SHRI JIT SINGH,NAWANSHAHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAWANSHAHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 603/ASR/2019Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 September 2022AY 2011-125 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the issue of the difference in value between the sale agreement and the registered deed was not properly adjudicated by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 33,52,000/- cash in their bank account, which was sourced from the sale of agricultural land. The sale agreement value was Rs. 45,75,000/-, but the registered deed declared Rs. 16,60,000/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) added back Rs. 14,90,000/- to the assessee's income.

What were the issues?

Whether the difference in value between the sale agreement and the registered deed for agricultural land was properly considered and adjudicated by the revenue authorities. Whether the assessee was given a proper opportunity to substantiate their claim regarding the cash deposit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 250(6),Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.

Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Hearing: 13.09.2022Pronounced: 15.09.2022

Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM:

The instant appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld.

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jalandhar, [in brevity the ld. CIT(A)] bearing appeal no. CIT(A)-1/JAL/10115/18-19,date of order 20.06.2019, the order passed u/s 250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Y. 2011-

12.

The impugned orders was originated from the order of the Income Tax Officer, Nawanshahar, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 143 (3) /147 of the Act date of order 31.10.2018. 2. The brief fact of the case is that the assessee is individual and filed its return

accordingly. The reopening was made u/s 148 on basis of the AIR Information for depositing cash amount of Rs.33,52,000/- in his saving bank account at Punjab

National Bank, Rahon during the F.Y. 2010-11 relevant to A.Y. 2011-12. The verification was completed u/s 133(6) of the Act but the assessee was unable to substantiate its claim. As per the submission of the assessee that the assessee had entered into an agreement for selling of agricultural land amount of Rs.45,75,000/-

and the agreement with Smt. Jagbir Kaur W/o Sh. Malkit Singh on dated

23.02.

2010. The registration was executed declaring the valuation of Rs.16,60,000/-. The ld. AO during assessment had also considered about the cash

trail of the assessee related withdraw from bank account and had allowed the credit

amount to Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of the assessee. The total cash was deposited

Rs.33,52,000/- in the bank account. The ld. AO allow the claim of the assessee to the extent of Rs.8,62,000/- and balance which is worked out Rs.14,90,000/- was added back with the total income of the assessee.

3.

Being aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld.

CIT(A) after considering the fact upheld the order of the ld. AO. Against the order

of the CIT(A) the assessee filed an appeal before us.

4.

During the hearing before the ITAT, the counsel of the assessee had filed an adjournment petition. As the matter is long pending, so the matter is taken for hearing after the consent of ld. Sr.DR. During the assessment proceeding and in appeal, the revenue allowed the several times to explain the issue before the authorities. The assessee claimed that the excess amount was received on basis of the agreement with the party who purchased the land from assessee. During

verification u/s 133(6) of the Act, the cross verification was completed with Smt.

Jagbir Kaur and details of cash payment with dates are mentioned. But the issue

was not considered or verified during the proceeding before the authorities. The party Smt. Jagbir Kaur and her family was tenant, and the letter was returned back

during verification. The reason of difference in value in agreement & executed

deed, was not properly discussed by any of the authority. Lot of factual difference

was found during the assessment proceeding.

5.

The ld. Sr Dr argued & only relied on the order of revenue authorities.

5.

We heard the rival submission and considered the orders of both the authorities. In factual matrix there is a clear difference of vaule in between amount

declared in agreement and in registered executed deed. The issue of the assessee

was not properly adjudicating during the appeal proceeding and the assessment

proceeding. We find that the issue should be further adjudicated by the ld. AO on basis of the factual matrix in reason of difference in value. We are setting aside the matter before the ld. AO. Needless to say, that the assessee shall get proper

opportunity of being heard during the assessment proceeding for substantiate its claim and evidences should be considered in legal manner.

6.

In the result, the appeal in ITA No. 603/Asr/2019 is allowed for statistical

purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15.09.2022 (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member

AKV Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T.By Order

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →