Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.
Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE
Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1,Jalandhar,[in brevity the ‘CIT (A)’] order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity ‘the Act’] for A.Y. 2010-11.The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Nawanshahr, [in brevity ‘ the AO’] order passed u/s 144/147of the Act.
The assessee has taken the following grounds: “
1. That the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l, Jal.is against law and facts of the case.
2. That the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l, Jal has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the addition u/s 69 to the tune of Rs.37,36,455/-
3. That the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l, Jal. Further also erred in law & facts of the case in violation of the principles of Natural Justice.
4. That the impugned order under appeal is arbitrary and contrary to law & facts of the case, hence deserves to be cancelled.
5. That the appellant craves leave to add/alter or forgo any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal.”
3. Brief fact of the case is thattheassessee deposited cash in the saving bank account amounted to Rs.46 lacs. The ld. AO asked for explanation about the depositing cash in the bank account. The assessee explained that he sold the popular trees to Sh. Dilbag Singh who has purchased the popular tree for Rs.50 lacs during this F.Y.09-10. During the assessment, no such proper document or agreement was able to file by the assessee. So, the addition was made amount to Rs.46 lacs and added back with the total income of the assessee. Aggrievedassessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO due to lack of evidence, related to sell of popular tree. Being aggrieved,assessee filed an appeal before us.
The ld. AR for the assessee filed a written submission which is kept in the record. As per the ld. AR, the affidavit of the purchaser, Mr. Dilbag Singh was filed related to admission of purchase of tree APB page 14, the affidavit duly executed by the purchaser in APB pages 15 to 19. The ld. AR clearly stated that the purchaser, Mr. Dilbag Singh has confirmed related to purchase of tree amount to Rs.50 lacs. The statement was recorded by the ld. AO on dated 03.08.2017. The ld. AR fully relied on the Khasra Girdawari related to cultivation of popular tree. Copy of the evidence with English Translation related to Khasra Girdwari was duly annexed in APB page 3 to 12. 5. The ld. DR for revenue vehemently argued and fully relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). The relevant para 7.2 page 12 of the appeal order is duly reproduced as below: “7.2 I have carefully considered the facts of the case and submissions of the appellant. The assessee has made cash deposits of Rs. 46,00,000/- in his saving bank account. The assessee has explained
the deposits as sale proceeds of popular trees on lands of Sh. Rajinder Singh(relative) who has given authorization to the assessee. As per KhasraGidavari crop ot popular trees was there on the land and even in the subsequent years popular trees were there. It is not known when the popular trees were planted. Earlier years KhasraGidavari to show popular trees has not been filed. There is no authentic proof of cutting, sale and transportation of popular trees. Sh. Dilbag Singh has initially confirmed purchase ofpopular .trees for Rs. 50 lakhs. Subsequently he has denied and did not know when and how much payments were made by him to the assessee. Moreover, he is an agriculturist and not in the regular business of purchase & sale of popular trees. The only evidence in support of sale of popular trees for Rs. 50,00,000/- is copy of affidavit dated 09.11.2009. The assessee has not produced the original affidavit dated 09.11.2009 before the assessing officer. The assessee has claimed this photoeopx of affidavit as ‘Agreement to sell popular trees’ . In the absence of original document, the photocopy of affidavit has no value specially when there is no other evidence corroborating the facts stated therein Sh. Dilbagh has denied and did not remember the details of payment made for alleged purchase of popular trees. The assessee has failed to explain and conclusively prove the sale of popular trees and receipt of Rs. 50,00,000/- as alleged sale. In view of the above facts, the addition made by the assessing officer is upheld and these grounds of appeal are dismissed.”
6. We heard the rival submission and relied on the documents available in the record. The assessee has supplied to the revenue authorities the KhasraGirdawarias proof of cultivation of popular tree. The relevant affidavit of the purchaser was also submitted before the appellate authority. The appellate authority rejected only the reason that the original affidavit was not submitted to the ld. AO. The ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied about the explanation of the assessee related to sale of trees. The ld. AR relied on the order of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Ajmer Singh vs. ITO, ITA 457/Asr/2014 order dated 28.02.2017. The relevant para 5 is reproduced as below: “5. A KhasraGirdawari is the primary document evidencing cultivation of agricultural crops, or absence thereof over land. If such documentary evidence is produced, non-consideration ITA No. 457/Asr./2014 7 thereof would result in an order passed as a result of nonreading of such material documentary evidence, rendering the order unsustainable in law. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to remit this matter to the file of the AO, to be decided afresh in accordance with law on taking into consideration these KhasraGirdawaries, provided the assessee files before him the original certified copies thereof in the vernacular along with the English translation copies filed before us. The assessee shall be afforded adequate opportunity of hearing to support his case and, no doubt, the assessee shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before AO. All pleas available to the assessee under the law shall remain so available to him.”
We consider the order of the Coordinate Bench Ajmer Singh (supra), and the evidence relied by the assessee should be verified by the ld. AO. The assessment was framed u/s 144 of the Act so there is denial reasonable opportunity for submission of evidence by the assessee. In our considered view, we remit back the matter to the ld. AO for further adjudication related to sell of popular trees by the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee should get reasonable opportunity for hearing in set aside proceeding.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing is allowed for statistical purposes.