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. 2011-12.The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Nawanshahar, [in brevity ‘the AO’] order passed u/s 144 r.w.s.147 of the Act.
The assessee has taken the following grounds:
1. That the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jalandhar is against law and facts on the file in as much as the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the initiation of proceedings u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was bad in law 2. That the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jalandhar is against law and facts on the file in as much as the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was never served on the appellant and thus the assessment proceedings are bad in law. 3. That the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l, Jalandhar is against law and facts on the file in as much as the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the factual submission made with respect to the land sold and treating the same as non-agricultural and was not justified to uphold the addition made on this count. 4. That the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l, Jalandhar is against law and facts on the file in as much as the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the contention of the appellant that the on-money received from sale of agricultural land is also agricultural income and was not justified to uphold the addition of Rs. 17,07,500/- by treating the same as income from other sources.
5. Without prejudice to ground no. 3 & 4, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jalandhar erred in not appreciating that the only source of income of the assessee was pension, interest from bank and agricultural income and was not justified to arbitrarily uphold the addition made on account of deposit of cash in bank without pointing out any other source of income.
6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.”
3. Tersely we advert the fact of the case that assessee had deposited cash in the bank account amount of Rs.31,84,500/- in Punjab National Bank, Balachaur Branch A/c No.3420000300133931. Out of the total deposit the assessee was able to furnish the source of cash deposit Rs.14,77,000/- which was related to sale of the property. The balance cash Rs.17,07,500/- was remained unexplained. The ld. AO added back the amounting to Rs.17,07,500/- that the total income of the assessee. The ld. AO computed the sale of the propertyas capital gain of the land and long term capital gain (L.T.C.G.) was calculated amount to Rs.5,78,580/- which was added back with the total income of the assessee. Thereafter, the amount of Rs.16,356/- the undisclosed interest from bank was also added back with the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, the ld. AO confirmed total addition amounting to Rs.23,02,436/- with the total income of the assessee. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee..Being aggrieved on the order, passed by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed an appeal before us.
During hearing the ld. AR filed written submissions which are kept in the record. The ld. AR first, challenge the jurisdiction u/s 148 of the Act. The ld. AR placed that the amount noted in the recorded reason to deposit of cash was Rs.34,84,500/- whereas the cash mentioned in as per AIR data Rs.31,84,500/-. In fact, in paragraphs 1 and 3 of the recorded reasons the amount of cash deposit is mentioned Rs. 31,84,500/- and paragraph 4 and 5 in concluding part the amount of cash deposit is mentioned Rs. 34,84,500/-. Exactly the difference in between two values amount toRs.3 lacs. As per the assessee, the notice u/s 148 was passed without application of mind and mechanical manner. The ld. AR further mentioned that land on which the capital gain was calculated is an agricultural land and liable to be exempted. The grievance of the ld. AR was reasonable opportunity was denied and no verification was done from the end of the revenue. The orders of revenue were passed without considering the submission of the assessee.
The ld. DR vehemently argued and mentioned that the notice issued u/s 148 and the recorded reason, the difference amount is typographical mistake in spite of writing 3184,500/-. the amount was wrongly placed Rs.34,84,500/-.Otherwise nothing was changed related to value of cash deposit of the assessee. So, the notice issued u/s 148 is valid one. Ld. DR further placed that the ld. CIT(A) specifically mentioned that the land sold by the assessee in Balachaur which is within the municipal limit and the land is situated within two kilometres away from municipal limit. The said land had lost its agricultural identity. So, there is no question of exemption related to sale of property.
We heard the rival submission and relied on the documents available in the record. The assessee had participated in assessment proceeding and was aware about the vale and nature of cash deposit during assessment. During both the proceeding before revenue the assessee had complied and made submission on the correct value. Nature of mistake related to difference in value of cash deposit is curable in nature. We find that it is not valid ground for laying aside the recorded reason of the ld. AO. Related to challenging the notice u/s 148 in Ground No. 1 and 2 were duly rejected as there is no such any gross mistake from the end of the revenue. Related to Ground Nos. 3, 4, and 5 the assessee placed certain documents before the bench and also placed the certificate from Tehsildar dated 31.12.2018 and mentioned that the said land is beyond the jurisdiction of the municipality, APB Page 50. The ld. AR placed the documents a fresh before the bench which is subject to the verification of the revenue authority. Accordingly, we remit back the matter to the ld. CIT(A) for further adjudication of the issue as indicated above. Needless to say, the assessee should get a reasonable opportunity of hearing in the setting aside proceeding. In the result, ground no. 1 and 2 are dismissed and Ground nos. 3 to 5 are allowed for statistical purposes. Ground No. 6 is general in nature.