Dr.Avtar Singh vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 9 September, 2008

ITA No. 145 of 2007                     1

                      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
                            at Chandigarh

                                        ITA No.145 of 2007
                                        Date of Decision: 09.09.2008


Dr.Avtar Singh                                             ...... Appellant


      Versus


Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar and another          ...... Respondents



Coram:       Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel
             Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari



1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?


Present:     Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate
             for the appellant.

             Mr.Vivek Sethi, Advocate
             for the respondents.
                    ****

Ajay Tewari, J.

The assessee has filed the present appeal under Section 260

of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against

the order dated 25.08.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,

Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in C.O.

No. 9(ASR)/2004 in ITA No. 30(ASR)/2004 for the assessment year 1995-

96, proposing following substantial questions of law:-

a) Whether the action on the part of respondents authorities
to initiate the proceedings under Section 147 of the Act without
considering the material facts that the deposit made in the
ITA No. 145 of 2007 2

saving accounts are from the sale of agricultural land and hence
agriculture income, is legally sustainable in the eyes of law?

b) Whether the action on the part of respondents authorities
not to consider the donor’s affidavit dated 22.4.2002 and the
proof with regard to the identity of donor who is Canadian
Citizen, is legally sustainable in the eyes of law?

c) Whether the action on the part of respondents authorities
to reject the cross objections of the Assessee-Appellant is
legally sustainable in the eyes of law?

Proceedings under Section 147 of the Act were initiated against

the appellant by issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Act.

Reassessment was ordered for the reason that the assessee has not produced

any evidence with regard to the source of payment of Rs.7,47,000/-being

invested in property. In response to notices under Section 142(1) and 143(2)

of the Act appellant submitted that the deposits made in the savings account

were received from the sale of agricultural land, agricultural income and

gifts. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) held that the gifts claimed were not

genuine and were thus treated as income from undisclosed sources under

Section 69 of the Act.

On appeal the learned Commissioner by order dated 13.10.2003

deleted the addition made by the A.O. relying on certain additional

evidence. The matter was carried up in appeal by the revenue claiming that

the Commissioner had erred in admitting additional evidence in deleting the

addition. In cross objections the appellant attacked the reassessment

proceedings. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 25.8.2006 upheld

the finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner that the reasons for

reassessment were according to the provisions of law. However, it did not

find favour with the acceptance of additional evidence by the
ITA No. 145 of 2007 3

Commissioner and remanded the matter back to decide the appeal afresh

after affording due opportunity to the A.O. to rebut the additional evidence.

We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and

consequently hold that the proposed questions of law do not arise in the

present appeal. Mr. Akshay Bhan, counsel for the appellant, however,

argued that in view of the matter having been remanded back even the

question regarding the validity of reassessment should have been left open.

In our opinion the direction of the Tribunal to remand the matter back to

decide the appeal afresh would not preclude a fresh decision on this aspect.

Consequently the appeal is dismissed. No costs.

(AJAY TEWARI)
JUDGE

(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE

September 09, 2008
sunita