NAKLI RAM,PANIPAT vs. ITO, WARD-3, PANIPAT

PER DIVA SINGH, JM

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee wherein the correctness of the order dated 22.06.2021 passed by NFAC, Delhi as per First Appellate Authority, pertaining to A.Y.2011-12 assessment year is assailed on various grounds of appeal which reads as under :-

2 ITA No.953/Del/2021

3 ITA No.953/Del/2021

objection and submitted that the assessee has quoted a wrong PAN

Number. Inviting attention to the impugned order it was submitted that

the correct PAN was DUXPR0096D. Inviting attention to Form No.36

filed by the assessee it was shown that the assessee has mentioned

PAN No.CSGPS9068A.

2.1. The AR inviting attention to the copy of Revised Form No.35 filed

submitted the assessee has corrected the defect as in the same correct

PAN number has been mentioned.

land belonging to two brothers was sold at a specific price. The

4 ITA No.953/Del/2021

assessee’s brother Sh. Roshan Lal was represented through his widow

Bugly Devi. It is an admitted fact that both the brothers had equal share

in the ownership of the said agricultural land. It is a fact that the

Assessing Officer was seized of deposits made in the bank account of

Smt. Bugly Devi widow of Sh. Roshan Lal. During these enquiries her

son Sh. Krishan Kumar stated that the amount has been deposited in

the name of his parents. The Assessing Officer considering the deposits

made in the present assessee’s bank account concluded that the Sh.

Krishan Kumar has already accepted the fact that money were

deposited in the bank account of Sh. Bugli Devi and hence made the

addition in the hands of the assessee by passing an order u/s. 144/147

of the Act. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the First

Appellate Authority pleading lack of opportunity etc.

to him which had been directed by the Coordinate Bench on 11.07.2022

submitted that notice had been sent by speed post though it had been

returned back unserved. Accordingly lack of valid notice is emanating

for the record itself. Reverting back to the other arguments advanced

before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee agitated that the AO has relied on

the submission of Sh. Krishan Kumar who was his nephew and not his

5 ITA No.953/Del/2021

son and had no authority to make any statement on behalf of the

assessee. Reliance has been was placed upon the sale deed of the

agricultural land and lack of opportunity has also been pleaded before

the First Appellate Authority. The Ld. AR in the said back drop

submitted that the ownership of the land at village Shehrpur, Teshsil

Nukud District Saharanpur U.P. belonging to the assessee and his

brothers Late Sh. Roshan Lal at the relevant point of time is not

disputed. It has been sold at a specific price; Copy of agreement

between the parties was filed as an additional evidences which had any

way been seen by the Assessing Officer in the case of Late Sh. Roshan

Lal the sale of the said property is also not in dispute, the amounts are

deposited in terms of the same sale deed always available to the

Assessing Officer. In the situation the addition made in the hands of the

assessee both an assumption of jurisdiction as well as on merits it was

prayed may be deleted.

orders of the authorities below. It is seen that the assessee has

vehemently contested the issue before the CIT(A) on assumption of

6 ITA No.953/Del/2021

jurisdiction as well as on merits. The reliance placed on statement of a

nephew under the incorrect assumption that it was the assessee’s son

is misplaced lack of opportunity is patently evident from the record.

Even on merits considering the facts wherein the ownership of the

assessee of the stated property consisting of ancestral agricultural land

at the relevant point of time is not in dispute.

It sale at the price at the relevant point of time is also not in

dispute; the share of assessee in the said property is also not in

dispute. In these circumstances the addition made and sustained on

facts cannot be upheld. On considering the record and going through

the submission the addition is directed to be deleted. The said order

was pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself.

Said order was pronounced in the open court on 28th October,

2022.

Sd/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ` *NEHA, Sr. Private Secretary* Date:- 28.10.2022

7 ITA No.953/Del/2021