SH. HARMINDER SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, CHANDIGARH

PER DIVA SINGH

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 27.09.2016 of CIT(A)-2 Chandigarh pertaining to 2009-10 assessment year on various grounds. 2. However, at the time of hearing, an adjournment application was moved on behalf of the assessee seeking time. Considering ground No. 1 raised by the assessee in the present appeal, it could be decided without hearing the assessee, it was deemed appropriate to reject the adjournment application and pass order after hearing ld. Sr.DR. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee in the present appeal reads as under : “That the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in not admitting the additional evidence of the appellant”. 3. The relevant facts of the case are that the assessee as per assessment order is working in Chandigarh Transport Undertaking as a conductor and has shown a gross salary income of Rs. 1,74,295/-. The case was picked up for scrutiny under CASS on account of cash deposits in his Saving Bank account leading to the addition of Rs. 34,25,250/-. The assessee explained that the cash deposits of Rs. 76,45,250/- were the sale proceeds of agricultural land. Copy of the Registry of land done by Sub Registrar, Bassi Pathana, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib (Punjab) was relied

ITA-1227/CHD/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 Page 2 of 3

upon. The AO noted that the assessee had sold 11Kanal 5Marla chahi land for Rs. 42,20,000/- situated in village Chunni Kalan Tehsil – Bassi Pathana, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib to Smt Manjit Kaur W/o Shri Amarjit Singh, resident of House No. 1675, Ward No. 8, Gobind Colony, Kharar (Punjab). Since the amount mentioned in the Registry was Rs. 42,20,000/-, the difference of Rs. 34,25,250/- was required to be explained. The assessee relied upon ‘Ikrarnama to Sell’ to substantiate that the actual deal had been finalized at Rs. 70 lacs per killa ( 1 killa contains 8 Kanal piece of land). Thus, the total land of 11 Kanal 5 Marla, it was submitted, was sold at Rs. 98,43,750/-. However, the AO treated the said evidence on Rs. 300/- stamp paper dated ‘nil’ to be a fabricated document. As a result thereof, addition of Rs. 34,25,250/- was made in the hands of the assessee. 4. The assessee challenged the addition before the CIT(A). The assessee relied upon the submissions advanced before the AO. It was stated that Rs. 25 lacs was received on 24.03.2008 and the balance amount of Rs. 73,43,750/- was received in cash on 08.07.2008 at the time of execution of the Sale Deed out of which an amount of Rs. 72,75,250/- was deposited in the bank account. It was submitted that the Agreement to Sell is not required to be registered and is a valid document. The CIT(A) required the AO to file Remand Report after carrying out due enquiries. At that stage, the assessee filed additional evidence vide letter dated 22.09.2016. The said evidence was not admitted on the reasoning that “it was filed without a request under Rule 46A”. The assessee was required to produce the purchaser and since the assessee could not produce the purchaser, the additions made were confirmed. Aggrieved by this, the assessee is in appeal. 5. We have heard the ld. Sr.DR. On going through the sequence of events as are available on the record. We find that no reason whatsoever has been brought on record by the ld. CIT(A) to show why opportunity to file application for admission of fresh evidence could not have been granted to the assessee. In case the taxpayer approaches the Court with evidences relatable to the issue and the evidences in view of the assessee's ignorance of procedure is not supported by an application for its admission, we fail to understand why the tax authorities fail to apprise the assessee of this shortcoming and direct the assessee to come with a proper formal application and following the correct procedures.

ITA-1227/CHD/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 Page 3 of 3

Accordingly, without getting into the correctness of the conclusions drawn about the other issues in the appeal, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to admit any fresh evidences which the assessee would seek to place on record to support his claim and if need be, cause the purchaser to be examined, the assessee a bus conductor, at the relevant point of time would hardly be in a position to persuade the purchaser to be present before the Tax Authorities as opposed to that, the Tax Authorities having vested with ample powers under the Act are definitely in a position to compel the purchaser to be present for examination, if the assessee's version is to be disbelieved. Accordingly, the impugned order in the interest of substantial justice is set aside back to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to pass a speaking order in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13.06. 2018.

Sd/- Sd/- ( Dr.B.R.R.KUMAR) ( DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

‘Poonam’ Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR

Asstt. Registrar ITAT,Chandigarh.