Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
आदेश/Order
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 5.12.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Patiala [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’].
It is noticed that this is the second round of appeal before the Tribunal. Earlier the appeal was filed by the assessee against the ex-parte order dated 19.1.2016 of the CIT(A). The Tribunal vide order dated 18.5.2016 passed in has remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for decision afresh, thereby, the Ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order against which the assessee has preferred the present appeal. -Chd-2020 Shri Harinder Singh Jahangir, Sangrur 2 3. The assessee in this appeal has taken following grounds of appeal:-
1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer by assessing the Income at Rs. 9,05,200/- against the returned income of Rs. 1,07,500/-.
2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,87,700/- on account of household expenses as per para 4.3 of the order.
Notwithstanding the above said ground of appeal, the confirmation of addition of Rs. 1,87,700/- is on the higher side.
4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 6 lacs on account of deposits in the regular bank account of the assessee.
5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the documentary evidences and submissions as made by the during the remand proceedings and submissions as already made before him.
6. That the addition has been made against the facts and circumstances of the case.
That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.
Ground No.1 : Vide ground No.1, the assessee has agitated the action of the CIT(A) in confirming the assessment of the income of the assessee at Rs. 9,05,200/- against the returned income of Rs. 1.07,500/-, however, a perusal of the subsequent grounds of appeal reveal that assessee has challenged individually each of the addition confirmed by the CIT(A), which are being discussed accordingly in subsequent paragraphs. -Chd-2020 Shri Harinder Singh Jahangir, Sangrur
3 Thus, ground No.1 of the appeal being general in nature does not require any specific adjudication.
Ground Nos.2 & 3: Vide ground Nos.2 & 3, the assessee has agitated the action of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,87,700/- on account of house hold expenses. The Ld. Counsel has submitted the issue raised vide these grounds is not pressed. A written note in this respect has also been given in the submissions dated 1.07.2020, whereby, it has been stated that the addition made on account of household expenses is not pressed.
In view of this, ground Nos. 2 & 3 stand dismissed as ‘not pressed’.
Ground Nos. 4 to 6 : Vide these grounds, the assessee has agitated the confirmation of addition of Rs. 6 lacs on account of cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee in this respect has invited our attention to the impugned order of the CIT(A) and the evidences brought on record to submit that the aforesaid deposit of Rs. 6 lacs in the bank account of the assessee was on account of earnest money received by the assessee along with brothers namely Jugraj Singh and Baljinder Singh Jahangir at the time of execution of the ‘agreement to sell’ with the proposed purchaser of their property namely Shri Baldev Singh in April 2007. It has been further submitted that the said deed did not get mature and the agreement was rescinded on 27.9.2007 and the amount received was returned to the said proposed purchaser. The assessee in this respect has relied upon the copy of -Chd-2020 Shri Harinder Singh Jahangir, Sangrur
4 the agreement to sell. During the remand proceedings, the Assessing Officer has summoned the said proposed purchaser Shri Baldev Singh and examined him to verify the genuineness of the transactions. Shri Baldev Singh in his statement dated 6.3.2019 recorded before the Assessing Officer has categorically stated that an agreement was executed by him with the assessee and his brothers and he had paid Rs. 6 lacs in lieu of that. He also explained the source of his said income being agricultural income. He has also stated on oath that the said agreement to sell did not mature and the amount of Rs. 6 lacs was received back by him from the assessee. Apart from that, the Assessing Officer has also examined Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, Advocate who has confirmed that the said agreement dated 27.4.2007 was typed on his dictation and he has put his seal and signature on the said document and even both the parties put their signatures in his presence on the said agreement.
The assessee in the circumstances has not only produced the copy of the agreement but has also got the statement recorded of the said purchaser of the property from whom the money was received and even has also got examined the witness of the said agreement who has confirmed that the said agreement was even dictated by him, typed by typist and he has also put his signature and seal on the said agreement. The assessee, therefore, has discharged his burden beyond doubt and the Income-tax authorities could not bring anything in rebuttal to prove that the said amount was not out of the earnest money received from the said purchaser Shri Baldev Singh. Under the circumstances, the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) is not sustainable and the same is accordingly ordered to be deleted.
These grounds are accordingly allowed.
-Chd-2020 Shri Harinder Singh Jahangir, Sangrur 5 7. Ground No.7: This ground is general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed. Order pronounced on 08.12.2020.