ITO, W-3(5), CHANDIGARH vs. SHRI LAKHBIR SINGH, ZIRAKPUR

आदेश/Order

Per Sudhanshu Srivastava, Judicial Member:

1531-C-2021- Sh. Lakhbir Singh, Zirakpur 2 3. A perusal of the record shows that the return of income declaring an income of Rs. 2,09,730/- was filed by the assessee. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny under CASS on the basis of AIR information regarding cash deposits exceeding Rs. 10,00,000/- in assessee’s savings bank account with Yes Bank Ltd., Zirakpur. The assessment was completed at an income of Rs. 2,76,21,953/-. The Assessing officer made an addition of Rs. 2,50,00,000/-, being cash paid by one M/s Bajwa Developers. Ltd. to the assessee on account of sale consideration of land purchased by it but not accounted for by the buyer in its books of account. This amount was added in the hands of the assessee on protective basis for want of confirmation from the buyer and was added on substantive basis in the case of M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the protective addition in the hands of the assessee on the ground that he had confirmed the substantive addition in the hands of M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd. 3.1 Against this deletion, the Department has approached this Tribunal challenging the action of the Ld. CIT(A) by raising following grounds of appeal:-

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing appeal of the assessee without appreciating the facts of the case.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law by deleting the protective addition made in the hands of assessee (seller) solely on the ground that substantive 1531-C-2021- Sh. Lakhbir Singh, Zirakpur 3 addition has already been made in the hand of another assessee (buyer) without going into the merits of the addition and facts of the case.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in, ignoring the fact that the assessee is the ultimate beneficiary of the cash deposited in his bank account and the buyer of the land has denied making any cash payment to the assessee as part of sale consideration which was claimed to the source of cash deposit by the assessee.

before the appeal is heard or disposed off.

5. It is prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) be cancelled and that of the assessing officer may be restored.

4.0 At the outset, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that after the confirmation of the substantive addition in the hands of M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd, that Company had opted for settlement of tax dispute under the ‘Vivad Se Visvas Scheme, 2020’ and she also placed on record copy of the assessment order dated 21.03.2016, wherein, the addition on substantive basis was made by the Assessing officer. On a query from the Bench, the Ld. Sr. DR could not dispute the fact that the impugned amount of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- already stood taxed in the hands of M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd on substantive basis. Therefore, keeping in mind the settled principle that the same income cannot be taxed twice, we find no merit in the appeal filed by the Department and we dismiss the same.

1531-C-2021- Sh. Lakhbir Singh, Zirakpur 4 5.0 In the final result, the appeal of the Department stands dismissed.

Order pronounced on 27.04.2022.