SH.AMANDEEEP SINGH B-XXIX/51/1,,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-V(1), LUDHIANA

आदेश/ORDER PER BENCH

It was a common stand of the parties before the Bench that in these appeals the issues arising for consideration before the ITAT are identical as these arise for consideration

ITA 442 & 670/CHD/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 Page 2 of 7

in the light of identical directions given by the jurisdictional

High Court in ITA 181/2016 and 207/2016.

arguments advanced in ITA 442/CHD/2015 would fully apply

to the facts and submissions in ITA 670/CHD/2015 as the

issues raised are identical.

Chanderkanta were heard. The relevant facts are that

addition was made to the returned income of the assessees

by way of respective orders passed u/s 148 of the Income

Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer relying on the

statement of Shri Jaswant Singh and considering cash seized

made an addition of Rs. 67 lakh and Rs. 68 lakh respectively

in the case of Shri Amandeep Singh and Shri Jagpreet Singh,

the two assessees herein holding that extra amount was paid

in cash to the seller of the property. A perusal of the record

shows that cash of above 2 crores was seized by the police

from the factory premises of M/s Sagar Engineering Works,

419 Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana. Warrant of Authorization

under sub-section (1) of Section 132A of the Income Tax

Act,1961 was issued and the statement of Mr. Jaswant Singh

was recorded. He was the erstwhile part owner of the

property which had been sold by him to the assessee. These

ITA 442 & 670/CHD/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 Page 3 of 7

assessment orders were challenged in appeal before the

CIT(A) who confirmed the additions made vide his order

dated 10.06.2015. Said orders were challenged before the

ITAT. The ITA T vide order dated 22.12.2015 in ITA

670/CHD/2015 deleted the addition. Similarly, in the cases

of the other purchasers, the addition made met a similar

fate. These orders in the case of these two assessees were

challenged by the Revenue in appeal before the Hon'ble High

Court. In the case of the third brother who was also a co-

purchaser of the property, due to low tax effect the finding of

the ITAT was not unsettled. Considering the position on

facts and law, the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to

remand the issue back to the ITAT with the following

directions :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-181-2016 (O&M) Date of decision:- 10.05.2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Ludhiana ……………Appellant(s) Versus Jagpreet Singh …………..Respondent ITA-207-2016 (O&M) Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Ludhiana ..,Appellants Versus Amandeep Singh ….. .Respondent

ITA 442 & 670/CHD/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 Page 4 of 7 CORAM; HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL Present:- Mr. Zora Singh Klar, Advocate, for the appellant(s). Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. H.P.S. Sandhu, Advocate, for the respondents. * * *

S.J. VAZIFDAR, C.J. (ORAL) “These two appeals are under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Tribunal allowing the respondents'/assessees' appeals against the order of the CIT (Appeals') confirming the Assessing Officer's order. The matters pertain to the assessment year 2010-2011. 2. As we intend remanding the matters, it is necessary to refer to the disputes briefly : One Jaswant Singh and his son Rahul Sagar had purchased a property in the year 2008. Jaswant Singh had a 75% interest therein and his son had a 25% interest therein. In March, 2010, they sold the property to three brothers. Two of the brothers are the respondents in the above appeals. An appeal has not been filed against the third brother on the ground of tax effect. Jaswant Singh and Rahul Sagar had filed an FIR alleging that an amount of about Rs. 2 crores in cash was stolen from their premises. They ultimately allegedly stated that the cash was obtained in respect of the sale of the property by them to the respondents herein and to the third brother. It is in view of this that proceedings were initiated against the respondents/assessees. The Assessing Officer added the amounts in proportion of the shares of the respondents and their brother to their respective incomes. 3. The order of the Tribunal notes that the respondents had not been given inspection of certain documents especially one of the statements made by Jaswant Singh and his bank statements and the books of account. The respondents further alleged that they were not permitted to cross-examine their vendors. The appellants on the other hand contend that the respondents and their brother refused to avail the opportunity of cross-examination on the ground that they had not been given inspection of the documents. 4. Considering the facts of these cases, the matters ought not to rest by default. It is necessary for the authorities to consider all the facts and decide the matter on merits. 5. The appeals are, therefore, disposed of by the following order:- (i) The impugned order and judgement is set aside and remanded to the Tribunal. It will be open to the Tribunal to decide the matter in such a manner as

ITA 442 & 670/CHD/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 Page 5 of 7

it thinks fit including by remanding the matter further, if necessary, especially for the purposes of adducing the evidence. (ii) The respondents shall on or before 20.05.2017 inform the appellants in writing the documents that they desire. The appellants shall respond to the same in writing. If any of the documents are not available with the appellants, they shall state so in writing. Needless to add that it will be open to the respondents in that event to obtain the documents in accordance with law. The parties shall thereafter be afforded an opportunity of being heard and of cross-examining the relevant witnesses. Sd/- (S.J.VAZIFDAR) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE (emphasis supplied)

submitted that in pursuance to the directions given by the

Hon'ble High Court, he has filed copy of the letter on

19.05.2017 before Pr. CIT-2, Ludhiana seeking certain

documents. Reply of the AO in response to the letter is

available stating that some of these documents are available.

Letters dated 07.06.2017 and 06.06.2017 of the AO were

referred to. However, the complete information sought, it was

submitted, till date has not been provided to him.

4.1 It was his prayer that in the circumstances the matter

may be remanded to the AO so that necessary documents can

be confronted to the assessee and opportunity to cross

examine Shri Jaswant Singh as directed by Hon'ble High

Court may be availed of by the assessees.

ITA 442 & 670/CHD/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 Page 6 of 7

documents are available with her and she stated that these

can be provided. The prayer for remand was not objected to

by her as she fairly conceded that the issue can be decided

only after the assessee has cross-examined Shri Jaswant

Singh and for enabling the tax authorities to comply with the

directions of the Hon'ble Court, the matter may be remanded

back to the AO.

material available on record. In the facts of the present

case, admittedly the opportunity to cross examine Shri

Jaswant Singh was made available to the assessee by the tax

authorities as noted by the Hon'ble Court in para 3 extracted

in the earlier part of this order, however in the absence of

documents relied upon by the Re venue, the opportunity to

cross-examine was not availed of. These facts have been

noted by the Hon'ble High Court in para 3 of the aforesaid

decision. Accordingly, in the light of the prayer of the

parties before the Bench and on a consideration of the

material available on record, we agree that it would be

appropriate and in the interests of justice to re mand the

issue back to the AO with the direction to confront the

relevant documents relied upon to the assessee and provide

the assessee an effective opportunity to cross-examine Shri

ITA 442 & 670/CHD/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 Page 7 of 7

Jaswant Singh in terms of the mandate of the jurisdictional

High Court. Said order was pronounced in the Open Court

at the time of hearing itself.

for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 24 t h July,2019.

Sd/- Sd/-

( अ�नपूणा� गु�ता ) ( �दवा �संह ) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (DIVA SINGH) लेखा सद�य/ Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य/ Judicial Member “पूनम” आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant – 1. ��यथ�/ The Respondent – 2. आयकर आयु�त/ CIT4. 3. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File 6.

आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar