ITO, Sangrur v. Sh. Harmohinder Singh, Sangrur

ITA 331/CHANDI/2011 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 33121514 RSA 2011
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 331/CHANDI/2011
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
Appellant ITO, Sangrur
Respondent Sh. Harmohinder Singh, Sangrur
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 27-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 27-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 06-07-2011
Next Hearing Date 06-07-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 29-03-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH CHAN DIGARH BEFORE SHRI D K SRIVASTAVA AM AND MS.SUSHMA CHOWLA JM ITA NO. 331/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 INCOME TAX OFFICER V. SHRI HARMOHINDER SINGH SUNAM HEADQUARTER S/O SHRI DALIP SINGH SANGRUR. VILL. CHHAJLI SUNAM SANGRUR. PAN : APPELLANT BY: SMT.JAISHREE SHARMA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI JASPAL SHARMA ORDER D K SRIVASTAVA: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 24.01.201 1 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.12 84 892/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COGENT PROOF OF HAVING RECEIVED THE AMOUNT OFRS .12 LACS AS ADVANCE FROM THE ALLEGED PURCHASERS OF ASSESSEE'S L AND WHEREAS NO SUCH TRANSFER HAD ACTUALLY TAKEN PLACE. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN GIVING RELIEF BY RELYING UPON THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS ONUS OF PROVING THE AVAILABILITY OF C ASH WITH THE ALLEGED PURCHASERS. 3. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN GIVING RELIEF BY STATING THAT THE AO HAD RECORDED HER SATISFACTION W.R.T. THE TRANSACTION WITHOUT APPREC IATING THE FACT THAT THE AO HAD MERELY REPORTED WHAT HAD BEEN DEPOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAD NEVER RECORDED HER SATISFACTION IN THIS REG ARD. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH SMT. SONIA D/O SHRI SUKHDEV KUMAR PURCHASED LAND ME ASURING 1200 SQ. YDS. ON 27.02.2006 FOR A SUM OF RS.13 22 000/-. THE SHAR E OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE SAID PROPERTY WAS 1070 SQ. YDS. FOR WHICH STAMP DUTY AMOUNTING TO RS.1 19 000/- WAS PAID. THE ASSESSEE THUS INVESTED A SUM OF RS.12 84 892/- IN THE SAID PROPERTY. ASSESSMENT HO WEVER WAS COMPLETED EX-PARTE U/S 144. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE AFORESAID IN VESTMENT THE AO ITA 331/CHD/2011 HARMOHINDER SINGH SANGRUR 2 TREATED THE IMPUGNED SUM AS UNEXPLAINED AND CONSEQU ENTLY ADDED THE SAME TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT TO FILE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TOGETHER WITH HIS EXPLANATION REGARDING THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE IMPUGNED INVESTMENTS BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REPORT FROM THE AO ON THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASS ESSEE BEFORE HIM AS REGARDS THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE IMPUGNED INVES TMENT. BY HER REPORT DATED 20.12.2010 THE AO INFORMED THE CIT(A) AS UND ER: IN THIS RESPECT SHRI HARMOHINDER SINGH WAS ASKED T O STATE THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT SAN GRUR ALONGWITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. SHRI HARMOHINDER SI NGH IN HIS REPLY STATED THAT THE LAND AT SANGRUR WAS PURCHASED BY HIM FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.12 LACS. HE FURTHER STATED THAT HE IS AN AGRICULTURIST AND HE JOINTLY OWN 160 KANALS OF LAND . HIS SHARE OF LAND COMES TO 27 KANALS APPROX (I.E. 3 ACRES) COPY OF FARD JAMABANDI AS AN EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP OF LAND (COPY ENCLOSED) WAS OBTAINED AND THE SAME IS ENCLOSED.IT WAS FURTHE R STATED THAT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 HE DECIDED TO SAL E HIS SHARE OF LAND FOR RS.21 15 000/- AND FOR THIS PURPOSE HE EN TERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH SHRI ANGREJ SINGH S/O SHRI BUDH SING H RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHER TEHSIL JAKHAL ON 10.10.2005. AS PER T HE TERMS OF AGREEMENTS SHRI ANGREJ SINGH PAID RS.6 LACS AS EARN EST MONEY TO SHRI HARMOHINDER SINGH ON 10.10.2005 AND THE DATE O F REGISTRY WAS 30.01.2006. ON 29.01.2006 THE DATE OF REGISTRY WAS EXTENDED TILL 30.04.2006 AND RS.6 LAC MORE WERE PAID BY SHRI ANGREJ SINGH AS PART OF EARNED MONEY. COPY OF AGREEMENT TO SELL HAS BEEN OBTAINED AND THE SAME IS ENCLOSED. SUMMON WAS ALSO ISSUED TO SHRI ANGREJ SINGH SHRI AN GREJ SINGH IN HIS STATEMENT CONFIRMED THE CONTENTS OF AGREEMENT. REGARDING SOURCES OF PAYMENT IT WAS STATED THAT HE JOINTLY AL ONG WITH HISBROTHER/COUSINS OWNS 50 ACRES OF AGRICULTURE LAN D. COPY OF FARD HAS BEEN FILED WHICH IS ENCLOSED. THE PAYMENT TO SHRI HARMOHINDER SINGH WAS MADE OUT OF HIS AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS. COPY OF AGRICULTURE ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF KACHHA AARTHIA NAMELY M/S SINGLA ENTERPRISES JAKHAL MANDI HAS ALSO BEEN FILED (COPY ENCLOSED). SHRI ANGREJ SINGH HAS S OLD AGRICULTURE CROP FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.22 37 197/- DURING TH E FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06. COPIES OF FORM J HAVE BEEN FILED WHIC H ARE ENCLOSED. ON 30.04.2006 THE REGISTRY COULD NOT BE E FFECTED AS SHRI HARMOHINDER SINGH COULD NOT LEGALLY GET HIS LA ND PORTIONED AS SUCH THE AGREEMENT WITH SHRI ANGREJ SINGH WAS MU TUALLY ITA 331/CHD/2011 HARMOHINDER SINGH SANGRUR 3 CANCELLED AND HE RETURNED THE FULL AMOUNT OF EARNED MONEY AMOUNTING TO RS.12 LACS WITH ADDITIONAL RS.3 00 000 /- ON 14.06.2010. THIS AMOUNT OF RS.15 00 000/- WAS PAID OUT OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF LAND AT SANGRUR. 4. IN VIEW OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE AO THE L D. CIT(A) HAS HELD AS UNDER : 5.4 IN HIS COUNTER REPLY TO AOS REPORT THE COUNS EL FOR THE APPELLANT STATES THAT SHE HAS SATISFIED HERSELF REGARDING THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT THEREFORE NO REASON REMAINS TO CONTINUE WITH THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. 5.5 IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND CONTENTIONS OF THE C OUNSEL I FIND THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO CONTINUE WITH THE ADDITION. IN VIEW OF THE AOS REPORT THE SAME IS DELETED. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) THE DEPARTMENT IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. PERUSAL OF THE O RDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) SHOWS THAT THE AO HIMSELF HAS CHOSEN NOT TO REBUT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. IN OTHER WORDS HE HAS HIMSE LF CERTIFIED ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSE E REGARDING THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE IMPUGNED INVESTMENT. IT IS FOR TH IS REASON THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. THE FINDI NGS RECORDED BY THE AO IN HER REPORT DATED 20.12.2010 HAVE NOT BEEN REBUTT ED BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE US. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED. APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 27 TH JULY 2011. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (D K SRIVASTAVA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 27 TH JULY 2011 POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE D.R INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT CHANDIGARH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT CHANDIGARH