Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH’B’, CHANDIGARH
Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH & SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH’B’, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA Nos.291 & 292 /Chd/2017 Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2008-09
Smt. Amarjit Kaur Vs. The ITO 386-R, Model Town Ward VI(1) Ludhiana Ludhiana
PAN No. ACCPK3244L
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal Revenue By : Sh. Manjit Singh
Date of hearing : 21/03/2018 Date of Pronouncement : 22/03/2018
ORDER PER BENCH:
Both the above appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the similar order of the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Ludhiana dt. 16/12/2016.
Since the issues raised in both the above appeals are common therefore they are being decided by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. We shall take ITA No. 291/Chd/2017 as a lead case in which assessee has raised the following grounds:
That the Worthy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 11,44,500/- made by the Assessing Officer in the returned income. 2. That while making the above aid addition of Rs. 11,44,500/- the Worthy CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in adopting the sale consideration of Vi portion of property (sold during the year) at Rs. 45,15,000/- on the basis of first agreement of sale, dated 02.04.2005.(Total sale value being Rs. 90,30,000/-). 3. That the Worthy CIT (A) has erred in not considering that first agreement of sale, dated 02.04.2005 for Rs. 90,30,000/- was cancelled and another agreement to sell for the same property was made on 30.12.2006 for an amount of Rs. 55,00,000/- and, thus, the CIT(A) has erred in not considering the revised agreement due to the litigation in respect of title of the property.
That the CIT(A) has erred in not considering the statement of Sh. Kanwar Ranbir Singh (Purchaser) as recorded during the course of assessment proceedings. 5. That the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in not considering that Assessing Officer failed to consider and rejected the 2nd agreement to sell, dated 30.12.2006 for an amount of Rs.55,00,000/- on which, actual sale consideration was made, simply on guess work and without giving any specific reason. 6. That the addition has been confirmed by the Worthy CIT(A) against the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. That the detailed submission filed during the course of hearing at para 7.1 of the order at page 4, 5 & 6 of the CIT's order, has not been considered by the CIT(A), while disposing of the order.
We have heard Ld. Representatives of both the parties.
Regarding the addition of Rs. 11,44,500/- by the Assessing Officer Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order without specifying the reasons for upholding the addition after the written submission filed by assessee. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) reads as under:
“ In view of the above stated facts and in circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the Assessing Officer is fully justified in making an addition of Rs. 11,44,500/- in this case by taking sale consideration of half portion of the property at Rs. 45,15,000/-. The addition of Rs. 11,44,500/-made by the Assessing Officer in this case by taking sale consideration of half portion of the property at Rs. 45,15,3000/- is therefore upheld.” 5. Since no reasons have been specified in the order, the matter is being referred back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with directions to pass a speaking order on the issue. Both the Representatives of the parties have also conceded to the proposal of setting aside the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).
In the result, both the above appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court.
Sd/- Sd/- (DIVA SINGH) (B.R.R.KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 22/03/2018 AG Copy to: The Appellant, The Respondent, The CIT, The CIT(A), The DR