Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
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)-2Amritsar,[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 4(3), Amritsar[in brevity the AO], order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds: -
“1. That the order of the Id AO and worthy CIT-Appeals is illegal and arbitrary and contrary to facts and this ground of appeal though general in nature pervades all other grounds of appeal too.
2. That the Id AO and worthy CIT-Appeal erred on law and facts by deducting payment of purchase consideration of two land parcels vaiska No 4045 and 4046 in cash whereas same is paid through banking channels which resulted in wrong negative cash peak credit.
3. That the Id AO and worthy CIT-Appeal erred on law and facts by not independently verifying the fact u/s 133(6) that purchase consideration is paid through banking channel to sellers despite of our written request in our submission dated 04-09-2019 which is completely against the principles of natural justice.
4. That the Id AO and worthy CIT-Appeal erred on law and facts by not cross examining passing a Non speaking order and on Affidavits filed of assessee himself as well as both witness to the sale agreements which is contrary to Mehta Parekh & Co Vs CIT (1956)30itr 181 SC 5. That the worthy CIT-Appeal erred on law and facts by not disposing of additional ground taken by assessee in his letter dated 20.08.19 that No Approval is taken from Principal CIT- 2Amritsar for opening of proceedings u/s 148 as nothing is mentioned in the copy of reasons recorded.
6. That the Ld Assessing officer and worthy CIT-Appeals had erred on law and facts by not issuing us any show cause notice asking specific proposed disallowances along with necessary evidence /reasons for forming same which in contravention to CBDT Instruction Number 20/2015 Dated 29/12/2015.The Worthy Cit-Appeals disposed of this ground by passing a non- speaking order by merely writing it is general in nature.
7. That the Ld Assessing officer and worthy CIT-Appeals had erred on law and facts that the notice u/s 148 was issued in a mechanical manner as information received by him from Directorate General of Income tax (Intelligence & Criminal
Investigation) without proper application of mind and independent analysis.
That the Ld Assessing officer and worthy CIT-Appeals had erred on law and facts by taking only deposits of A/c Number 1845 in cash flow and not taken cash withdrawals as part of cash flow.
The appellant prays leave to add, amend or press new ground of appeal before the hearing of appeal.”
3. Brief fact of the case is thatthe assessment was completed with addition in different heads. The assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Only the ground related unexplained money deposited in bank account received from the family members amount of Rs.1,76,13,822/- was partly allowed. The ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the ground & restricted the addition amount to Rs.26,99,760/- by considering the cash flow statement. The highest peak credit of negative cash in hand amount to Rs.26,99,760/- was only restricted for the addition in the appeal. Accordingly, the assessee filed an appeal before the bench by challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A).
The ld. AR for the assessee had filed written submissions whichis kept in the record. The ld. AR first argued that the cash flow statement of the ld. CIT(A) which was considered without allowing the reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee purchased the land by payment through bank. But the registering authority had wrongly mentioned the cash transaction related to the sale agreement. The ld. AR further mentioned that no independent verification was conducted by the revenue authorities after submission of evidence that the entire amount was paid through banking channel. No cross examination and no verification are done by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR submitted the details payment in the written submission, APB 4.1 page 2 which is extracted as below: “(C) It is pertinent to note that payments for above two registry were made on same date On which registry is done say 13.12.2010 through PNB bank account No 0909000101097013 in following manner through RTGS Date Mode Instrument Number Amount 1. 13.12.2010 RTGS 630101 15,00,000 2. 13.12.2010 RTGS 630102 15,00,000 3. 13.12.2010 RTGS 630103 15,00,000 4. 13.12.2010 RTGS 630104 41,00,000
5.13.12.2010 RTGS 630105 41,00,000”
4.2 So, the ld. AR mentioned thatthe peak credit ascertained by the ld. CIT(A)is violation of the reasonable opportunity for the assessee.
The ld. DR vehemently argued and fully relied on the order of both the revenue authorities. Further, the ld. DR has contradicted the fact submitted by the assessee.
We heard the rival submission relied on the documents available in the record. The ld. AR during hearing claimed that the entire transaction of the purchase of land was completed through banking channel. No cash transaction was done with the vendor.In the instrument of sale, it is wrongly mentioned the cash transaction. After a proper objection before the ld. CIT(A) the issue was not settled by the ld. CIT(A) but a peak credit was determined for negative cash and addition was restricted amount to Rs.26,99,760/-. We find that the reasonable opportunity was denied for the assessee. No cross verification was done after the submission of evidence from the end of the assessee. Accordingly, we direct the ld. AO to verify the assessee’s claim on basis of the ground of appeal agitated before the bench. We remit back the matter to ld. AO for further adjudication related to the payment for purchase of land and the peak credit amount of Rs.26,99,760/-. Accordingly, the appeal order is set aside by us for further adjudication.