEEN ALLOWE D TO BE PROCEEDED WITH U/S 245D THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION SHALL UNTIL AN ORDER IS PASSED UNDER SUB SECTION (4) OF SECTION 24 5D HAVE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB SECTION (3) OF THAT SECTION EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO EXERCISE THE POWERS AND PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS OF AN INCOME TAX AUTHORITY UNDER THIS ACT IN RELATION TO THE CASE PROVIDED THAT WHERE AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN MADE U /S 245C ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF JUNE 2007 THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION SHALL HAVE SUCH EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE APPLICATION WAS MADE PROVIDED FURTHER THAT WHERE:- I) AN APPLICATION MADE ON OR AFTER THE FIRST DAY OF JU NE 2007 IS REJECTED UNDER SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 245D; OR II) AN APPLICATION IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE PROCEEDED WITH UNDER SUB SECTION (2A) OF SECTION 245D OR AS THE CASE MAY BE IS DECLARED INVALID UNDER SUB SECTION (2C) OF THAT SECTION ; OR III) AN APPLICATION IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE FURTHER PROCEED ED WITH UNDER SUB SECTION (2D) OF SECTION 245D. THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IN RESPECT OF SUCH APPLI CATION SHALL HAVE SUCH EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION UPTO THE DATE ON WHICH THE APPLICATION IS REJECTED OR NOT ALLOWED TO BE PROCEED WITH OR DE CLARED INVALID OR NOT ALLOWED TO BE FURTHER PROCEEDED WITH AS THE CA SE MAY BE AN APPLICATION IN THIS CASE WAS FILED BEFORE THE S ETTLEMENT COMMISSION ON 25.3.1998 AND THE SAME WAS ALLOWED TO BE PROCEEDED WITH VIDE ORDERS DATED 8.3.1999 U/S 245D(1). ON THE DATE OF FILING OF A PPLICATION BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION I.E. 25.3.1998 AS WELL AS ON THE DATE OF ADMITTANCE ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 14 OF ASSESSEES APPLICATION ON 8.3.1999 THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 1991-92 WAS PENDING BEFORE CIT(A) JALANDHAR. FURTH ER SUB SECTION (2) OF SECTION 245HA PROVIDE AS UNDER:- WHERE A PROCEEDING BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIO N ABATES THE AO OR AS THE CASE MAY BE ANY OTHER INCOME TAX AU THORITY BEFORE WHOM THE PROCEEDING AT THE TIME OF MAKING THE APPLI CATION WAS PENDING SHALL DISPOSE OF THE CASE IN ACCORDANCE WI TH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT AS IF NO APPLICATION U/S 245C HAD BEEN MAD E IN VIEW OF ABOVE SUBMISSIONS THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AFTER THE ABATEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS OF BEFORE THE SE TTLEMENT COMMISSION THE CIT(A) JALANDHAR WAS THE ONLY COMPETENT AUTHORITY T O ADJUDICATE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT THE AO. HOWEVER THE ORDER IN THIS CASE WAS PASSED BY THE AO WHO HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE. HENCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS TOTALLY ILLEGAL BAD IN LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. SINCE THE ORDER OF THE AO WAS INFRUCTUOUS THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BASED ON SUCH INFRUCTUOUS ORDER IS VOID ABINITIO. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IF IT IS ADMITTED THAT THE AO HAD THE NECESSARY JURISDICTION TO PASS THE ORDER AFTER THE ABATEMENT OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION THE ORDER DATED 30.7.2008 PASSED BY THE AO IS BARRED BY LIMIT ATION. THE APPLICATION BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION GOT ABATED ON 31.12.20 07 AND AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF 1 ST PROVISO TO SUB SECTION (4) OF SECTION 153 THE ASSE SSMENT WAS ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 15 REQUIRED TO BE MADE WITHIN TWO MONTHS I.E. BY 28.2. 2008. HOWEVER THE AO MADE THE ASSESSMENT VIDE ORDERS DATED 30.7.2008 MUC H AFTER THE EXPIRY OF LIMITATION PERIOD OF 2 MONTHS. 11.5. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE CASE AFTER THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION GOT ABATED W ITH THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ON ACCOUNT OF NON-PAYMENT OF TAX WAS NO T COVERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE FIRST PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION(4) O F SECTION 153 OF THE ACT AS IT WAS A MATTER EARLIER SET ASIDE BY THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 12.03.199 WHEREIN HE HAD REQUIRED THE AO TO ADJUDI CATE THE SET ASIDE ISSUE AFTER ALLOWING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE THIS CASE IS COVERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 153 OF THE ACT. 11.6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUS ED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. ON READING OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 245F(2) READ W ITH SECTION 245D AND ON THE BASIS OF FACTS ON RECORDS AND ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE LD. DR DID NOT MAKE A NY OBSERVATION REGARDING ASSESSEES MAIN CONTENTION THAT AFTER THE ABATEMENT OF ASSESSEES APPLICATION BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION THE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE WENT BACK TO THE LD. CIT(A) SINCE HIS ORDER DATED 12.03.1999 WAS PASSED AFTER ADMITTANCE OF ASSESSEES APPLICATION BY THE SETTLEM ENT COMMISSION AS A RESULT OF WHICH THIS ORDER NEEDS TO BE TREATED AS INFRUCTUOUS WHICH MEANS ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 16 THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PENDING BEFORE THE L D. CIT(A) AFTER ADMITTANCE OF ASSESSEES APPLICATION BY THE SETTLEM ENT COMMISSION. HENCE THE AO HAD NO JURISDICTION TO PASS ANY ASSESSMENT O RDER. BUT IT WAS ONLY THE LD. CIT(A) WHO COULD HAVE PASSED THE ORDER AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THEREFORE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON T HE BASIS OF INFRUCTUOUS ORDER OF THE AO ALSO BECOMES INVALID. THUS IN TH E FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ADDITIONAL GROUND FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS ALLOWED. 12. NOW WE TAKE UP GROUNDS NO. 1 & 2 OF THE ASSESS EE RELATING TO PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT. THE BRIEF FACTS AS STATED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: THE RETURN IN THIS CASE WAS FILED ON 19.3.1993 AND SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON 17.12.1993. FROM THE ABOVE DATES IT IS EVIDENT THAT TIME FOR REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY ISSUING NOTIC E U/S 143(2) HAD NOT LAPSED. HOWEVER INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT AO HA D THE NECESSARY TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2) NO ACTION WAS TAKEN. SUBSEQUENTLY THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 ON 17.11 .1994 AND STARTED PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 READ WITH SECTION 148. NO NEW F ACT HAD COME TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO FOR INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 SINCE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON 17.12.1993 I.E. WITHIN THE TIME AV AILABLE FOR ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S 143(2). 12.1. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MR. ASHWANI KALIA CA FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF I NCOME VOLUNTARILY AND WITHIN TIME ALLOWED U/S 139. IN SUCH AN EVENT THE A O CANNOT IGNORE THE PENDENCY OF RETURN AND ISSUE A NOTICE U/S 148 SINCE ESCAPEMENT CANNOT BE ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 17 POSTULATED AFTER THE FILING OF RETURN. IT IS ONLY I F THE RETURN IS FILED AFTER TIME BAR OR ONLY AFTER COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT THAT LEA DS TO ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. HE RELIED UPON THE CASE LAWS OF VARIO US HIGH COURTS AS UNDER: I) TULSI DASS JASWANT LAL KUTHIAL V ITO 52 ITR 609 (P & H) II) BHAGWAN DAS SITA RAM (HUF) V CIT 1984 146 ITR 56 3 (SC) III) VIJAY KUMAR JAIN V VIT (1975) 99 ITR 349 (P&H) IV) CHANDER BHAN V ITO (1982) 137 ITR 338 (P&H) V) SHEILA BRIJ JAGGI V ITO ( 1990) 184 ITR 50 HE FURTHER STATED THAT SO LONG AS AN ASSESSMENT SU BSISTS THE INCOME CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN SUCH A SITUA TION THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD INVALID. KINDLY REFER:- I) CIT V SINDORE 113 ITR 679 (BOM.) II) NILOFER HAMEED V ITO 235 ITR 161 (KER) IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 READ WITH SECTION 148 ARE ILLEG AL AND BAD IN LAW AND REQUESTED THAT THE SAME MAY BE QUASHED.. 12.2. THE LD. DR MR. TARSEM LAL ON THE OTHER HAND DID NOT ARGUE ANYTHING WITH REGARD TO GROUNDS NO. 1 & 2. 12.3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES IT IS EVIDENT THAT TIME FOR REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2 ) WAS THERE AFTER THE ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 18 SEARCH OPERATION. BUT THE AO INITIATED NO SUCH PRO CEEDINGS AND ALLOWED THE TIME FOR THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(2) E LAPSED EVEN WHEN THE SEARCH HAD ALREADY TAKEN PLACE. AFTER THE LAPSE OF TIME FOR INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(2) THE AO ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED. SINCE SECTION 148 COMES INTO PLAY WH EN THERE IS AN ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF NON FILING OF RE TURN OR FILING RETURN AFTER THE TIME LIMIT OR AFTER COMPLETION OF ASSESSM ENT AND FOR THAT THERE SHOULD BE CONSCIOUS APPLICATION OF MIND OF THE AO WITH REGARD TO ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME WHICH IS ABSENT IN THE PRESENT CASE. IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE HEREINABOVE THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE AO IS BAD IN LAW AND IS HELD TO BE INVALID AND ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO BECOM ES INFRUCTUOUS. 13. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.3(A) WITH REGARD TO THE AD DITION OF RS.3 25 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN JAIN BAGH COLONY THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION AT THE RESIDENCE OF ASSESSEE CERTAIN BANK DEPOSIT SLIPS OF ONE SH. AWAL KUMAR WE RE SEIZED IN RESPECT OF HIS BANK ACCOUNT WITH INDIAN BANK JALANDHAR. ON TH E BASIS OF THESE DEPOSITS SLIPS AND ALSO ON THE BASIS OF AN AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY DATED 12.10.1999 IN RESPECT OF THE PURCHASE OF LAND BY SH. AWAL KUMAR ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 19 ALONGWITH S.TEJINDER SINGH ( NOT THE ASSESSEE) S/O S.GURBAX SINGH AND SARABJIT SINGH ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR THE PU RCHASE OF LAND FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.26 LACS IN WHICH PAYMENT OF SH . AWAL KUMAR WAS ONLY RS.3 25 000/-. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE EXPLANATI ON WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE A.O. OF SH. AWAL KUMAR HE HELD THAT SH. AWAL KUMAR AND SOM E OTHER 22 PERSONS WHO WERE IN THE GROUP OF SH. AWAL KUMAR WERE ALL B ENAMI AND INVESTMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND BY REJECTING THE EXPLA NATION OF THE ASSESSEE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 3.25 LACS TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 13.1. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER. 13.2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MR. ASHWANI KALIA ARGUED THAT FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE SALE AGREEMENT COPY OF WHICH WA S FILED WITH THE PAPER BOOK THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE SALE AGREEMENT AT ALL NOT EVEN AS A WITNESS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN HIS STAT EMENT RECORDED BY THE AO ON 26.2.1997 THE SAID SH. AWAL KUMAR CATEGORICALL Y ADMITTED THAT HE HAS MADE THE INVESTMENT OF RS.3 25 000/- IN THE JAIN BA GH COLONY ALONG WITH HIS ASSOCIATES WITH WHOM ACCEPTED SHARAKATNAMA (AGR EEMENT) WAS EXECUTED IN RESPECT OF THEIR SHARES IN THE SHARE OF SH. AWA L KUMAR AND THEIR SHARE OF INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF LAND. AGAIN HIS STATE MENT WAS RECORDED ON 17.3.1997 AND HE AGAIN ADMITTED OF HAVING MADE INVE STMENT IN THE JAI BAGH ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 20 COLONY WITH HIS ASSOCIATES. BUT IN HIS THIRD STATE MENT RECORDED ON 31.03.1997 HE RESILED FROM HIS EARLIER TWO STATEM ENTS AND PUT TOTAL ONUS OF INVESTMENT ON THE ASSESSEE - S.TEJINDER SINGH.COPIE S OF ALL THE ABOVE THREE STATEMENTS ALONGWITH HIS CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ASSE SSEES COUNSEL ARE IN THE PAPER BOOK. SH. AHWANI KALIA ASSESSEES COUNSEL FU RTHER SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO ALSO RECORDED STATEMENTS OF THREE OTHER PERSONS NAMELY S/SH. BH USHAN KUMAR RAMJI DASS AND RAMESH CHANDER THE OTHER CO-OWNERS WITH MR . AWAL KUMAR WHO ADMITTED OF HAVING MADE INVESTMENTS OF THEIR SHARES IN THE ABOVE PROPERTY AS PER THE COPY OF SHARAKATNAMA ( AGREEMENT ) ALONGWIT H SH. AWAL KUMAR. 13.3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT INSPITE OF ALL THE FACTS THE AO MADE AN ADDITION BY TREATING THE SAME AS BENAMI INVESTMENT AND THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE REVERSED AS NO EVIDENCE OF WHATSOEVER KIND WAS FOUND TO CORROBORATE THE ORDER OF THE AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) TREATING THIS AMOUNT AS BENAMI INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. 13.4. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON TH E ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 13.5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUS ED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT NO COGENT EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL HAS BEE N BROUGHT ON RECORD BY ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 21 ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT IT WAS ASSESSEES BENAMI INVESTMENT. THE VARIOUS INVESTORS WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE INVESTME NT WITH MR. AWAL KUMAR GROUP HAVE ADMITTED OF HAVING MADE INVESTMENT OF T HEIR SHARES BY CONTRIBUTING THEIR OWN AMOUNT AND SH. AWAL KUMAR AL SO HAVING ACCEPTED HIS INVESTMENT AND ALSO AS THE GROUP HEAD IN THE AB OVE AGREEMENT HIS SUBSEQUENT DENIAL IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE AS ALL OTHE R FACTS WOULD PROVE THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE BY THEM AND NOT BY THE ASSE SSEE. HIS SUBMISSION IN THE LAST STATEMENT THAT HE HAD SIGNED ON BLANK PAPE R AS WELL AS BLANK STAMP PAPER IS BEREFT OF ANY TRUTH AND CANNOT BE GIVEN A NY CONSEQUENCE OF THE SAME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE ADDITION IS REQUIRED TO BE DELETED. ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CI T(A) REVERSED AND THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION IN QUESTION . 14. GROUND NO.3(B) RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS.3 01 8 00/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT OF MR. AWAL KUMAR WITH IND IAN BANK JALANDHAR COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN FILED AT PAGE 58 OF THE PAPE R BOOK. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATI ON SOME DEPOSITS SLIPS OF ABOVE BANK IN THE NAME OF MR. AWAL KUMAR WERE FOUND FROM ASSESSEES RESIDENCE. ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE DEPOSITS SLIPS TH E AO HELD THIS BANK ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF MR. AWAL KUMAR TO BE BENAMI ACCOUNT OF THE ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 22 ASSESSEE AND MADE AN ADDITION IN DISPUTE WHICH WA S CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 14.1. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MR. ASHWANI KALIA CA HAS MADE SUBMISSIONS THAT EXCEPT FOR FEW PAYING SLIPS NO O THER DOCUMENT IN RESPECT OF THIS BANK ACCOUNT WAS FOUND FROM THE RESIDENCE O R BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH LIKE CHEQ UE BOOK AND BANK STATEMENT ETC. SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF ONE OR TWO DE POSIT SLIPS WHICH ARE ONLY DUMB PAPER NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE WITHOUT AN Y CORROBORATING EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A). HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT FROM THE PERUSAL OF BANK STATE MENT IT WILL BE OBSERVED THAT WHENEVER SALE OF PLOT WAS MADE THE SHARE OF AW AL KUMAR GROUP WAS DEPOSITED IN THIS BANK ACCOUNT AND SIMULTANEOUSLY T HE AMOUNT WAS DISTRIBUTED AMONGST THE DIFFERENT CO-OWNERS WHO HAD JOINED SH.AWAL KUMAR IN HIS SHARE IN THE INVESTMENT. HENCE THERE CANNOT BE ANY REASON FOR MAKING ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 14.2. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON TH E ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 14.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUS ED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF SH.AWAL KU MAR FILED WITH THE PAPER BOOK. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE FACTS AND SU BMISSIONS IT IS EVIDENT ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 23 THAT THE DEPOSITS SLIPS WHICH ARE IN THE NAME OF MR . AWAL KUMAR ARE ONLY DUMB PAPERS WHICH ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY OTHER CO RROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT IT WAS A BENAMI ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. MOREOVER IT IS EVIDENT FROM THIS BANK ACCOUNT THAT IMMEDIATELY AFTER CREDIT OF ANY AMOUNT IN THIS ACCOUNT THE SA ME IS DISTRIBUTED TO THE VARIOUS CO-OWNERS BY CHEQUE AND NO AMOUNT IS LEFT I N THIS ACCOUNT SINCE THE CREDITS IN THIS ACCOUNT ARE IN RESPECT OF SALE OF P LOTS OF JAIN BAGH COLONY. THIS ALSO PROVES THAT THE INVESTMENT IN THE SAID L AND WAS MADE BY LARGE NUMBER OF PERSONS WHO WERE REPAID ON THE SALE OF P LOTS THROUGH THESE CHEQUES AND HENCE THE DEPOSITS CANNOT BE FASTENED ON THE ASSESSEE BY TREATING AS BENAMI ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS REVERSED AND THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADD ITION SO MADE. THUS GROUND NO. 3(B) OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 15. GROUND NOS. 4 5 6 7 & 8 ARE NOT PRESSED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME ARE DISMISSED A S NOT PRESSED. 16. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT A NO.314(ASR)/2010 FOR THE A.Y. 1991-92 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 24 17. NOW WE TAKE UP APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA N O. 315(ASR)/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93. IN THIS APPEAL THE A SSESSEE HAS FILED ADDITIONAL GROUND WHICH READS AS UNDER: THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE BAS IS OF ORDER OF THE AO IS VOID ABINITIO SINCE THE LD. AO HAD NO JURISDICTION TO PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(A) IS NULL AND VOID. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IS IDENTICAL TO THE ADDITION AL GROUND FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.314(ASR)/2010 FOR THE A.Y. 1991- 92 SINCE THE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR AS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991-92. ACCORDINGLY OUR DECISION HEREINABOVE IN THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 1991-92 IN ITA NO.314(ASR)/2010 IS IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE IS ALLOWED. 18. AS REGARDS GROUNDS NO.1 & 2 BEING LEGAL GROUNDS WHICH ARE IDENTICAL TO GROUNDS NO. 1 & 2 IN ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE A .Y. 1991-92 IN ITA NO.314(ASR)/2010 DECIDED BY US HEREINABOVE AND ACC ORDINGLY OUR DECISION HEREINABOVE FOR THE A.Y. 1991-92 IS IDENTICALLY AP PLICABLE IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR AND ACCORDINGLY BOTH GROUNDS NO.1 & 2 OF THE A SSESSEE IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR ARE ALLOWED. ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 25 19. GROUNDS NO. 5 6 7 8 & 9 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT PRESSED BY THE LD. COUNSEL AND THEREFORE THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS N OT PRESSED. 20. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.3(A) WITH REGARD TO CONFIR MATION OF ADDITION OF RS.1 80 150/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF LAND T RANSACTION THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.1 80 150/- HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A) AND FURTHER CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE BASI S OF LOOSE PAPER MARKED AS PAGE-9 FILED WITH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION. IN THI S PAPER IN ADDITION TO CERTAIN OTHER AMOUNTS RS.1 80 150/- HAS BEEN WRITT EN AGAINST WHICH THE WORD LITTLE IS MENTIONED. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS K NOWN AS LITTLE THE AO TREATED THE SAME AS THE SALE PROCEEDS OF SOME LAND AND MADE THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS FURTHER CONFIR MED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 20.1. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MR. ASHWANI KALIA CA MADE THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS: FROM THE PERUSAL OF THIS PAPER IT WILL BE OBSERVED THAT THIS IS ONLY A DUMB PAPER ON WHICH CERTAIN ROUGH CALCULATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE WHICH DOES NOT INDICATE AS TO WHETHER IT IS SOME PA YMENT OR RECEIPT AND WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THIS ROUGH CALCULATION BE ING A DUMB PAPER. THE AO WHILE MAKING THE ABOVE ADDITION HAD RELIED O N THE STATEMENT OF VARINDER MOHAN WHO IS SAID TO HAVE CONFIRMED THA T THE SAID PAPER IS IN HIS HAND WRITING AND IT REPRESENT THE DIVISIO N OF SALE PROCEEDS OF JAIN BAGH PROPERTY. COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF SH.VAR INDER MOHAN DATED 21.3.1997 IS ENCLOSED. HE IS ONE OF THE CO-PU RCHASER OF JAIN BAGH LAND (NOT FROM AWAL KUMAR GROUP). FROM THE PER USAL OF HIS STATEMENT IT WILL BE OBSERVED THAT NO WHERE HE HAS STATED THAT THIS ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 26 PAPER IS IN HIS HAND OR IT REPRESENT DIVISION OF SA LE PROCEED OF LAND SOLD. PAGE 10 TO 13 20.2. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON TH E ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 20.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUS ED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. ON PERUSAL OF THE SEIZED PAPER AT WS-9 IT IS FOUND THAT THE PAPER IS DUMB PAPER SHOWING ROUGH CALCULATION WHICH DOES NOT INDI CATE WHETHER THE SOME PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE OR SOME PAYMENT HAS BEEN RECE IVED RATHER IT IS NOT EVIDENT WHETHER THE SAME RELATES TO MONETARY TRANSA CTIONS OF PURCHASE AND SALE. THEREFORE NO CONCLUSION OF WHATSOEVER KIND C AN BE DRAWN ON THE BASIS OF SUCH DUMB PAPER. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E RELIED UPON DECISIONS OF VARIOUS COURTS OF LAW AS UNDER WHERE IT HAS BEEN H ELD THAT WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATING EVIDENCE NO ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN ON THE BASIS OF A DUMB PAPER FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR SUR VEY NOT SUPPORTED BY CONCRETE EVIDENCE OF INVESTMENT HAVING BEEN MADE 1. ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF S.P. GOYAL V. DCIT 269 ITR 59(AT)(TMO) (MUM) I) ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF ATUL KUMAR JAIN V. DCIT (1999) 64 TTJ 786 (DEL) II) ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF S. K. GUPTA V. DCIT 63 TTJ 632 (DEL) ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 27 III) ITAT INDORE BENCH IN THE CASE OF BRIJ LAL RUP CHAND V ITO ( 1991) 40 TTJ 668 (INDORE) IV) ITAT PUNE BENCH IN THE CASE OF CHANDER MOHAN MEHTA V ACIT (1999) 66 TTJ 327 (PUNE) V) ASHWANI KUMAR VS. ITO 39 ITD 183 VI) SUNDER AGENCIES VS. DCIT 63 ITD 245 (MUM) VII) BANSAL STRIPS PVT LTD V ACIT (2006) 100 TTJ (DEL) 6 65 99 ITD 177 VIII) FIRST GLOBAL STOCK BROKING V ACIT (2008) 115 TTJ (M UM) 173 IX) ADDL.CIT V PRASANT AHLUWALIA (2005) 92 TTJ 464 ( X) MALABAR OIL MARKETING CO. V ACIT (2004) 91 TTJ (MUM ) 348 XI) PATNI CHEMICALS LTD V ACIT (2004) 91 TTJ (DEL.) 228 XII) SATNAM SINGH CHABRA V DY.CIT 74 TTJ (LUCK) 976 THEREFORE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PR ESENT CASE AND THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS REVERSED AND THE A DDITION SO MADE BY THE AO IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THUS GROUND NO.3(A) OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 21. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.3(B) WITH REGARD TO ADDITI ON OF RS.4 85 965/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT I.E. I NDIAN BANK IN THE NAME OF SH. AWAL KUMAR THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESS EE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 28 AO WHO MADE THE ADDITION OF DEPOSITS MADE IN THE B ANK ACCOUNT AND WHICH ACTION OF THE A.O. WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 22. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE W ERE IDENTICAL AS IN THE PRECEDING YEAR ON THE IDENTICAL ISSUE AND OUR ORDE R IN THE PRECEDING YEAR I.E. 1991-92 IN GROUND NO.3(B) IN ITA NO.314(ASR)/2010 IS IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. MOREOVER THE AO A ND THE LD. CIT(A) HAVE NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT TH E SAID BANK ACCOUNT IS BENAMI OF THE ASSESSEE ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THIS ACCOUNT GETS DISTRIBUTED IMMEDIA TELY AMONGST CO-OWNERS . ACCORDINGLY NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS O F THE ASSESSEE AND ADDITION SO MADE IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THUS G ROUND NO.3(B) OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 23. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.4 WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS.5 30 000/- WITH REFERENCE TO ANNEXURE A-34 SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENC E OF THE ASSESSEE THE AO WORKED OUT THE PEAK AT RS.5 30 000/- WHICH WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT BY REJECTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASS ESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 29 24. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE AO HAS NOT B ROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO CORROBORATE THAT THE SAID AMOUNT IS REP RESENTING INVESTMENT ON THE BASIS OF DUMB PAPER WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAIN ED TO BE PERTAINING TO HIS LIQUOR FIRM I.E. M/S. DALJEET SINGH & OTHERS. IN V IEW OF THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR ON THE BASIS OF SUCH DUMB PAPER WHICH IS NOT CORROBORATED BY ANY O THER EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT EITHER IT REPRESENTS ASSESSEES INCOME OR INVESTMENT. 24.1. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT NO UNAC COUNTED ASSET LIKE FDRS BANK A/C INVESTMENT IN SHARES POST OFFICE SCHEME MUTUAL FUND OR ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE OR ANY OF HIS FAMILY MEMBER. HENCE TH E DUMB SEIZED PAPER CANNOT BE MADE BASIS OF ANY ADDITION. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION SO CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO BE REVE RSED AND AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION SO MADE. 25. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT A NO.315(ASR)/2010 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 26. NOW WE TAKE UP APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA N O.316(ASR)/2010 FOR THE A.Y.1993-94. AS REGARDS GROUNDS NO.1 & 2 BEING LEGAL GROUNDS THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS STATED ARE THAT THE OR IGINAL RETURN WAS FILED ON ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 30 31.10.1993 WHEREAS SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON 17.12.19 93. NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON 4.3.1996 AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSM ENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETED BY 31.03.1998. IT WAS STATED THAT AFTER THE SEARCH ON 17.12.1993 TIME FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2) FOR INITIATING THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE BASIS OF RETURN ALREADY FILED WA S THERE BUT THE AO DID NOT PROCEED BUT SUBSEQUENTLY ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 ON 4 .3.1996 AND THEREFORE SUCH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE BAD IN LAW HAS BEE N ARGUED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL RELIED UP ON THE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS COURTS OF LAW AS UNDER: I. TULSI DASS JASWANT LAL KUTHIAL V ITO 52 ITR 609 (P & H) II BHAGWAN DAS SITA RAM (HUF) V CIT 1984 146 ITR 5 63 (SC) III. VIJAY KUMAR JAIN VS. VIT (1975) 99 ITR 349 (P&H) IV. CHHANDER BHAN VS. ITO (1982) 137 ITR 338 (P&H) V. SHEILA BRIJ JAGGI VS. ITO ( 1990) 184 ITR 50 26.1. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STAT ED THAT NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT IN THIS CASE WAS ISSUED ON 4.3.1996 AND A S PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153 THE ASSESSMENT WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE BY 31.0 3.1998. SINCE THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMIS SION WAS ADMITTED ON 8.3.1999 THE AO SHOULD HAVE FRAMED ASSESSMENT EVEN IN CONSEQUENCE TO THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 BEFORE 31.03.1998 WHICH HE DID NOT DO SO AND ACCORDINGLY THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE HIM GOT ELA PSED ON 31.3.1998 WHICH ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 31 COULD NOT GET REVIVED ON THE ABATEMENT OF ASSESSEE S APPLICATION BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. 26.2. THE LD. DR DID NOT ARGUE ANYTHING ON THE ISS UE. 27. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE LEGAL GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE VALID.. THE FIRST CONTENT ION REGARDING NOT INITIATING THE REGULAR PROCEEDINGS FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143 (2) AFTER FILING OF RETURN BEING IDENTICAL AS IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR S I.E. 1991-92 & 1992-93 AND OUR ORDER HEREINABOVE IS IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL REGARDING ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVING BEEN BARRED BY LIMITATION AFTER LAPSE OF TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE YEAR IN WHICH PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 148 WERE IN ITIATED IS ALSO FOUND TO BE CORRECT. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE SUCCEDS ON BO TH THE COUNTS AND GROUNDS. HENCE GROUNDS NO.1 & 2 OF THE ASSESSEE AR E ALLOWED. 28. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 3(A) WITH REGARD TO THE A DDITION OF RS.3 54 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF PLOT PURCHASED THE BRI EF FACTS ARE THAT THE A.O. MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.3 45 000/- ON THE BASIS OF S ALE AGREEMENT FOUND AT THE RESIDENCE OF ONE SH. TILAK RAJ WHICH WAS ENTERE D BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SH.ONKAR SINGH DATED 15.02.1993 AGAINST WHICH ADVANCE OF RS.1 45 000/- WAS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN PAID. THE AO D ID NOT ACCEPT THE ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 32 EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE THE ADDITION O F RS.3 45 000/- WHICH ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 29. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE AGREEM ENT WAS ENTERED INTO ON BEHALF OF ONE ONE SH. ATMA SINGH WHO WAS IN HONG KO NG AS A RESULT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD EXECUTED THE SAME ON HIS BEH ALF FOR WHICH PAYMENT OF RS.1 45 000/- WAS MADE BY S.ONKAR SINGH. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT SALE DEED AGAINST THIS AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED IN THE N AME OF SH. ATMA SINGH WHO WAS THE REAL AND ACTUAL BUYER AND ASSESSEE ONL Y BROKE THE DEAL AS BROKER IN THE PROPERTY DEALS BEING MAIN OCCUPATI ON. THE BROKER DEALING WITH PROPERTY AT TIMES HAS TO ACT ON BEHALF OF HI S CLIENTS WHO HAVE TRUST IN HIM. THE SAID EXPLANATION WAS FOUND TO BE PLAUSIBL E EXPLANATION AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COGENT EVIDENCE ON RECORD THE ADDIT ION OF RS.3 45 000/- AND THAT TOO AGAINST ADVANCE OF RS.1 45 000/- IS NOT JU STIFIED AT ALL. THE SALE DEED HAVING BEEN EXECUTED IN THE NAME OF SH. ATMA SINGH NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AND ADDITION SO MADE IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THUS GROUND NO.3(A) OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 30. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.3(B) WITH REGARD TO ADDIT ION OF RS.7 30 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT THE BRI EF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 33 DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH TWO BANK DEPOSIT SLIPS FOR RS.70 000/- AND RS.1 31 000/- IN THE NAME OF ONE NIRMAL SINGH WERE FOUND FROM THE RESIDENCE OF ASSESSEE. THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF R S.7 30 000/- ON THE BASIS OF THESE TWO DEPOSIT SLIPS IN THE BANK ACCOUN T OF SH. NIRMAL SINGH AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND WHICH ACTIO N OF THE A.O. WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 31. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE NEVER KNEW SH.NIRMAL SINGH AND IT TRANSPIR ED LATER THAT THE SAID SH.NIRMAL SINGH WAS THE FRIEND OF ONE OF ONE OF TH E FRIENDS OF ASSESSEE SH. PARDEEP KUMAR WHO HAD COME TO THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE COUPLE OF TIME WITH HIM AND NOW HAS GONE ABROAD THEREAFTER. THE ASSESSEE HAD NO CONNECTION WITH THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT NOR HE HAS AN Y RELATION WITH THE SAID SH.NIRMAL SINGH. THE DEPOSITS MADE BY ONE SH. NIRMA L SINGH WHO COULD HAVE DEPOSITED THE SAME FOR VISA PURPOSES IN HIS BA NK ACCOUNT OR MAY BE FOR ANY OTHER REASON BEST KNOWN TO THAT SH. NIRMAL SING H CANNOT BE SAID TO BE MONEY BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE ABSENCE OF A NY EVIDENCE. THE SAID ACCOUNT CANNOT BE TREATED AS BENAMI OF THE ASSESSEE SINCE NO CHEQUE BOOK PASS BOOK OR BANK STATEMENT WAS FOUND FROM ASSESSEE S RESIDENCE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT THE ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 34 ACCOUNT BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE AS NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN FOUND OR BROUGHT ON RECORD BY ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TREATED AS THE OWN ER OF THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT. THUS THE ADDITION SO MADE IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 32. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.3(C) WITH REGARD TO ADDITI ON OF RS.3 38 423/- ON ACCOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES INCURRED IN A PRO JECT IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD 49% SHARE. THE BALANCE SHARE BELONG TO TILAK RA J AND GURCHARAN SINGH. THE EXPLANATION WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO WHICH W AS NOT ACCEPTED AND THE AO MADE THE ADDITION WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY TH E LD. CIT(A). 33. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE CONSTRUCTION COST WAS INCURRED OUT OF THE ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM THE PROS PECTIVE BUYERS AS BIANA WHICH EXPLANATION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN THE CASE OF SH. GURCHARAN SINGH IN THE ASSESSMENT BEING THE CO-OWNER WITH THE ASSESS EE BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT.. BUT THE AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) D ID NOT ACCEPT THIS EXPLANATION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DEPART MENT CANNOT TAKE ONE VIEW IN THE CASE OF ONE CO-OWNER AND OTHER VIEW IN THE CASE OF OTHER CO-OWNER I.E. THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 35 NEW INDIA ENGG. IND. 242 ITR 536 WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD PERSONS SIMILARLY PLACED SHOULD BE GIVEN SAME TREATMENT. IT WILL BE I N THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IF THE MATTER IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. AND THE A.O SHOULD DECIDE THE ISSUE IDENTICALLY AS IN THE CASE OF SH.GURCHARAN SI NGH IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR. THUS GROUND NO.3(C) OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 34. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.3(D) WITH REGARD TO ADDITI ON OF RS.40 000/- WHICH IS MADE BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF ONE DEPOSIT SLIP IN BANK ACCOUNT OF S.GURCHARAN SINGH WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK FOUND F ROM THE RESIDENCE OF ASSESSEE. THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED AND THE AO MADE THE ADDITION WHICH ACTION OF THE AO WA S CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 35. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THIS IS NOT A DEPOSIT OF CASH BUT OF CHEQUE NO.616907 DATED 10.03.1993 WHICH WAS DEPOSITED BY SH. GURCHARAN SINGH IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND SH. GURCHAR AN SINGH IS AN INDEPENDENT ASSESSEE AND IS REGULARLY ASSESSED TO T AX WHO WAS CO-OWNER IN A PROJECT AND BY MISTAKE ONE DEPOSIT SLIP WAS INADVER TENTLY LEFT AT ASSESSEES RESIDENCE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATIVE EVID ENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND WITHOUT MAKING FURTHER ENQUIRY BY THE ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 36 AO THE SAID MONEY CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN BEL ONGED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE . ACCORDING LY THE ADDITION SO MADE IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 36. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.3(E) WITH REGARD TO ADDITI ON OF RS.22 22 222/- ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF LAND B Y THE ASSESSEE IN BRIG JAI SINGH COMPLEX THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.22.22 LACS OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.66.66 LACS. THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND SAT ISFACTORY AND THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 66.66 LACS WHICH WAS REDUCE D BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO RS.22.22 LACS FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED IN HIS ORDE R THAT THE ASSESSEES SHARE WAS ONLY 1/3 RD IN THE TOTAL PAYMENT OF RS.66.66 LACS WHICH WAS P AID FOR 3 SHARES OF THREE SONS OF LATE BRIG. JAI SINGH. 37. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE EXPLANATION THAT BRIJ JA I SINGH OWNED 249 KANAL 10 MARLA OF LAND AND AFTER HIS DEATH THE OWNERSHIP OF LAND PASSED ON 5 SONS AND 4 DAUGHTERS MAINLY MALE MEMBERS HAVING 10/54 SHARE AND FEMALE MEMBERS HAVING 1/54 SHARE. THE SHARE OF SURJIT SING H PASSED ON TO HIS WIFE SMT. NARINDER JASPAL AND DAUGHGTERS WAS SOLD BY TH EM TO ONE SH. G.S. JAGGI VIDE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 3.6.1992. IT WAS SUBMITTE D THREE SONS OF BRIG.JAI ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 37 SINGH AT SR. NO.1 TO 3 NAMELY SH.JOGINDER SINGH SH .RANJIT SINGH AND SH.HARJIT SINGH SOLD THEIR SHARE OF LAND OF 924 MAR LA EACH TO ONE CAPT. HARMINDER SINGH VIDE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 21.5.199 2 FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.66.66 LACS. THE ABOVE SAID JOIN T AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 21.5.1992 BY THE THREE CO-OWNERS WAS SUBSTITU TED BY THREE SEPARATE AGREEMENTS AS PER DETAIL GIVEN BELOW:- I) S.JOGINDER SINGH ENTERED INTO SALE AGREEMENT WITH C APT. HARMINDER SINGH & OTHER CO-OWNERS ON 16.10.1992 FOR HIS SHARE OF 924 MARLAS THE APPELLANT WAS NOT A PARTY IN ANY OF THE ABOVE F OUR AGREEMENTS. II) S.RANJIT SINGH ENTERED INTO SALE AGREEMENT WITH CAP T. HARMINDER SINGH & OTHER CO-OWNERS ON 24.9.1992 FOR HIS SHARE OF 924 MARLAS III) S.HARJIT SINGH ENTERED INTO SALE AGREEMENT WITH CAP T. HARMINDER SINGH & OTHER CO-OWNERS ON 23.9.1992 FOR HIS SHARE OF 924 MARLAS COPY OF THIS AGREEMENT ALONGWITH ENGLISH TRANSLATIO N OF S.HARJIT SINGH IS ENCLOSED AT PAGE 65 TO PAGE 70 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT SH. HARJIT SINGH ALSO EX ECUTED A WILL OF HIS SHARE OF LAND IN THE NAME OF APPELLANT ON THE ASKING OF BUYE R CAPT. HARMINDER SINGH. THE AO SIMPLY ON ACCOUNT OF THIS WILL IN THE NAME O F THE APPELLANT CONCLUDED THAT THE LAND OF S.HARJIT SINGH WAS PURCH ASED BY THE APPELLANT ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 38 WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE TO CORROBORATE THE ABOVE CONCL USION. NEITHER THE AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT NOR ANY OTHER DOCUMENT WAS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH TO PROVE THAT THE APPEL LANT HAD PAID PURCHASE CONSIDERATION TO THE ORIGINAL OWNER S.HARJIT SINGH OR TO THE ACTUAL BUYER CAPT. HARMINDER SINGH IN WHOSE FAVOR THE SALE AGREE MENT WAS EXECUTED BY THE OWNER. THE AO CONFRONTED THE APPELLANT WITH THE COPY OF WILL IN HIS NAME BY HARJIT SINGH ORIGINAL OWNER OF LAND. THE AP PELLANT DENIED ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE SAME. HOWEVER THE AO SIMPLY PRESU MED THAT CAPT. HARMINDER SINGH MUST HAVE SOLD THE LAND PURCHASED B Y HIM FROM S.HARJIT SINGH TO THE ASSESSEE. REFER PARA 2 OF PAGE 7 OF TH E ORDER. BOTH THE AO AND CIT(A) HAVE IGNORED THE FACT THAT MOST IMPORTANT DO CUMENT IN THIS SORT OF TRANSACTION IS THE SALE AGREEMENT WHERE THE NAME OF THE SELLER AND BUYER IS DULY MENTIONED AND THE CONSIDERATION PAID IS ALSO M ENTIONED. SIMPLY ON ACCOUNT OF WILL IT CANNOT BE ALLEGED THAT THE PROPE RTY WAS PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT IN WHOSE FAVOR THE WILL WAS MADE BY SELLE R OF THE LAND. THE WILL HAS RELEVANCE ONLY IF THE SELLER DIES WITHOUT EXECU TING THE SALE DEED. OTHERWISE THIS DOCUMENT HAS NO RELEVANCE. MOREOVER EVEN THE WILL IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT WAS EXECUTED BY THE ORIGINAL OWNER S.HARJIT SINGH ON THE ASKING OF BUYER CAPT. HARMINDER SINGH. THE AO H AS HIMSELF CATEGORICALLY STATED AT PAGE 9 OF THE ORDER THAT AG REEMENT TO SELL DATED ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 39 23.9.1992 IN SUBSTITUTION OF AGREEMENT TO SELL DATE D 21.5.1992 WAS IN FAVOR OF 10 PERSONS WHOSE NAMES ARE GIVEN IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER ITSELF. THE APPLICANTS NAME IS NOT THERE IN THE LIST OF EVEN T HESE 10 PERSONS. THE AO RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF S.HARJIT SINGH AND HAS AL SO REPRODUCED CERTAIN PARTS OF STATEMENT OF S.HARJIT SINGH IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER. THE SAID S.HARJIT SINGH HAS VEHEMENTLY AND CATEGORICALLY STA TED AT SEVERAL PLACES DURING HIS EXAMINATION AND CROSS EXAMINATION THAT THE LAND WAS SOLD BY HIM TO CAPT. HARMINDER SINGH AND TAJINDER SINGH SAHAI ( NOT THE APPELLANT BUT SOME OTHER PERSON). 37.1 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED TO SH.HARJIT SINGH BY THE AO AND THE ANSWERS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE AT WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS PAGES 9 TO 13 PLACED ON RECORD ALONG WITH CROSS EXAMINATION AND EXAMINATION BY THE AO AT PAGES 13 TO 15 OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION. 37.2 FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE STATEMENTS AND CROSS E XAMINATION OF THE RECORD WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SH. HARJIT SINGH IN HIS EXAMINATION BY THE AO HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT HE NEVER ENTERED I NTO SALE AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD NEVER EVEN MET OR SEEN HIM . HE CONFIRMED THE FACT THAT SALE AGREEMENT WAS MADE BY HIM WITH ONE CAPT. HARMINDER SINGH AND MR. TEJINDER SINGH SAHAI AND NOT WITH THE ASSESSEE AT ALL. ON THE ASKING OF ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 40 THE AO AS TO WHY HE MADE THE WILL IN RESPECT OF T HIS PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE HE SAID THAT IT WAS ONLY ON THE AS KING OF THE BUYER CAPT. HARMINDER SINGH THAT HE MADE THE WILL IN THE NAME O F SH. TEJINDER SINGH SAHAI WHICH HE HAS SUBSEQUENTLY CANCELLED. THE ADD ITION WAS MADE BY THE A.O. ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID WILL AND HAVE NO OTHER CORROBORATIVE REASON TO ALLEGE THAT ANY INVESTMENT WAS MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF LAND FROM S.HARJIT SINGH. THE AO HIMSEL F IN HIS ORDER HAS STATED THAT WHEREVER PROPERTY IS PURCHASED BY WAY OF EXECU TION OF SALE DEED A WILL IS GOT MADE BY THE BUYER IN THE NAME OF ONE AS CON FIDANT SO THAT IN CASE THE SELLER DIES BEFORE EXECUTION OF THE SALE DEED HE I S ABLE TO SAVE HIS RIGHT OVER THE PROPERTY. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DIS PUTED THE FACT THAT ONE SHARE OF LAND OF BRIG. JAI SINGH WAS PURCHASED BY HIM. NOWHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD EVER ADMITTED THAT HE HAD PURCHASED AN Y SHARE OF BRIG JAI SINGH LAND. RATHER IT HAS BEEN THE CONSISTENT STAND OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT HE NEVER PURCHASED ANY LAND IN JAI SINGH COLONY. EVEN THE SE LLER HAS STATED CATEGORICALLY THAT HE NEVER SOLD ANY LAND TO THE A SSESSEE. FURTHER AFTER THE PERUSAL OF ALL THE FACTS ON RECORD IT IS EVIDENT T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE ANY INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF LAND IN JAI SING H COLONY. THE LD. CIT(A) PERHAPS MADE THE ABOVE OBSERVATION ON THE BA SIS OF SURRENDER MADE ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 41 BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. H OWEVER FROM THE PERUSAL OF RECORD IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT SURREND ER BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION WAS NOT BASED ON ACCOUNT OF ANY SPECIFIC UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT OR INCOME BUT JUST ON ESTIMATED BASIS IN ROUND FIGURES. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO CORROBORATE THE OBSERVAT ION OF LD. CIT(A) THE SAME CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACT S NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR BY THE AO AND ADDITION SO CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED . ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO.3(E) OF THE ASSESSE E IS ALLOWED AND THAT OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.310(ASR)/2010 IS DISMISSED. 38. GROUNDS NO. 3(F) & (3(G) RELATES TO ADDITION O F RS.1 10 250/- AND RS.1 32 300 ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND AND PROFIT ON SALE OF LAND. THE BRIEF FACTS AS EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF THE AO ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: H). DURING THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF SH.GURCHA RAN SINGH S/O GULAB SINGH SADAR BAZAR KAPURTHALA FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 1993- 94 IT WAS NOTICED THAT AN INVESTMENT OF RS.2 25 00 0/- HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND FOR CITY COMPLEX IN WHICH SH. TEJINDER SINGH AND SH. TILAK RAJ HAS MADE AN INVESTMENT OF R S.2 20 500/-. ALTHOUGH THE PURCHASE OF LAND AND SALE OF SHOPS WER E MADE IN THE NAME OF SH. GURCHARAN SINGH BUT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND SH. TILAK RAJ. THIS FACT HAS BEEN ADMI TTED BY THEM IN THEIR AFFIDAVITS DATED 12.01.2000. WHEN CONFRONTED WITH THIS POINT VIDE THIS OFFICE NOTICE DATED 28.02.08 THE ASSESSE E STATED THAT HE STAND BY THE COMMITMENT MADE IN THE CASE OF SH. GURCHARAN SINGH AND THE SAME MAY BE ADDED IN HIS NAME BUT BENEFIT OF TELESC OPING AGAINST ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 42 ADDITIONS MADE IN EARLIER YEARS MAY BE GRANTED. THE INVESTMENT OF RS.1 10 250/- HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THEREFORE THE INVESTMENT OF RS.1 10 250/- (49%) MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. I) DURING THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF SH.GURCHARA N SINGH S/O SH.GULAB SINGH SADAR BAZAR KAPURTHALA FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 1993-94 IT WAS NOTICED THAT PROFIT ON SALE OF SHOP S WAS RECEIVED AT RS.2 70 100/-. THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE IN PROFIT IS RS.1 32 300/- (49%). WHEN CONFRONTED WITH THIS POINT VIDE THIS OF FICE NOTICE DATED 28.02.08 THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE STAND BY THE COMMITMENT MADE IN THE CASE OF SH. GURCHARAN SINGH AND THE SAME MAY BE ADDED IN HIS NAME BUT BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING AGAINST ADDITIONS M ADE IN EARLIER YEARS MAY BE GRANTED. THIS PROFIT HAS NOT BEEN SHOW N BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND THEREFORE THE SAME IS TREATED AS HIS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 39. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE A.O. 40. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE D EALT IN THE SAME MANNER AS DONE BY THE AO IN THE CASE OF SH.GURCHARAN SINGH W HO IS THE CO-OWNER IN THIS PROJECT AND ACCORDINGLY THE MATTER IS SET ASI DE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION THAT IDENTICAL DECISION SHOULD BE TAK EN BEING IDENTICAL MATTER AS IN THE CASE OF SH.GURCHARAN SINGH BUT AFTER GIVI NG ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 41. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.4 WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS.14 50 000/- ON THE BASIS OF PAPER SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEAR CH. THE EXPLANATION GIVEN ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 43 BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO WHICH W AS NOT FOUND SATISFACTORY AND THE ACTION OF THE A.O. WAS CONFIRM ED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 42. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. ON PERUSAL OF DUMB PAPER AT PAGE 25 OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION WHICH DOES NOT SUGGEST ANY INVESTMENT OR INCOME WHICH ITSELF A DUMB PAPER AND DOES NOT SPEAK ANYTHING AND WHICH IS UNDATED AND HAVING SOME COUNTING OF CURRENCY NOTES THE CONCLUSION OF THE AO THAT THESE FIGURES REFLECT THE PAYMENT OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT ABOUT JAI SINGH COMPLEX IS PURELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURE S AND WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND OR ANY CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD NO ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT CAN BE MADE. THUS GROUND NO.4 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 43. GROUNDS NO. 5 TO 9 OF THE APPEAL ARE NOT PRESSE D BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 44. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT A NO.316(ASR)/2010 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 45. NOW WE TAKE UP APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO .310(ASR)/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94. GROUND NO.1 RELATES TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.2 39 166/- BY THE LD. CIT(A) MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN LAND. THE ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 44 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO MADE AN ADD ITION OF RS.2 39 166/- ON THE BASIS OF PAPER FOUND FROM THE RESIDENCE OF ONE SH. TILAK RAJ WHICH CONTAINED CERTAIN DETAILS GIVING PLOT NO. RATE A MOUNT COMMISSION ETC. ON THE BASIS OF THIS PAPER THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.2 39 166/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BY TREATING IT AS ASSESSEES INVESTMENT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS WORKING MAINLY AS BR OKER ONLY AND IT IS ONLY TO FACILITATE THE TRANSACTIONS THAT HIS NAME IS MEN TIONED. HOWEVER HE HAS NOT MADE ANY INVESTMENT. THE PAPER WAS FOUND FROM T HE RESIDENCE OF SH. TILAK RAJ AND IT WAS FOR HIM TO EXPLAIN THE TRUE C HARACTER OF THIS PAPER AND IT WAS NOT FOR THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE ANY EXPLANATION AB OUT A PAPER ABOUT WHICH HE HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OR INFORMATION AND NEITHER FOU ND NOR SEIZED FROM HIM. ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESS EE THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE AO HOLDING THAT IT WAS FOR SH. TILAK RAJ TO EXPLAIN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ENTRY IN THIS PA PER AND NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 46. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE WELL REASONED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 45 47. AS REGARDS GROUNDS NO. 2 & 2(A) OF THE REVENUE WITH REGARD TO RESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF RS.66.66 LACS TO RS.22 .22 LACS BY THE LD. CIT(A) MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE PURCHASE OF LAND OF BRIG JAIN SINGH THIS ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED BY U S IN PARA 36 TO 37.2 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.316(ASR)/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 H EREINABOVE. ACCORDINGLY GROUNDS NO. 2 & 2(A) OF THE REVENUE AR E DISMISSED. 48. AS REGARDS GROUNDS NO. 3 & 4 THE SAME ARE GENE RAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE DO NOT REQUITE ANY ADJUDICATION. ACCORD INGLY THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.310(ASR)/2010 FOR THE A.Y.1993-9 4 IS DISMISSED. 49. NOW WE TAKE UP APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA N O.450(ASR)/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95. GROUND NO.1(I) IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.12 84 595/- MADE BY THE AO WHICH WAS ENHANCED TO RS.19 83 335/- BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED PROFIT ON SALE OF PLOTS IN BRIG. JAI SINGH LAND. 49.1. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AO THAT SINCE HE IS NOT AN INVESTOR IN THE SAID PRO PERTY THE QUESTION OF ANY PROFIT ARISING TO HIM ON THE SALE OF PLOTS IN THAT COLONY DOES NOT ARISE. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE A ND MADE AN ADDITION OF ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 46 RS.12 84 595/- WHICH WAS FURTHER ENHANCED TO RS.19 83 335/- BY THE LD. CIT(A). 49.2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MR. ASHWANI KALIA CA MADE THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: 1 IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E . ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 ADDITION OF RS.22.22 LACS WAS CONFIRME D BY LD.CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED INVESTMENT MADE BY ASSESSEE IN T HE PURCHASE OF LAND FROM ONE SH. HARJIT SINGH S/O LATE BRIG. JAI SI NGH. 2 IN THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HONBLE BENCH THAT ASSESSEE HA D NOT MADE ANY INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF SAID LAND AS NEITHER ANY DOCUMENT IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF LAND BY THE ASSESEE WAS FOUN D DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH NOR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE CORROBORATI NG THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND BY ASSESSEE WAS FOUND. ADDITION IN THE AY 1993-94 WAS MADE PURELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. 3 THE ADDITION FOR THE INVESTMENT IN THE LAND IN AY 1993-94 WAS MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF WILL MADE BY OWNER OF LAN D IN ASSESSEES FAVOR ON THE ASKING OF PURCHASER OF LAND. EVEN THIS WILL WAS ALSO CANCELLED BY THE OWNER SUBSEQUENTLY. 4 DURING THE EXAMINATION OF SH. HARJIT SINGH THE OW NER OF LAND HE HAD CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE LAND WAS SOLD BY HIM TO CAPT. HARMINDER SINGH NOT TO ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THAT HE HAD EVEN NEVER MET THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER HE ALSO CONFIRMED T HAT WILL IN FAVOR OF ASSESSEE WAS MADE ON ASKING OF PURCHASER OF LAND CAPT. HARMINDER SINGH. 5 FROM THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS IT WILL BE APPRECIATED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PURCHASED ANY LAND THE QUESTIO N OF PROFIT ON THE SALE OF PLOTS IN THAT LAND IN THE HAND OF ASSES SEE DOES NOT ARISE. ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 47 6 FURTHER NO DOCUMENT OR ANY EVIDENCE WAS FOUND IN RESPECT OF SALE PROCEEDS HAVING RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. ALL THE DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SH.G.S. JAGGI WHO WAS THE MAIN DEVELOPER AND PROMOTER. THE ASSESSEE IS MAINLY WORK ING AS PROPERTY BROKER FOR THE SALE AND PURCHASE OF PLOTS AND LAND AS A RESULT OF WHICH THE LAY OUT PLAN OF THE COLONY WHICH WAS CARV ED OUT BY G.S. JAGGI ON SAID LAND WAS FOUND FROM ASSESSEES RESIDE NCE. AS PER THE SEIZED DOCUEMTNS FROM THE OFFICE OF LIQUOR BUSINESS EVEN THE ADVANCE AGAINST SALE ;OF PLOTS WAS RECEIVED BY SH.G .S. JAGGI AND ALL THE EXPENSES ON DEVELOPMENT WERE ALSO INCURRED BY H IM.. HENCE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND ENHANCEMENT OF THE SAME BY CIT(A) IS TOTALLY UNCALLED FOR. 7 FURTHER THE AO HAS ESTIMATED THE SALE PRICE OF P LOTS SOLD AT RS.2578000 WHEREAS THESE PLOTS WERE SOLD ONLY FOR R S.386500 AS PER THE SALE DEEDS. 49.3. THE LD. DR MR. TARSEM LAL ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 50. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) AND ALSO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE ON THIS GROUND. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE IT IS OBVIOUS T HAT WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED VIDE OUR ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993 -94 IN ITA NO.316(ASR)/2010 HEREINABOVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT MADE ANY INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF LAND IN BRIJ JAI SING H COLONY. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF LAND THE QUES TION OF ANY PROFIT ARISING IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT ARISE. FROM T HE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAD MAINLY RELIED ON THE ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 48 FACT THAT COPY OF THE LAY OUT PLAN OF THE SAID COLO NY WAS FOUND FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN PAPERS CONTAINING DETAILS OF PLOTS SOLD IN THE SAID COLONY. THERE IS NO DENIAL OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEES MAIN JOB IS THAT HE IS WORKING AS PROPER TY BROKER. THE DOCUMENTS SUCH AS LAY OUT PLAN ETC. HAVE TO BE KEPT BY THE P ROPERTY BROKER TO SHOW LOCATION OF PLOTS TO THE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS AND SIM PLY ON THE BASIS OF SUCH DOCUMENTS THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE FASTENED WITH TH E LIABILITY OF HAVING EARNED ANY PROFIT ON THE SALE OF PLOTS AS HE HAS WO RKED ONLY AS A BROKER AND NOT AS THE OWNER. THUS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INVE STMENT THE QUESTION OF PROFIT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT ARISE . ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. WHICH WAS FURTHER ENHANCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 51. GROUND NO.1(II) OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS. 5 00 000/- MADE BY THE AO WHICH WAS FURTHER CONFIRM ED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN BRIG. JAI SINGH COLONY. 51.1. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED TH AT THE ABOVE ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF A DUMB PAPER WHICH WAS SEI ZED FROM LIQUOR SHOP OF SH.G.S. JAGGI M/S. T.R. & CO. AND FROM HIS RESI DENCE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF THIS DUMB PAPER HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INTEREST IN THE LIQUO R CONCERNS. IT IS SIMPLY A ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 49 DUMB PAPER WHERE AGAINST THE ASSESSES NAME AMOUNT OF RS.5 LACS IS WRITTEN WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY CORROBORATING EVIDENCE AS T O WHAT THIS FIGURE OF RS.5 LACS INDICATE. THE ADDITION COULD NOT BE MADE IN TH E HANDS OF ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THIS DUMB PAPER FOUND FROM THIRD PERSON ON WHICH THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT IS SCRIBBLED AGAINST AMOUNT OF RS.5 LACS. MOREOVER IT HAS ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED IN DETAIL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY INVESTMENT IN JAI SINGH COLONY. 51.2. THE LD. DR MR. TARSEM LAL ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 52. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THIS ISSUE WE HAVE ALREADY DEALT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 IN ITA NO.316(ASR)/2010 THAT NO ASSESSMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN BRIG JAI SINGH COLONY AND ACCORDINGLY THE DUMB PAPER SEIZED FROM THE LIQUOR SHOP OF SH. G.S.JAGGI CANNOT BE ASKED TO BE EXPLAINED B Y THE ASSESSEE. THE ENQUIRY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE FROM MR. G.S.JAGGI FR OM WHOSE PREMISES THIS DUMB PAPER WAS SEIZED AND THERE IS NO LOGIC TO ASSESS THE AMOUNT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE ADDITION SO MADE B Y THE A.O. AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 50 53. GROUND NO.1(III) IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.2 66 710/- BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXP LAINED INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. 53.1 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MR. ASHWANI KALIA CA SUBMITTED THAT THE DUMB PAPER WAS FOUND FROM THE OFFICE OF TH E LIQUOR BUSINESS NAMELY OF AOP OF WINE CONTRACTORS. HE FURTHER STATE D THAT THERE WERE LARGE NUMBER OF GROUPS FORMING THIS AOP. RATHER IT WAS A CARTEL FORMED BY DIFFERENT GROUPS OF WINE CONTRACTORS TO AVOID COMPE TITION AMONGST THEMSELVES. EACH GROUP COMPRISED OF LARGE NUMBER OF PERSONS AND EACH SUCH GROUP WAS REPRESENTED BY ONE MEMBER IN THE CARTEL FOR THE CONTROL MANAGEMENT AND SMOOTH RUNNING OF THE CARTEL. FROM T HE OFFICE OF THIS CARTEL WHICH WAS ASSESSED BY THE DEPT AS AOP OF WINE CONTR ACTORS ONE SUCH DUMB LOOSE PAPER WAS FOUND ON WHICH CERTAIN AMOUNTS WERE SCRIBBLED AGAINST ASSESSEES NAME. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THIS PAPER RELATES TO THE WINE BUSINESS HAVING BEEN FOUND FROM THE OFFICE OF THE A OP OF WINE CONTRACTORS AND DOES NOT PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSEE INDIVIDUALLY. IT COULD BE THE FIGURES OF SALE PROCEEDS OF LIQUOR OR SOME OTHER WORKING BUT T HERE IS NO MENTION OF THIS BEING INVESTMENT BY ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO MENTION O F ANY INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ON THIS PAPER. HOW THE AO REACHE D AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE FIGURES ON THIS PAPER REPRESENTED INVESTME NT IN PROPERTY IS NOT ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 51 KNOWN AND NO EVIDENCE GIVEN BY THE AO. MOREOVER IT HAS BEEN ELABORATED IN DETAIL THAT TAJINDER SINGH ONLY REPRESENTED HIS GROUP IN CARTEL AND ACCORDINGLY THESE FIGURES ON A DUMB PAPER CANNOT PE RTAIN TO HIM INDIVIDUALLY. MOREOVER THE SURRENDER OF RS.12 LACS (SUBSEQUENTLY RAISED BY 2.5 LACS) WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF TAJINDER SINGH & CO WHICH REPRESENTED THE ASSESSEE GROUP IN LIQUOR BUSINESS OF THE SAID A OP. THE CIT(A) IN HIS CONCLUDING REMARKS HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT DETAIL OF PROPERTY IN WHICH THE SAID INVESTMENT WAS MADE WERE NOT KNOWN S TILL HE WENT ON TO CONFIRM ADDITION SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF DUMB PAPER HOLDING THAT THIS REPRESENTS SOME INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY. HE FURTHER PRAYED THAT ON THE BASIS OF SUCH A DUMB PAPER NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE AN D THE ADDITION SO MADE AND CONFIRMED MAY BE DELETED. 53.2. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND PLACED RELIANC E ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 54. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS THE SUBMISSIONS OF TH E ASSESSEES COUNSEL WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF DUMB PAPER FOUND FROM THE OFFICE OF THE LIQUOR BUSI NESS OF AN AOP WHICH WAS IN FACT A CARTEL OF 5-6 CONTRACTORS WHO HAD FO RMED THIS CARTEL IN ORDER TO AVOID COMPETITION. IN EACH SUCH CASE 5-6 GROUPS TH ERE WERE LARGE NUMBER OF ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 52 CO-PARTNERS AND WITHOUT BRINGING ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THIS DUMB PAPER PRESENTED ASSESSEES U NEXPLAINED INVESTMENT NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR AND HENCE THE ADDITION S O MADE AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED ESPECIALL Y KEEPING IN VIEW THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS ON THE SUBJECT RELIED UPON BY TH E ASSESSEE. 55. GROUNDS NO.1(IV) & 1(V) RELATE TO ADDITIONS OF RS.9 40 000/- AND RS.1 15 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN SHOPPING COMPLEX ON THE MALL KAPURTHALA WHICH WERE CONFIRMED BY THE L D. CIT(A). 55.1. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE FOL LOWING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON THESE ISSUES WHICH ARE REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AS UNDER: THIS GROUND IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.940000 O N ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN SHOPPING COMPLEX ON MALL AT KAPURTHALA. THIS ADDITION HAS ALSO BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF A DUMB PAPER. COPY OF THIS PAPER IS ENCLOSED. THE AO HELD THAT RS.940000 IS THAT INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROJECT COST ING RS.47 LACS. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO. THIS ONLY REF LECT CERTAIN ESTIMATES MADE AND NOT ANY INVESTMENT MADE. THERE I S NEITHER ANY DETAIL OF ALLEGED INVESTMENT NOR THERE IS ANY DATE ON THIS PAPER. ALL THE FIGURES GIVEN ARE IN ROUND FIGURES WHICH PROVES TH AT THIS IS SOME ESTIMATES AND NOT ANY INVESTMENT. THE AO HAS FURTHER MADE ADDITION OF RS.115000 AS AS SESSEES SHARE OF PROFIT ON THE SALE OF ABOVE PROPERTY PURELY ON SURM ISES AND CONJECTURES. ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 53 55.2. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON TH E ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 56. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. FROM THE PERUSAL OF PAPER FILED AT PAGE-12 OF THE W RITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IT APPARENT THAT IT IS ONLY AN ESTIMATE M ADE BY THE GROUP OF PEOPLE FOR SOME PROPOSED PROJECT WHICH WAS ESTIMATED TO C OSTS RS.47 LACS AND AMOUNT AGAINST EACH PERSON IS MENTIONED ON THE BASI S OF THE PROPOSED SHARE IN THIS PROPOSED INVESTMENT. IT IS A CASE OF SEARCH AND HAD IT BEEN A CASE OF ACTUAL INVESTMENT SOME DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THIS INVESTMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN SEIZED. BUT NO SUCH DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED AND ACCORDINGLY NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF DUMB PAPER WHI CH GIVES ONLY ESTIMATION OF BUDGETING OF SOME PROPOSED INVESTMEN T. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITIONS SO MADE AND CONFIRMED IS DIRECTED TO BE D ELETED AND GROUNDS NO.1(IV) & V) OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED 57. GROUND NO.1(VI) & 1(VII) RELATE TO ADDITION OF RS.1 55 620/- BEING COST OF CAR AND RS.9 520/- ON ACCOUNT OF ACCESSORY FITTINGS IN THE CAR. THESE ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF A CAR FOUND LYING AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. TH E ADDITIONS WERE FURTHER CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 54 57.1. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MR. ASHWANI KALIA CA SUBMITTED THAT THESE GROUNDS ARE AGAINST THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 155620 ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED PURCHASE OF CAR AND ACCESSORIES FOR RS.9520 . ON THE DATE OF SEARCH AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE A CAR WAS FOUND LYING THERE. ON ENQUIRY IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT CAR BELONG TO SH. SATBIR SINGH A FAM ILY FRIEND IN LUDHIANA AND IS NOT THE ASSESSEES. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THA T HE HAD BORROWED THIS CAR TO TAKE HIS WIFE TO LUDHIANA IN AN EMERGENCY AS SHE WAS AT THE ADVANCE STAGE OF PREGNANCY AND SINCE THERE WERE SOME SERIOUS COMP LICATIONS IN PREGNANCY THE ASSESSEE WAS ADVISED THAT IN A EMERGENCY SHE MI GHT HAVE TO BE TAKEN TO LUDHIANA CMC. THE DOCUMENTS OF CAR WERE ALSO FOUND LYING IN THE CAR WHICH SHOWS THAT THE SAID CAR WAS PURCHASED BY SH. SABIR SINGH FROM CLASSIC MOTORS LUDHIANA FOR RS.155620 AND RS.9520 W AS THE AMOUNT OF ACCESSORIES GOT FITTED IN THE CAR. COPY OF PURCHASE BILL FOUND LYING IN THE CAR WITH OTHER DOCUMENT IS ENCLOSED. IT WAS EXPLAINED T HAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED CAR FROM SH. SATBIR SINGH THERE MUST HAVE BEEN FOUND SOME DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO SAID PURCHASE OF CAR BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT RECEIPT IN RESPECT OF MONEY PAID AND CERTAIN OTHER DOCUMENTS W HICH ARE REQUIRED FOR GETTING THE REGISTRATION TRANSFERRED. HOWEVER NO S UCH DOCUMENT WAS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH WHICH INDICATE THE PURCHASE OF CA R BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT BOTH LD.CIT(A) AS WELL AS AO DISBELIEVED THE ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 55 ASSESSEES EXPLANATION AND ADDITION WAS MADE SIMPLY ON THE GROUND THAT CAR HAVING BEEN FOUND AT ASSESSEES RESIDENCE AND ASSES SEE DID NOT PRODUCE SH. SATBIR SINGH. THE COMPLETE NAME AND ADDRESS OF SH. SATBIR SINGH WAS THERE IN DOCUMENT FOUND IN CAR AND AO NEVER MADE ANY ENQU IRY FROM HIM. 57.2. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON TH E ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 58. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND SUBSTAN TIAL FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL AS NO CORROBORA TIVE EVIDENCE WAS FOUND OR SEIZED FROM THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH TO INDICATE THAT THE VEHICLE WAS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESEE HAS GIVEN A COGENT REASON FOR THE VEHICLE LYING WITH HIM. EVEN THE COPY OF TH E BILL FOUND FROM THE CAR IS ALSO IN THE NAME OF THE OWNER SH. SATBIR SINGH A ND NO OTHER DOCUMENT INDICATING PURCHASE OF VEHICLE BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FOUND. THUS IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE NO ADDITION IS CALLED AND THE ADDITIONS SO MADE ARE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED AND GROUNDS NO.1 (VI) & (VII) ARE ALLOWED. 59. GROUND NO.1(VIII) IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS .27 62 000/- ON THE BASIS OF SALE AGREEMENT WHICH WAS FOUND FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SH. G.S.JAGGI IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWN AS BUYER OF LAND FROM ONE SH. ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 56 PIARE LAL AND SAID TO HAVE CONSIDERATION OF RS.27 62 000/- PAID TO THE SELLER BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ADDITION WAS FURTHER CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 59.1 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MR. ASHWANI K ALIA CA HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS: 1 THIS GROUND IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.276200 0 CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN LAND BY THE ASSESSEE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN PAID TO ONE SH.PIARE LAL. THE RELEVANT FACT OF THIS ADDITION HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BY CIT(A) VIDE PARA 8.1 PAGE 19 OF THE ORDER. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE REITERATED BELOW:- I) THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED AT RESIDENCE OF ONE G.S. J AGGI AND DURING THE SEARCH ONE AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 15.6. 1993 WAS SEIZED. THE ABOVE AGREEMENT IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN EN TERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ONE SH.PIARE LAL AND SHOWS THE PAYMENT OF RS.2762000 MADE. COPY OF THIS AGREEMENT IS ENCLOSED FOR YOUR HONOURS READY REFERENCE. II) IT WAS EXPLAINED TO THE AO AS WELL AS CIT(A) THAT THIS AGREEMENT IS JUST A DUMB PAPER HAVING NOT BEEN ACTE D UPON AT ALL WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT IT IS NEITH ER WITNESSED NOR IT IS ENTERED IN THE REGISTER OF THE VASIKA( DEED W RITER). ANYONE PAYING THE FULL SALE CONSIDERATION SHALL DEFINITELY GET THE DOCUMENT COMPLETED IN ALL RESPECT BY GETTING IT PRO PERLY WITNESSED AND GET THE SAME ENTERED IN THE REGISTER OF VASIKA AND SHALL GET SIGNATURES OF SELLER IN REGISTER OF VASIK A AFTER COMPLETING ALL THE FORMALITIES. 2 THE AO SUMMONED THE SELLER SH. PIARE LAL AND HE A LSO CONFIRMED THAT IT IS ONLY A DUMB PAPER AND NEVER AC TED UPON. NEITHER ANY PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED BY HIM NOR THE POSSESSION OF LAND WAS HANDED OVER. COPY OF HIS STATEMENT ALONGWITH TYPED COPY ARE ENCLOSED. ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 57 3 FROM THE PERUSAL OF THIS AGREEMENT IT WILL FURTHE R BE OBSERVED THAT IT IS MERELY A DUMB PAPER WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY INCOMPLETE AND HENCE NEVER ACTED UPON DUE TO THE FOLLOWING REASONS :- I) IT IS NOT WITNESSED II) THE SELLER AS PER THIS AGREEMENT SH.PIARE LAL HAS SIGNED THIS AGREEMENT FOR HIMSELF AND AS POWER OF ATTORNEY OF M ANY OTHER PARTIES. BEFORE THE ACTUAL PAYMENT TO HIM HE WAS RE QUIRED TO GIVE TO THE BUYER ORIGINAL COPIES OF ALL THE POWER OF ATTORNEYS DULY REGISTERED WITH THE SUB REGISTRAR TO ASCERTAI N WHETHER HE IS EVEN AUTHORIZED TO SELL ON BEHALF OF OTHERS OR N OT. HOWEVER NOT EVEN A SINGLE POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS SUPPLIED BY HIM. HENCE NO PAYMENT WAS MADE. III) THE SELLER WAS ALSO REQUIRED TO SUPPLY COPIES OF LA TEST JAMABANDIES OF ALL THE LAND OWNERS NAMED IN THIS AG REEMENT TO PROVE THEIR OWNERSHIP OF LAND BEFORE THE PAYMENT WA S MADE. HOWEVER NO JAMABANDI IN RESPECT OF ANY SELLER NAME D IN THE AGREEMENT WAS SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE AS A PROOF O F OWNERSHIP OF THE SELLERS. HENCE NO PAYMENT WAS MADE IV) TOTAL LAND AS PER THIS AGREEMENT IS 75 KANAL 5 MARL A OUT OF WHICH ONLY 45 KANAL 3 MARLA IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN SO LD TO THE APPELLANT AS PER THIS AGREEMENT. THE LAYOUT AND DEM ARCATION OF THE LAND FROM THE RECORD OF THE PATWARI DULY CERTI FIED WAS REQUIRED TO BE SUPPLIED BY THE SELLER TO THE SATISF ACTION OF THE BUYER. BUT NO SUCYH DOCUMENT WAS SUPPLIED BY THE SE LLER. HENCE THE QUESTION OF ANY PAYMENT DOES NOT ARISE. V) TITLE DEEDS IN ORIGINAL OF ALL THE SELLERS WERE ALS O TO BE SUPPLIED BY THE SELLER. BUT THESE WERE NOT SUPPLIED . ACCORDINGLY NO PAYMENT COULD BE MADE. VI) AS PER THIS AGREEMENT THERE ARE 11 SELLERS AND IT I S NOT EVIDENT FROM THIS AGREEMENT AS TO OUT WHICH HOW MANY OF THE M HAVE GIVEN POWER OF ATTORNEY TO SH.PIARA LAL AND HAVE MA NY OF THEM WERE TO SIGN THEMSELVES. IN THE ABSENCE OF THEIR OR IGINAL REGISTERED POWER OF ATTORNEY THIS DOCUMENT WAS INCO MPLETE AND DUMB. VII) THE SELLER TO THIS AGREEMENT WAS ALSO REQUIRED TO E XECUTE A POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVOR OF BUYER BEFORE THE PAYM ENT WAS MADE TO HIM AS WITHOUT GETTING POWER OF ATTORNEY FR OM THE SELLER. THE BUYER REMAINS WHOLLY DEPENDENT ON THE S ELLER FOR ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 58 GETTING THE TITLE OF THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED IN HI S NAME OR ANY OTHER PERSON OF HIS CHOICE. VIII) FINALLY IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS FOR THE ABOVE R EASONS THAT THE AGREEMENT IS NEITHER DATED NOR WITNESSED AND IS ONL Y A DUMB PAPER. IX) ALL THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS WERE PENDING IS EVIDENT FRO M THE FACT THAT NONE OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED EITHER FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE OR FROM THE RESIDENCE OF G.S.JAGGI FROM WHOSE RESIDENCE THIS DUMB PAPER WAS SEIZED. MO REOVER NOBODY WILL MAKE THE FULL PAYMENT WITHOUT GETTING A LL THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL FOR THE BU YER. 4 IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT ORIGINAL AGREEMENT WAS LYING WITH THIRD PARTY I.E. J.S.JAGGI WHO WAS CONFIDENT OF BOTH PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT. SINCE THE DEAL AS PER THIS AGREEMENT WAS NOT ACTED UPON BY THE BUYER AND SELL ER DUE TO VARIOUS DEFICIENCIES POINTED OUT ABOVE THE SAME WAS LEFT W ITH A THIRD PARTY TILL THE SUPPLY OF ALL THE DOCUMENTS BY THE SELLER AS ON LY THEN THE PAYMENT WAS TO BE MADE THEM. 5 G.S. JAGGI ALSO CONFIRMED THAT NO PAYMENT HAS BEE N MADE AGAINST THIS AGREEMENT. 6 HOWEVER IN ORDER TO SAFEGUARD THE INTEREST OF TH E SELLER A CANCELLATION DEED WAS EXECUTED SO THAT TOMORROW BUY ER DO NOT CLAIM ANY TITLE ON THE BASIS OF THIS DOCUMENT. COPY OF CA NCELLATION DEED IS ALSO ENCLOSED. 7 MOREOVER HAD THE ASSESSE ALREADY PAID SUCH A HUG E AMOUNT AGAINST THE AGREEMENT HE WOULD CERTAINLY NOT HAVE L EFT THE ORIGINAL LYING WITH A THIRD PERSON FROM WHOSE IT WAS SEIZED. IT WAS ONLY BECAUSE IT WAS A DUMB PAPER; THE ASSESSEE DID NOT B OTHER TO KEEP THE AGREEMENT WITH HIMSELF. THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER HAS STATED AS UNDER :- I THINK IT IS OF EXTREMELY LOW HUMAN PROBABILITY T HAT AN OWNER OF LAND WILL SIGN THE AGREEMENT STATING THAT HE HAD RECEIVED THE FULL PAYMENT AGAINST HT ESALE OF LAND WITHOUT ACTUA LLY HAVING RECEIVED THE CONSIDERATION WHEN THE AGREEMENT SIGN ED BY HIM HAD BEEN HANDED OVER TO THE BUYER. IT WOULD EXPOSE THE SELLER TO ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 59 THE DEMAND OF THE MONEY IF THE AGREEMENT WAS CANCEL LED EVEN WITHOUT HIM HAVING RECEIVED THE MONEY IT WAS ONLY FOR THE ABOVE REASONS THAT CANCELLATION AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED TO SAFEGUARD THE RISK OF SELLER.COPY OF DO CUMENT ENCLOSED AT PAGE 16. 59.2. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON TH E ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 60. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE IT IS SE EN THAT THAT SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL HAVE FORMIDABLE FORC E AND PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION JUSTIFYING THE FACT THAT NO PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SETTLEMENT AND IT WAS ONLY A DUMB PAPER WHICH WAS SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THIRD PARTY I.E. MR. G.S.JAGGI. TH E VARIOUS REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS EXPLANATION HAVE SUBSTANTIAL FO RCE TO JUSTIFY THAT BEFORE THE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO THE PROSPECTIVE SELLER THE SELLER HAD TO COMPLY WITH LARGE NUMBER OF CONDITIONS AND TO SUPPLY ALL T HE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS STATED IN THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL . HOWEVER SINCE ALL THESE DOCUMENTS AND ETAILS WERE NOT SUPPLIED BY THE SELLE R THIS AGREEMENT WAS NEVER ACTED UPON AND NO PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THE A SSESSEE AND IN ORDER SAFE-GUARD THE INTEREST OF SELLER A CANCELLATION D EED WAS EXECUTED. MOREOVER ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 60 THE SELLER HAD ALSO CONFIRMED BEFORE THE AO THAT NO AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED AGAINST THIS AGREEMENT SINCE HE WAS REQUIRED TO C OMPLY WITH SO MANY CONDITIONS OF PROVIDING ESSENTIAL DOCUMENTS. FOR T HE ABOVE REASONS TRHE PROSPECTIVE SELLER SH. PYARE LAL CONFIRMED THAT NO PAYMENT WAS MADE TO HIM BY SH.TEJINDER SINGH.COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF S H. PIARE LAL HAS ALSO BEEN PERUSED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ADDITION SO MADE IS DIRECTED TO B E DELETED WHICH WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF A DUMB PAPER. IT HAS ALSO BEEN OBSE RVED THAT TILL DATE NO SALE DEED HAS BEEN EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE IN RE SPECT OF THE LAND. 61. GROUND 1(IX) OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ADD ITION OF RS.23 51 942/- MADE ON THE BASIS OF A DOCUMENT SEIZED FROM THE AOP OF WINE CONTRACTOR. THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY TH E LD. CIT(A) BY HOLDING THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS.23 51 942/- REPRESE NTS SOME INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSEE. 61.1. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MR. ASHWANI KALI CA ARGUED THAT ASSESSEE WAS A PARTNER IN TAJINDER SINGH & CO. AND IS REPRESENTING THIS FIRM IN THE AOP OF WINE CONTRACTORS IN WHICH THE CAPITAL OF OUR FIRM IS REFLECTED IN THE TRIAL BALANCE AT RS.2351942. IT WAS EXPLAIN ED THAT THE INVESTMENT OF ALL THE PARTNERS IN TEJINDER SINGH & CO. WAS RS.279 1000 WHICH IS MORE THAN THE AMOUNT OF RS.2351942. HOWEVER THE AO ALLEGED O N THE BASIS OF THIS ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 61 PAPER WHICH WAS A TRIAL BALANCE OF LIQUOR BUSINESS REFLECTS THE INVESTMENT OF RS.2330839 RELATED TO A DIFFERENT COMPANY WITHOUT T HERE BEING ANY EVIDENCE OF INVESTMENT IN SOME OTHER COMPANY BY TAJINDER SIN GH. DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1993-94 LIQUOR CONTRACTS FOR KAPURT HALA WERE TAKEN BY THE FOLLOWING PARTIES:- I) MAHAJAN & CO. ( FOR SATNAM SINGH & CO.) II) MALHAOTRA & CO. III) TEJINDER SIONGH & CO. IV) VINAY & CO. V) PURI & CO. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER STATED THAT ALL THESE PARTI ES FORMED A POOL TO AVOID COMPETITION. THE SAID POOL WAS ASSESSED UNDER THE N AME AND STYLE OF AOP OF WINE CONTRACTORS BY THE DEPTT. THE FIVE CONCERNS NO MINATED ONE MEMBER EACH TO REPRESENT IT IN THE POOL. TEJINDER SINGH WA S DEPUTED ON BEHALF OF TEJINDER SINGH & CO. THE INVESTMENT OF RS.2330839 S HOWN AGAINST THE NAME OF TEJINDER SINGH REPRESENTS THE INVESTMENT OF ALL THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM TEJINDER SINGH & CO. IN THE SAID POOL ON THE D ATE THE TRIAL BALANCE WAS DRAWN. IT HAS FULLY BEEN EXPLAINED IN THE CASE OF BOTH TEJINDER SINGH & CO. (WHICH WAS ASSESSED ON PROTECTIVE BASIS) AND IN THE CASE OF AOP OF WINE CONTRACTORS WHICH WAS ASSESSED ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS . SINCE IT HAS BEEN ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 62 CONSIDERED AND ACCEPTED THERE NO ADDITION CAN BE M ADE IN THE HANDS OF TEJINDER SINGH IN RESPECT OF ABOVE AMOUNT AS IT HAS NO CONNECTION IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED HAT ALL T HE PARTNERS OF TEJINDER SINGH & CO. WERE EARLIER ALSO IN LIQUOR TRADE AND T HEY ALL CONTRIBUTED THEIR SHARE OF CAPITAL IN THE FIRM TEJINDER SINGH & CO. W HICH AMOUNTED TO RS.27 91 000. THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT INVESTMENT OF PARTNERS IN TEJINDER SINGH & CO WAS RS.2791000 AND THE FIGURE OF RS.2351942 MUST BE REPRESENTING SOME OTHE R INVESTMENT WITHOUT EITHER AO OR CIT(A) BRINGING ANY EVIDENCE AS TO WH ICH OTHER INVESTMENT THIS AMOUNT REPRESENTED. THE SAID TRIAL BALANCE FRO M WHERE THE FIGURE OF RS.2330839 WAS PICKED ACTUALLY PERTAIN TO AOP OF WI NE CONTRACTORS AND REPRESENT THIS INVESTMENT OF TEJINDER SINGH & CO. I N THE SAID AOP FIRM. IT IS REALLY A STRANGE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT BY CIT(A) WI THOUT THEREBY BEING ANY REFERENCE OF ANY OTHER INVESTMENT. THE AO HIMSELF W HILE MAKING ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF TEJINDER SINGH & CO. ACCEPTED THE C APITAL OF THE PARTNERS OF TEJINDER SINGH & CO. THE ASSESSMENT WAS ALSO MADE I N THE HANDS OF AOP OF WINE CONTRACTORS WHICH REPRESENTED THE ABOVE NAMED FIVE FIRMS WHO HAD TAKEN CONTRACTS AT DIFFERENT PLACES IN KAPURTHALA. THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF AOP ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS AND FURTHE R ON PROTECTIVE BASIS IT WAS ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF TEJINDER SINGH & CO AN D NOW SEPARATE ADDITION ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 63 OF RS.23330339 HAS BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESS EE ALSO. THE AO HAVING ACCEPTED THE CAPITAL OF THE PARTNERS WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT OF TEJINDER SINGH & CO. AND ALSO THAT OF AOP OF WINE CONTRACTOR S CANNOT MAKE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF A DUMB PAPER. 61.2. THE LD. DR MR. TARSEM LAL ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 62. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE ARE OF THE V IEW THAT NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR ON THE BASIS OF FIGURE APPEARING IN THE TRIAL BALANCE WHEN TOTAL INVESTMENT OF THE GROUP M/S.TEJINDER SINGH & CO. IN THE FIRM OF LIQUOR TRADE AMOUNTED TO RS.27.91 LACS WHEREAS IN THE POO L I.E. AOP OF WINE CONTRACTORS THE INVESTMENT OF THIS GROUP IS ONLY R S.23 30 839/-. THE AO HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT THIS AMOUNT IS DRAWN FROM THE TRIAL BALANCE WHICH REPRESENTS CAPITAL OF M/S. TEJINDER SINGH & CO. GRO UP IN THE AOP AND ON THE OTHER HAND HE IS MAKING ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT B Y TREATING IT AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT BY M/S. TEJINDER SINGH & CO . COMPLETELY IGNORING THE FACT THAT GROUP OF M/S. TEJINDER SINGH & CO. HA D CAPITAL OF RS.27.91 LACS IN THEIR FIRM WHICH ONLY GOT MERGED IN THE AOP AS THE DEPARTMENT HAD MADE ASSESSMENT OF WINE BUSINESS OF ALL THE CONTRACTORS OF KAPURTHALA UNDER THE HEAD AOP OF ONE CONTRACTOR. IN THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES THIS ADDITION ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 64 IS NOT CALLED AND IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. HENCE GROUND 1(IX) OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 63. GROUND NO.2 IS NOT PRESSED BY THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE SAME IS COVERED UNDER GROUND NO.1(I) OF THE ASS ESSEE 64. GROUNDS NO. 3 4 5 6 & 7 ARE NOT PRESSED BY T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 65. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT A NO.450(ASR)/2011 FOR THE A.Y. 1994-95 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 66. NOW WE TAKE UP APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA N O.298(ASR)/2011 FOR THE A.Y.1995-96. IN GROUND NO.1 THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED ON THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WHICH WAS ILLEGAL AND ALSO CHALLENGED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND THE ORDER OF THE LD. C IT(A) ON THE BASIS OF SUCH ILLEGAL ORDER IS ALSO INFRUCTUOUS. 66.1. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MR. ASHWANI KALIA IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER: 1 THE ORDER PASSED BY AO IS BARRED BY LIMITATION W HICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE FOLLOWING FACTS: S.NO. PARTICULARS DATE 1 DATE OF NOTICE U/S 148 26.3.1997 ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 65 2 RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 24.6.1 997 3 ASSESSMENT REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153 31.3.1999 4 DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) 15.5.1998 5 APPLICATION FILED BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION U/S 245C 25.3.1998 6 DATE OF ORDER OF ADMITTANCE OF APPLICATION BY SETTLEMENT COMMISSION 8.3.1999 7 DATE OF ABATEMENT OF APPLICATION FILED BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION 31.12.2007 8 DATE OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY AO 30.7.2008 2 HOWEVER AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153 THE ASSESSMENT WAS REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM TH E ABATEMENT OF APPLICATION IN CASE THE TIME AFTER THE ABATEMENT LE FT AT THE DISPOSAL OF AO IS LESS THAN 60 DAYS. FROM THE SEQUENCE OF EVENT S GIVEN ABOVE IT WILL BE APPRECIATED THAT ASSESSMENT WAS TO BE COMPL ETED WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF FINANCIAL YEAR WHERE PROCEEDI NGS U/S 148 WERE INITIATED. NOW UPTO DATE OF ADMITTANCE OF APPLICATI ON BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION PERIOD OF 1 YEAR & 342 DAYS H AD ALREADY LAPSED. SINCE AFTER THE ABATEMENT OF ASSESSEES APP LICATION BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION THE AO WAS LEFT WITH ONLY 23 DAYS HE WAS ALLOWED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT WITHIN 60 DAYS I .E. BY 22.02.2008. HOWEVER AO MADE THE ASSESSMENT ON 30/7/2008 WHICH IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. YOUR HONORS KIND ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB SECTION (2D) OF SECTION 245 D WHICH READS AS UN DER: - WHERE AN APPLICATION WAS MADE UNDER SUB SECTION (1 ) OF SECTION 245C BEFORE THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE 2007 AND AN ORDER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SUB SECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION AS T HEY STOOD IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THEIR AMENDMENT BY THE FINANCE ACT 2007 AL LOWING THE APPLICATION TO HAVE BEEN PROCEEDED WITH HAS BEEN P ASSED BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2007 BUT AN ORDER UNDER THE PROVISI ONS OF SUB SECTION (4) AS THEY STOOD IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THEIR AMENDME NT BY THE FINANCE ACT 2007 WAS NOT PASSED BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF JUN E 2007 SUCH APPLICATION SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE FURTHER PROC EEDED WITH UNLESS THE ADDITIONAL TAX ON THE INCOME DISCLOSED IN SUCH APPLICATION AND THE INTEREST THEREON IS NOTWITHSTANDING ANY EXTENSION OF TIME ALREADY ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 66 GRANTED BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION PAID ON OR BE FORE THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2007 3 AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF ABOVE SECTION THE TIME L IMIT OF COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT WAS ONLY TWO MONTHS FROM 3 1.7.2007 I.E. UPTO 30.9.2007. HOWEVER EVEN IF WE GO BY THE DATE OF ORDER OF SETTLEMENT COMMISSION DATED 26.12.2007 AS A RESULT OF WHICH THE PROCEEDINGS GOT ABATED ON 31.12.2007 EVEN THEN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED ON 30.7.2008 BARRED BY LIMITATION. KINDLY R EFER TO FIRST PROVISO TO SUB SECTION 4 OF SECTION 153 WHICH READS AS UNDER:- PROVIDED THAT WHERE IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE EXCLUSIO N OF THE AFORESAID TIME OR PERIOD THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION REFERRED TO IN SUB SECTION (1) (1A) (1B) (2) (2A) AND (4) AVAI LABLE TO THE AO FOR MAKING AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT REASSESSMENT OR RECOMPUTATION AS THE CASE MAY BE IS LESS THAN SIX TY DAYS SUCH REMAINING PERIOD SHALL BE EXTENDED TO SIXTY DAYS AN D THE AFORESAID PERIOD OF LIMITATION SHALL BE DEEMED TO B E EXTENDED ACCORDINGLY 4 IN VIEW OF SUBMISSIONS MADE ABOVE THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED ON 30.7.2008 IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND IS VOID AB-IN ITIO. THIS BEING A LEGAL ISSUE MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED EVEN THOUGH NOT C HALLENGED BELOW IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. VS. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). 66.2. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND DID NOT ARGUE ANYTHING WITH REGARD TO THIS GROUND. 67. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY P ERUSED THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL MR. ASHWANI KALIA CA AND AFTER VERIFICATION OF ALL THE FACTS AND FIGURES WE ARE O F THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE AO WAS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE ASSESSMENT WITHIN 6 0 DAYS FROM THE DATE ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 67 WHEN THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE GOT ABATED BEF ORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE GOT ABA TED ON 31.12.2007 WHICH WAS EARLIER ADMITTED ON 8.3.1999. THIS IS A F ACT THAT TILL THE ADMITTANCE PERIOD FIXED OF 1 YEAR & 342 DAYS HAD ALREADY ELAPSED. THUS AFTER THE ABATEMENT ONLY THE PERIOD OF 60 DAYS WAS AVAILABLE WITH A.O. FOR FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT I.E. UPTO 28.02.2008. ACCOR DINGLY THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED ON 30.07.2008 WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND O RDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF THIS INFRUCTUOUS ORDER IS ALSO VOID AND NON-EST. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 68. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.2 WITH REGARD TO THE ADDIT ION OF RS.2 00 000/- THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE AO MADE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS: I) LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS RS.27600 II) 1/3 RD SHARE OF PROFIT ON SALE OF LAND RS.28667 III) SHARE OF PROFIT ON SALE OF SHOPS RS.42100 ------------ TOTAL RS.98367 ------------ THEREAFTER THE AO MADE A LUMP-SUM ADDITION OF RS.2 00 000/- TO COVER DECLARATION MADE BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION B Y THE ASSESSEE. 68.1 THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES BUT SUSTAINED OVERALL ADDITION OF RS.2 0 0 000/-. ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 68 69. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION SHOULD HAVE ON LY BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF SPECIFIC ADDITION MADE BY TH E AO AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF AMOUNT SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. FROM THE DETAILS OF SURRENDER MADE BEFO RE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE SURRENDER WAS MA DE ON ESTIMATE BASIS AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF ACTUAL FACTS AND FIGURES AND DO CUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. HAD THERE BEEN SPECIFI C SURRENDER DECLARING NATURE OF INVESTMENT OR PROPERTY OR INCOME THEN THI S APPROACH COULD HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED BY THE AO BUT NOT IN CASE WHERE DETA IL OF SURRENDERED INCOME IS THERE. ACCORDINGLY LUMP-SUM ADDITION OF RS.2 00 000/- IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THUS GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED. 70. GROUNDS NO. 3 4 5 & 6 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT PRESSED BY THE LD. COUNSEL AND THEREFORE THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS NO T PRESSED. THUS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 298(ASR)/2011 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 71. NOW WE TAKE UP APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA N O.299(ASR)/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.1 BEING LEGAL GROUND WHICH IS IDENTICAL TO GROUNDS NO. IN ASSESSEES A PPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 1995-96 IN ITA NO.298(ASR)/2011 DECIDED BY US HEREINABOVE AND ACCORDINGLY OUR ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 69 DECISION HEREINABOVE FOR THE A.Y. 1995-96 IS IDENT ICALLY APPLICABLE IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR AND ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO.1 OF THE AS SESSEE IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR IS ALLOWED. 72. GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS.1 76 400/ - FOR SHARE OF PROFIT ON SALE OF SHOPS. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE A.O . MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1 76 400/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SHOPS WHICH WER E PURCHASED ALONGWITH SH.GURCHARAN SINGH AND ONE MORE PERSON. THE ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS BOTH THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. 73. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES WE ARE OF THE CO NSIDERED VIEW THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY US HEREINABOVE IN ITA NO.316(ASR)/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 WHERE THE MATTER HAS BEEN SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. WITH THE DIR ECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AS DECIDED IN THE CASE OF SH. GURCHARAN SINGH AND ACCO RDINGLY BEING IDENTICAL FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE AND FOLLOWING OUR ORDER H EREINABOVE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 THE MATTER IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. WHO WILL DECIDE THE DENOVO AS DECIDED IN THE CASE OF SH . GURCHARAN SINGH BUT BY AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSE SSEE. THUS GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 70 74. GROUNDS NO. 3 TO 6 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT PRE SSED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE SAME ARE DISMIS SED AS NOT PRESSED. HENCE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.299(ASR )/2011 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 75. NOW WE TAKE UP APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA N O.300(ASR)/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.1 BEING LEGAL GROUND WHICH IS IDENTICAL TO GROUNDS NO. 1 IN ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 1995- 96 IN ITA NO.298(ASR)/2011 DECIDED BY US HEREINABO VE AND ACCORDINGLY OUR DECISION HEREINABOVE FOR THE A.Y. 1995-96 IS I DENTICALLY APPLICABLE IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR AND ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO.1 OF TH E ASSESSEE IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR IS ALLOWED. 76. GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.90 00 0/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE A O MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.90 000/- SURRENDERED BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMI SSION. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED AND THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAID ADDITION. ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 71 77. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION COULD HAVE ONL Y BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF SPECIFIC ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF AMOUNT SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT C OMMISSION. THE SURRENDER BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION WAS MADE PURELY ON ESTIMATE BASIS AND NOT ON SPECIFIC SURRENDER OF INCOME ASS ET OR INVESTMENT MADE AND THEREFORE NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR AND THE ADDITI ON SO MADE IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THUS GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED. 78. GROUNDS NO. 4 TO 6 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT PRES SED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE SAME ARE DISMIS SED AS NOT PRESSED. ACCORDINGLY APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.300(A SR)/2011 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 79. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS OF THE S.NO. ITA NO. ASSTT.YEAR APPEAL BY RESULT 1 314(ASR)/2010 1991-92 ASSESSEE PARTLY ALLOWED 2. 315(ASR)/2010 1992-93 -DO- PARTLY ALLOWED 3. 316(ASR)/2010 1993-94 -DO- PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES 4. 310(ASR)/2010 1993-94 REVENUE DISMISSED 5. 450(ASR)/2011 1994-95 ASSESSEE PARTLY ALLOWED ITA NOS.314 TO 316 310/2010 & ITA NOS. 450 298 TO 300/2011 72 6. 298(ASR)/2011 1995-96 ASSESSEE PARTLY ALLOWED 7. 299(ASR)/2011 1996-97 ASSESSEE PARTLY ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES 8. 300(ASR)/2011 1997-98 ASSESSEE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28TH APRIL 2014. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 28TH APRIL 2014 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:SH.TEJINDER SINGH KAPURTHALA. 2. THE ACIT CIR.IV / ACIT INV. CIR.2(2) JALANDHAR 3. THE CIT(A) JALANDHAR. 4. THE CIT JALANDHAR. 5. THE SR DR ITAT AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR