The The Income tax Officer, Jammu v. Sh. Manmohan Singh, Jammu

ITA 373/ASR/2012 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2013 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 37320914 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN ALRPS7640E
Bench Amritsar
Appeal Number ITA 373/ASR/2012
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant The The Income tax Officer, Jammu
Respondent Sh. Manmohan Singh, Jammu
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 29-10-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 29-10-2013
Next Hearing Date 29-10-2013
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 26-09-2012
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. NO. 373(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 PAN:ALRPS7640E INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. SH. MANMOHAN SINGH WARD-2(2) JAMMU F-163 SHAKTI NAGAR JAMMU (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. MAHAVIR SINGH SR.DR RESPONDENT BY: SH. P.N. ARORA ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING: 29.10.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29.10.2013 ORDER PER BENCH 1. THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.07.2012 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) JA MMU FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LD. CIT( A) WAS RIGHT IN APPLYING THE RATIO OF JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF M/S SARGAM CINEMA WHE N NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAS BEEN MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSE E AS THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS SALARY & RENT AL INCOME. 2 I.T.A. NO. 373(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 II. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO AMEND OR ADD ANY ONE OR MOR E GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES; THEREFORE THERE IS NO NEED TO RE PEAT THE SAME FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THAT THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS PASSED A NON-SPEAKING ORDER WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE LAW AND FACTS ON THE FILE AND THE I SSUE IN DISPUTE DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH UNDER THE LAW AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE WITH US ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ONLY IS SUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS THE ADDITION OF RS. 24 41 040/- I N THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT O F DIFFERENCE IN VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY JOINTLY OWNED BY THE ASSE SSEE WITH HIS BROTHER. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS BROTHER SH. IQBAL SINGH HAS SHOWN TO HAVE CONSTRUCTED A THREE S TOREYED COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AT SHAKTI NAGAR JAMMU. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE REGISTERED VALUERS REPORT AS WELL AS THE SOURCE OF 3 I.T.A. NO. 373(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 INVESTMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAID PROPERTY . THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED REGISTERED VALUERS REPORT WHEREIN TOTAL COST HAS BEEN SHOWN AT OF RS. 1.0274 CRORES AS AGAINST RS. 1 CRORE SHOWN B Y THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS BROTHER IS SHOWN TO HAVE OB TAINED A LOAN OF RS. 95 LAKH FROM JAMMU CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK AND BALANCE OUT OF THEIR SAVINGS. SINCE THE REGISTERED VALUERS REPORT GAVE THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION ON AN AVERAGE BASIS AND NO YEAR-WISE C OST OF CONSTRUCTION WAS PROVIDED IN THE REPORT THE CASE WAS REFERRED T O THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER TO ASCERTAIN THE CORRECT YEAR-WIS E COST OF CONSTRUCTION ON 19.10.2011. THE VALUATION REPORT DATED 27.12.201 1 WAS RECEIVED FROM THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER AMRITSAR WHEREIN THE TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION DURING THE YEAR HAS BEEN DETER MINED AT RS. 1 48 82 081/- AS AGAINST RS. 1 00 00 000/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THERE WAS DIFFERENCE OF RS. 48 82 081/- IN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION BY THE DVO AMRITSAR AND AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE THE AS SESSEE VIDE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (I N SHORT THE ACT) WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AND SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY DIFFE RENCE MAY NOT BE TREATED AS AN UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND ADDED TO H IS INCOME. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME THE ASSESSEE FILED CERTAIN OB JECTIONS TO DVOS REPORT WHICH HAVE BEEN FORWARDED TO DVO AMRITSAR. KEEPING IN VIEW 4 I.T.A. NO. 373(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 24 41 040/- AS AN UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UND ER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BY SIMP LY APPLYING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SA RGAM CINEMA DELETED THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE BY PASSING THE IMPU GNED ORDER. 5. KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LEARNED FIRST AUTHORITY HAS NOT DISCUSSED THE EVIDE NCES IN DETAIL PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE . THE REVENUE AUTHORITY HAS NOT PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER ON THE IS SUE IN DISPUTE AND HAS ALSO NOT APPRECIATED THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN DETAIL. EVEN OTHERWISE WE FOUND THAT THE LEARNED FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NOT DECIDED THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON MERIT WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. THEREFORE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED ON THE ISSU E RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY WE CANCEL THE IMPUGNED ORDER D ATED 26.07.2012 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) JAMMU AND SET ASIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH AS PER LAW AND 5 I.T.A. NO. 373(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 KEEPING IN VIEW THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE PARTI ES AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE PARTIES. 6. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH OCTOBER 2013 SD/./- SD/./- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 29 TH OCTOBER 2013 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: SH. MANMOHAN SINGH F-163 SHAKTI NAG AR JAMMU 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2) JAMMU 3. THE CIT(A) JAMMU 4. THE CIT JAMMU 5. THE SR DR I.T.A.T. ASR TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.