Dr. Avtar Singh vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Ajay Tewari, J.—The assessee has filed the present appeal u/s 260 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') against the order dated 25-8-2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal'') in CO. 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 u/s 147 of the Act without considering the material facts that the deposit made in the 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 u/s 147 of the Act were initiated against the appellant by issuance of a notice u/s 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 Sections 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 (AO) held that the gifts claimed were not genuine and were thus treated as income from undisclosed sources u/s 69 of the Act.

On appeal the learned Commissioner by order dated 13-10-2003 deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer 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 Commissioner and remanded the matter back to decide the appeal afresh after affording due opportunity to the Assessing Officer 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.