RANJIT SINGH DHALIWAL,JALANDHAR vs. DCIT, (INTL. TAXATION), CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds:

The order of CIT (appeal) is based on personal assumption, doubts, suscpicion, without facts & findings.

CIT(appeal) fails to consider the fact that the ex-parte order has been made without any fault & knowledge of assessee. Assessee should be given fair chance to explain his position & his documents should not be rejected merely on doubts.

CIT (appeal) statement based on illogical reasons & without facts while mentioning that preparation of cash flow statement after 10 years defies any logic.

CIT (appeal) is wrong while not considering AO request that he needs more time to verify & submit reply on additional evidences.

CIT (appeal) fails to consider that AO found nothing wrong in additional evidences rather he stated that he might consider all documents related to sale of property & cash flow statement if given at the time of assessment. 6. CIT(appeal) is wrong while not making any reference regarding notarized affidavits of persons accepting that they have paid money for purchase of property.

CIT (appeal) is wrong while rejection of bianas/agreement for purchase of property on doubts,suscpicions,illogical grounds which are not sustainable in law. He fails to consider that deal of property was not matured to family dispute.

CIT (appeal) fails to consider wrong interest calculation by AO.

The order of the learned CIT (appeal) is against the law and fact of the case, CT (appeal) fails to consider the fact that deposit made in a bank account does not necessarily indicate that these deposit constitute an income which has escape assessment.

CIT (appeal) fails to consider reply of AO that if assessee had shown all document related to sale of property and cash flow statement to AO during assessment proceedings, the same might have been taken into consideration by the AO.

CIT (appeal) fails to consider the facts that order has been made ex party without any fault & knowledge of assessee. Assessee should not suffer due to negligence of bank or AO.

CIT (appeal) totally wrong while replying on AO statement that additional evidences should not be accepted at this stage because these are not additional evidences rather evidences which could not be given due to ex party assessment without any fault of assessee.

CIT (appeal) fails to consider cash flow statement filed by assessee even if CIT (appeal) version has been accepted that iqrarnamas/ bianas cannot be verified at this stage even then tax should be charged on peak of cash flow statement drawn after ignoring iqrarnamas/ bianas amount and not on whole deposit amount.

CIT (appeal) is totally wrong while not considering in his order about documentary evidences given to him in shape of duly notarized affidavits of persons accepting that they have paid money for purchase of property & deal was not matured due to legal issues with property.

CIT (appeal) statement based on assumptions & illogical reasons while mentioning that preparation of cash flow statement ten years after actual deposits defies any logic. While mentioning this CIT (appeal) forgot that it is the revenue department which has asked assessee to explain cash deposit after ten years.

CIT (appeal) is totally wrong while mentioning that iqrarnamas/ Bianas lacked registration and therefore did not have sufficient evidential value but fails to consider the fact that assessee has provided him copy of hon'ble high court judgment that unregistered iqrarnamas/ Bianas are valid under law.

CIT (appeal) is totally wrong while mentioning that number of opportunities h been granted to assesse and further evidences have been produced every time, while mentioning this he forgot that assesse was out of India.

CIT (appeal) is totally wrong while mentioning that as iqrarnamas are unregistered documents so date of which cannot be verified. While mentioning

CIT (appeal) is totally wrong while mentioning that possibility of fabrication in iqraranamas/bianas cannot be ruled out. CIT (appeal) version is purely based on his personal assumptions without any logic, verification, facts & evidences.

CIT (appeal) is in so much hurry to complete assessment that he fails to consider AO request that he need more time for submission of reply on additional evidence submitted by the assessee.

CIT (appeal) fails to consider that AO nowhere disagrees with assessee's cash flow statement or iqrarnamas/ Bianas rather he takes different plea which are illogical & without facts.

CIT (appeal) is totally wrong while mentioning that as deal of property never matured leads to suspicion. While mentioning this he forgot that assessee provided reasons & documentary evidences for non materialization of deal.

CIT(A) is totally wrong while relying on AO version that Iqrarnamas cannot be verified as there are issues with title of land but both are different things , fully verifiable & documents of ownership of land are also provided to CIT(A).

CIT(A) fails to consider wrong interest calculated by AO .

In the revised grounds at Sl. No. 2 the assessee has taken a plea that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that an ex -parte order has been passed by the Assessing Officer without any fault and knowledge of the assessee.

During the hearing before us, Ld. AR argued that the assessee is a Canadian Citizen and not residing in India and hence could not receive the notices issued by the Income Tax Department which led to completion of the assessment proceedings under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was also submitted that given an opportunity, since proper instructions were given to the residents living at 7 Green Enclave V&PO Ladhewali, Jalandhar, Punjab 144007 to receive all the notices of the department, due compliances would be made.

We observe that the assessment order has been passed under section 144 of Income Tax Act,1961 and also that the Ld. CIT(A) has not dealt with the iqrarnamas filed by the assessee in detail. Hence we find it fit to remand the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer to frame the assessment denovo after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also hereby direct that the assessee would not misuse the opportunity given and submit all the relevant documents promptly as required before the Assessing Officer and

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) The DR 5.