GURNAIB SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, MOHALI

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against

the order dated 15.03.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax

[hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)]-2, Chandigarh.

attention to the ground No.2 of the appeal and submitted that the addition has been made / confirmed by the lower authorities into the income of the assessee on account of unexplained cash deposits

found deposited in the bank account of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel

has invited our attention to the application filed by the assessee for admission of the additional evidences wherein it has been pleaded

ITA No.937/Chd//2017- Gurnaib Singh, Mohali 2

that the assessee wants to produce bank statements evidencing that the amount of Rs. 22,50,000/- was transferred from the assessee’s

own Pension account No. 30463773298 maintained with State Bank

of India to his saving bank account maintained with Allahabad Bank.

The Ld. Counsel has submitted that the assessee despite his best

efforts could not produce the aforesaid documents before the lower

authorities. The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that since

evidence, sought to be produced by the assessee, goes to the root of the case and the same should be taken on file and the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing officer for deciding the issue

afresh after taking into consideration the aforesaid evidences also.

The Ld. counsel has further invited our attention to the ground No.3

of the appeal and has stated that the Ld. CIT(A) has made the addition of Rs. 74,89,335/- on account of capital gains. The Ld.

Counsel has submitted that the land sold by the assessee did not fall

in the definition of capital assets as on the date of sale of land as the same was beyond the prescribed municipal limits. The Ld. Counsel

has submitted that the land was sold on 22.7.2010, whereas, the municipal council was formed in the year 2014. The Ld. CIT(A) has taken into consideration the report of 2015 regarding the distance of land vis-a vis the municipal limit. The Ld. counsel has also submitted

that as per the Notification of 1994, the land would not fall within

the definition of capital asset as provided u/s 2(14)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Ld. Counsel has also submitted that the lower authorities have wrongly denied the benefit of deduction u/s 54

of the Act on account of further purchase of agricultural land in the ITA No.937/Chd//2017- Gurnaib Singh, Mohali 3

name of his son. He in this respect has submitted that though the land was purchased by the assessee in the name of his son but in fact

the land was purchased by the assessee out of the consideration

received from sale of agricultural land. He, in this respect has submitted that the lower authorities have failed to take into notice

the above contention. In view of this, Ld. Counsel has submitted that the issue be restored to the file of the Assessing officer for decision

afresh.

to the produced by the assessee goes to the root of the case. The additions made by the Assessing officer was on account of unexplained cash deposits, whereas, the assessee wants to furnish

evidence of the source of deposits which is very much relevant to the issue under consideration. We feel that the other submissions of the assessee regarding the land sold by the assessee being not capital

asset and further the claim of deduction u/s 54B and 54F of the Act

is also required to be examined afresh.

proper opportunity of hearing on the issue.

ITA No.937/Chd//2017- Gurnaib Singh, Mohali 4

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 07.05.2018. (B.R.R.KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 07.05.2018 Rkk Copy to: • The Appellant • The Respondent • The CIT • The CIT(A) • The DR