Sh.Aman Kumar Rana, Chandigarh v. Income Tax Officer, Chandigarh

ITA 464/CHANDI/2017 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2017 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 46421514 RSA 2017
Assessee PAN AHIPR2010M
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 464/CHANDI/2017
Duration Of Justice 8 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant Sh.Aman Kumar Rana, Chandigarh
Respondent Income Tax Officer, Chandigarh
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 28-11-2017
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 10-03-2017
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES SMC CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 464/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SHRI AMAN KUMAR RANA VS. THE ITO HOUSE NO. 367 WARD 5(4) LAMBARDAR MARKET CHANDIGARH. VILLAGE-MALOYA CHANDIGARH. PAN NO. AHIPR2010M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PARIKSHIT AGGARWAL RESPONDENT BY : SMT. CHANDER KANTA SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 02.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.11.2017 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSA ILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 10.01.2017 OF LD. CIT (APP EALS) GURGAON PERTAINING TO 2010-11 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THAT ON THE FACTS CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL POSITION OF THE CASE THE WORTHY CIT(A) IN APPEAL NO. 544/2012-13 DATED 10.01.2017 H AS ERRED IN PASSING THAT ORDER IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 2. THAT ON LAW FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE WORTHY CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO FO R MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 8 41 000/- BY ERRONEOUSLY HOLDING THAT THE CASH DEP OSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT(S) OF THE APPELLANT ARE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 2. THE LD. AR INVITING ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO CONSIDERING THE DEPOSITS IN PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK MALOYA ACCOUNT NO. 2545000100104103 OF THE ASSESS EE RS. 6 LACS RS. 2 LACS AND RS. 41 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SPECIFIC DEPOSITS MAD E ON 27/30.11.2009; ON 02.12.2009; ON 15.03.2010 RESPECTIVELY MAD E AN ADDITION OF RS. 8 41 000/-. INVITING ATTENTION TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF T HE ASSESSEE RECORDED IN PAGES 3 AND 4 OF THE ORDER IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPOS ITS OF RS. 6 LACS AND 2 LACS HAD BEEN REFUNDED BACK TO THE ASS ESSEE FROM SHRI LABH SINGH WHO HAD BEEN ENTRUSTED THE AMOUNTS TO PURCHASE AGRI CULTURAL LAND. SINCE THE DEALS DID NOT MATERIALIZE THE AMOUNTS WERE REFUNDE D. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM THE SUBMISSIONS RECORDED IN PAGE 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN PARA 2 WERE HEAVILY ITA-464-2017 A.Y.2010-11 PAGE 2 OF 4 RELIED UPON SO AS TO HIGHLIGHT THAT MORE THAN SUFFICIENT EVID ENCE WAS PLACED BEFORE THE CIT(A) FOR GRANT OF RELIEF : 2. IN REGARD TO ABOVE ADDITION WE ARE ENCL OSING FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: 1. COPY OF LTR WITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 2. COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT. 3. COPY OF RELEVANT SUBMISSION DATED 20/12/20!2 FILED BEFORE LD. AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 4. COPY OF RELEVANT SUBMISSION DATED 26/12/2012 FILED BEFORE LD. AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 5. AFFIDAVIT OF SH. LABH SINGH A LONG WITH COPY OF HIS ID PROOF. 2.1 PARA 3 OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS RELIED UPON BEFORE T HE CIT(A) EXTRACTED AT PAGE 3-4 WAS ALSO HEAVILY RELIED UPON. FOR READY REFERENCE SAME IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER : 3. REGARDING CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 8 00 000/- (6 00 000/- ON 30.11.2009 AND 2 00 000/- ON 02.12.2009) IN BANK A/C OF THE APPEL LANT THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN HOLDING THAT THIS AMOUNT HAS COME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES WAS UNJUSTIFIED AND ADDITION DESERVES TO BE DELETED. SHRI LABH SINGH IS A FRIEND OF ASSESSEE DEPUTED HIM TO LOOK FOR PURCHASING SOME AGRICULTURAL LAND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO AN IMPORTANT EVIDENCE THAT DURING THIS VERY PERIOD THE APPELLAN T-HAD PURCHASED VARIOUS AGRICULTURAL LANDS BY MAKING PAYMENTS FROM BANK A/C . THIS STAND PROVED FROM ASSESSEE'S REPLY DATED 26.12.2012 FILED BEFORE LD. AO WHICH WAS ACCEPTED AS SUCH. HENCE THE ASSESSEE WAS ROUTINELY ENGAGED IN BUYING AGRICULTURAL LANDS DURING THAT TIME AND HENCE IT WAS MORE THAN REASONABLE TO ENGAGE SH. LABH SINGH FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND ON THE BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. F OR THIS PURPOSE THE APPELLANT GAVE CASH OF RS. 10 LACS TO SH. LABH SINGH ON 29. 10.20 09 VIDE BEARER CHEQUE NO.591882 FROM HIS SAVING BANK A/C AND SAID AMOUNT WAS WITHDR AWN IN CASH BY SH. LABH SINGH ON THE SAME DAY. THE WITHDRAWAL IN CASH THROUGH THIS BEARER CHEQUE IS DULY EVIDENCED FROM ENCLOSED BANK STATEMENT. DUE TO NON MATURITY OF ANY DEAL SHRI LABH SINGH REFUNDED THE AMOUNT OUT OF WHICH RS. 6 LACS WAS DEPOSITED IN CAS H ON 30.1 1.2009 AND RS. 2 LACS ON 02.12.2009 I.E. WITHIN SPAN OF 30 DAYS FROM THE DAT E OF BANK WITHDRAWAL. ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE LD. AO WAS HIGHL Y UNJUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT' THE RELEVANT CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 6 LACS AND RS. 2 LACS WERE OUT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THIS ADDITION DESERVES TO BE DELETED DUE TO FOLLOWING CO UNTS: I. THE ASSESSEE WAS REGULARLY PURCHASING THE AGRICU LTURAL LAND DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD AND HENCE GIVING OF ADVANCE TO SH. LABH SINGH FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY RECEIVED B ACK COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND THE TRANSACTION WAS GENUINE AND CI RCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. II. THE AMOUNT OF RS. 10.00 LACS WAS GIVEN TO SH. LABH SINGH BY MAKING CASH WITHDRAWAL FROM ASSESSEE'S BANK ACCOUNT. THIS FACT HAD REMAINED UNDISPUTED. DUE TO NON- MATURITY' OF ANY DEAL IN RESPECT OF THIS AMOUNT AM OUNT WAS REFUNDED BACK AND WAS DEPOSITED IN HANK ACCOUNT. THE RELEVANT WITHDRAWAL AND DEPOSIT BACK IN HANK ACCOUNT IS WITHIN SPAN OF 30 DAYS. THEREFORE THE TRANSACTION IN QUESTION WAS GENUINE AND SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 6 LACS ON 30.11.2009 AND RS. 2 LACS ON 02.12.2009 WAS OUT OF WITHDRAWAL OF RS.10 LACS ON 29.10.2009 VIA SH. LABH SINGH. THE LD. AO HAS FAILED LO APPRECIATE THESE FACTS AND THEREFORE HAS ERRED IN M AKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 8 LACS. III. THE AFFIDAVIT OF SH. LABH SINGH FURTHER STRENGTHENS THE STAND AND CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT. 2.2 ON THE BASIS OF THESE FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS IT WAS SU BMITTED THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE DISMISSAL OF ASSESSEE'S CLAIM ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS WAS PATENTLY CONTRARY TO FACTS AND EVIDENCES ON RECORD : ITA-464-2017 A.Y.2010-11 PAGE 3 OF 4 4.3. I HAVE GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ARGU MENTS OF THE APPELLANT AND FIND THAT IN THE VERSION PUT FORTH OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE CASH WAS HANDED OVER TO SH. LABH SINGH ON A MUCH EARLIER DATE BEING 29.10.2009 WHICH REMAINED I DLE WITH THAT PERSON OR QUITE SOME TIME AND IN THE MEANTIME THE APPELLANT STARTED MAKING MO RE WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK FOR PURCHASING LANDS. THE AMOUNT FROM LABH SINGH RETURN ED ON THE DATES ON WHICH THERE ARE CREDIT ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT FOR WHICH ADDITI ON OF RS. 8.00.000''- AND 4 LOGO/- HAS BEEN MADE. THE FACTORS WHICH MAKE THIS VERSION OF APPELL ANT IMPROBABLE INCLUDE THAT THERE HAS BEEN LOT OF CASH ACTIVITY IN BETWEEN 29.10.2009 (DATE ON WHICH CASH ALLEGEDLY GIVEN TO LABH SINGH) AND 30.11.2009 02.12.2009 AND 15.03.2010 (DATES ON WHI CH CASH HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN BANKS) MOREOVER WHY ENTIRE MONEY WAS NOT RETURNED BY SH. LABH SINGH IN ONE GO. IN CONSIDERATION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TH E ARGUMENT IS UNACCEPTABLE. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 2.3 IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY HAD BEEN PURCHASING AS PER RECORD AGRICULTURAL LANDS WITH THE HELP OF SHRI LABH SINGH. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDL Y AS PER RECORD PURCHASED SMALL PIECES OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS DURING THE SPE CIFIC PERIOD AND THE LANDS HAD BEEN PURCHASED THROUGH THE HELP OF HIS FRIE ND DISCLOSING CORRECT AND TRUE AMOUNTS. AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE AS W ELL AS SHRI LABH SINGH AFFIRMING THESE FACTS IT WAS SUBMITTED WAS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE WAS A TIME LAG OF TW O DAYS BY WHICH THE AMOUNTS WERE RETURNED BY TWO SEPARATE DEPOSITS BY S HRI LABH SINGH WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE TRANSACTION NOT BEING FRUCTIFIED THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION HAS PURELY BEEN MADE O N SUSPICIONS AND MAINTAINED ON SUSPICIONS MAY BE DELETED. 4. THE LD. SR.DR RELIES UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. I FIND THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE T HE ADDITION ON FACTS WAS NOT WARRANTED. WHEREAS THE AO MISDIRECTED HIMSELF BY CONS IDERING THAT THE ADVANCE WAS BY THE FRIEND IGNORING HIS REPLY DATED 20.12.2 012 REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE UPHOLDING TH E ADDITION OF RS. 8 41 000/- THOUGH ACCEPTS THE FACT THAT RS. 10 LACS WAS HANDED OVER BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHRI LABH SINGH FOR PURCHASING LANDS DISBELIEVES THE RE FUND OF THE SAME IN TWO INSTALMENTS ON THE GROUND THAT WHY IT COULD NOT BE REFUNDED BACK AT ONE GO. I FIND THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REASON S TO THE CONTRARY EXCEPT THE SUSPICION THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE REJECTED. IT IS SEEN THAT THE TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN AFFIRMED BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT S OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES. THE CONTENTS OF THE AVERMENT AND ARGUMENTS HA VE NOT BEEN ASSAILED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY EVIDENCE OR SUBMISSION T HE ADVANCE OF FUNDS FROM ASSESSEE TO SHRI LABH SINGH HAVING BEEN ACCEPTED T HE ARGUMENT SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVIT THAT IT WAS REFUNDED AS THE PURCHA SE DEALS DID NOT ITA-464-2017 A.Y.2010-11 PAGE 4 OF 4 FRUCTIFY CONSISTENTLY O N RECORD IS ACCEPTED. THE ADDITIO N FOR WANT OF ANY CONTRARY EVIDENCE IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. SAID ORDER WAS PRON OUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH NOV. 2017. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT CHANDIGARH.