Naresh Chander vs Income Tax Officer

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06, arises against the CIT(A), Rohtak’s order dated 27.09.2019 in case No. 87/2017-18, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”)

Heard both the p arties at length. Case file perused.

We notice at the outset that the assessee/appellant raises his substantive grievance challenging both the learned lower authorities’ respective assessment find ings dated 17.10.2017 treating his investments of Rs.15 ,00,000/- each on 02.12.2004 and 28.02.2005, as his undisclosed income , as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

That being the case, learned counse l raises the assessee’s first and foremost legal argument that the impugned reopening is itse lf not sustainable in law since the Assessing Officer’s correspond ing reasons had been approved by the JCIT than the prescribed autho rity going by the former assessment findings dated 31.12.2012 (at page 60 para 1 of the paper book).

We find no merit in the assessee’s instant legal ground/argument since sectio n 151(1) of the Act only applies “whe ther an assessme nt under sub-section (3) of section 143 or section 147 has been made than otherwise” . We make it clear that the asse ssee w as not even a filer at the first instance nor any assessment or re-assessment; as the case may be, had been framed in his case . We thus conclude that the learned JCIT had rightly approved the Assessing Officer’s re-assessment reasons going by section 151(2) of the Act as applicable at the relevant point of time. Rejected accordingly.

Learned counse l’s second argument is that the impugned alleged addition of undisclosed money amounting to Rs.30,00,000/- is not sustainable against the asse ssee on merits. We find no substance in the assessee’ s instant second argument as well. We make it cle ar that the relevant agreement executed between the assessee (pur chaser) and the vender Sh. Krishan dated 02 .12.2014 (pages 65 to 66 in the paper book) duly stipulated the correspond ing recital of payment o f Rs.15,00,000/- on the very date followed by equal amount of advance money on 28.02.2005 . Ms. H ansra further invites our atte ntion to the assessee’s written statement filed before the learned Civil court having admitted the impugned payment(s) aggregating to Rs.3 0,00,00/- in tune with the agreement clauses. We are of the considered view in this factual backdrop that both the lear ned lower author ities’ respective find ing quoting the very material against the assessee for the purpose of making the impugned addition hardly deserve to be inferred with. This is indeed coupled with the fact that there is no categorical denial coming at the assessee’s behest dishonour ing the agreement itself as what all he had sought to clarify in both the lower proceedings was that he had to sign innocently at his father’s instance. We thus upho ld the impugned additio n of Rs.30 ,00,000/- made in the assessee’s hands in principle .

Lastly comes the equally important aspect of quantification of the impugned addition amount. The Revenue could hardly dispute that not only this assessee is a regular government servant but also his fat her is stated to have owned around 90 acres of land deriving substantial agricultur al income thereform. We make it clear that neither the assessee has proved the foregoing agricultural inco me to t he entire satisfaction of both the learned lower authorities nor such accumulated savings in the families hands all along could be altogether ruled out as well. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view in this factual backdrop that a lump sum additio n of Rs.8 ,00,000/- only in the assessee’s hands would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. T he assessee gets relie f of Rs.22,00,000/- in other words. Nece ssary computatio n shall follow.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms.