AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1805
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d considered the material available on record. Both the appeals are decided as under. ITA 505/2014 ( A.Y. 2006-07) 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that as per information received from DCIT, Central Circle-I, Ludhiana dated 30.09.2011, it has been revealed that Shri Harinder Singh alongwith Shri Suresh Kumar Khanna and Shri Sahibjit Singh, Directors of M/s Basera Realtors P.Ltd. had entered into agreement for purchase of land in village Jhande, Tehsil & District Ludhiana during the financial year relevant to the assessment year 2006-07, details of same are noted at page 2 of the assessment order. The date of agreements are 30.01.2006 and 05.10.2005. The agreement dated 30.01.2006 is alleged to have been entered into between the sellers S/Shri Inderjit Singh, Jasbir Singh, sons of Shri Gurmeet Singh, Amarjot Singh S/o Shri Surinder Singh, Shri Manohar Singh S/o Shri Harnek Singh and the purchers are Shri Harinder Singh (assessee), Shri Suresh Khanna with half share each. The agreement dated 05.10.2005 is executed between the sellers Smt. Harjinder Kaur, Shri Balwinder Singh and Shri Bhupinder Singh with the purchasers Shri Sahibjit Singh S/o Shri Amarjit Singh and Shri Hari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ersonal attendance of the assessee but assessee, instead of appearing before Assessing Officer asked for copy of the reasons recorded under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. Since no return was filed by assessee, therefore, assessee was not supplied the reasons for re-opening of the assessments. The assessee, later on intimated that return has been filed for assessment year under appeal in response to notice under section 148 on 05.02.2013. Therefore, assessee asked for copy of the reasons. The assessee, for the first time, on 01.03.2013, appeared before the Assessing Officer and his statement was recorded regarding the investments, if any made by him in the acquisition of lands individually or in partnership with others in financial year relevant to the assessment year under appeal. The relevant questions put to him and replies given by him have been reproduced at page 5-6 of the assessment order in which the assessee explained that he has not done any transaction of purchase and sale of immovable properties with M/s Basera Realtors P.Ltd. during the assessment year under appeal and has not done any transaction. He has denied to have purchased any property with the aforesaid part....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r that they have entered into Agreement to Sell dated 05.10.2005 and 30.01.2006, copy of which has been supplied to assessee that they have sold the land to the assessee and Director of M/s Basera Realtors P.Ltd. The assessee, on receipt of the copies of statements of Shri Manohar Singh and Shri Gurmit Singh requested for providing of opportunity to cross-examine them which was afforded to the assessee for 18.03.2013. The assessee was asked to cross-examine these two sellers on 18.03.2013 at 11.30 AM. However, according to the Assessing Officer, the assessee failed to attend proceedings on the date so fixed. The counsel for assessee turned up at 6.20 PM on 18.03.2013. Thereafter, no request was made to cross-examine the sellers. 9. The Assessing Officer also noted that in post search enquiries by DCIT, Central Circle-I, Ludhiana, the Directors of M/s Basera Realtors P.Ltd. came forward and disclosed that investments in acquisition of land as discussed above, had been made by the assessee and their company in equal shares of 1/2 and also disclosed total profit derived by them on sale of residential plots craved out of the said land. The Assessing Officer, therefore, noted that sin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case of CIT V SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. 325 ITR 285, decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Paramjit Kaur 311 ITR 38 and decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Geeta Garg V CIT 51 IT RPS 215. he has submitted that no valid reasons have been recorded for re-opening of the assessment. He has submitted that in assessment year 2008-09, assessee has admittedly filed the return of income prior to re-opening of the assessment. 14. On merits, ld. counsel for the assessee referred to PB-2 which is Agreement dated 05.10.2005, PB-18 which is copy of the agreement dated 30.01.2006. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that agreement dated 30.01.2006 has not been signed by the assessee. It contained signature of Shri Rupinder Deep for Shri Harinder Singh. He has, therefore, submitted that admittedly, agreement dated 30.01.2006 is not signed by the assessee. During the course of arguments, ld. DR was directed to verify this fact from the agreement in question and ld. DR, after going through agreement in question also confirmed this fact that the agreement dated 30.01.2006 is signed by Shri Rupinder Deep for Shri Harinder Si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id not take any action against the persons who have forged the signatures of the assessee. The ld. CIT(Appeals) without any valid reason, rejected the report of Handwriting Expert. PB-3 page 22 to 27 are copes of jamabandi of the properties in question would prove that after sale of the properties, the mutations have been done in the names of the purchasers. The ld. counsel for the assessee further submitted that the Assessing Officer considered the theory of 50% investment in property made by assessee and 50% by M/s Basera Realtors P. Ltd. However, the assessment order in the case of M/s Basera Realtors P.Ltd. has been set aside by CIT Central, Ludhiana under section 263 of the Income Tax Act vide order dated 21.02.2012 and Assessing Officer was directed to consider the entire investments in the case of company. 14(i) The Assessing Officer in the set aside proceedings under section 143(3)/263 of the Act vide order dated 25.03.2013 assessed the entire investment in the hands of M/s Basera Realtors P.Ltd., copy of the assessment order in this case is filed at page 133 of the Paper Book. He has further submitted that M/s Basera Realtors P.Ltd. preferred appeals before ITAT, Chandig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has, therefore, submitted that re-opening was validly done in the matter. As regards merits, ld. DR relied upon orders of the authorities below and submitted that statements of two of the owners/sellers were recorded by Assessing Officer i.e. S/Shri Manohar Singh and Gurmit Singh and their copies were supplied to the assessee in which they have confirmed to have entered into Agreement to Sell with the assessee and others. Therefore, addition was rightly made in the hands of the assessee because assessee failed to cross-examine both these sellers before Assessing Officer. The ld. DR further submitted that even though proceedings under section 263 have been conducted in the case of M/s Basera Realtors P.Ltd. by the department but assessee has 50% share in the entire transaction which is considered by Assessing Officer in their regular assessments. Therefore, addition have been correctly made in the hands of assessee. 16. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The entire case is revolving around the two agreements in question dated 05.10.2005 and 30.01.2006. These agreements were recovered during the course of search in the cases of Directors o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Agency or authorized handwriting expert/FSL for comparison of signatures of the assessee but Assessing Officer did not conduct any proper investigation in the matter and have not obtained the report of another handwriting expert on the matter in issue. Thus, the evidences and material on record clearly proved that the assessee disputed the signature on the agreement dated 05.10.2005 since beginning and has produced sufficient material on record to justify his explanation that his signatures have been forged by some person. Since, assessee was not aware of the fact as to who has forged the signature of the assessee on this agreement, non action by assessee against the forgery would not be relevant criteria in income tax proceedings to reject the explanation of the assessee. 16(i) It may also be noted here that the agreement dated 05.10.2005 has been executed by the seller Smt. Harjinder Kaur, Shri Balwinder Singh and Shri Bhupinder Singh but Assessing Officer has not examined any of the sellers in order to prove the genuine signatures of the assessee on this agreement. Even another co-purchaser as per agreement, Shri Sahibjit Singh was also not examined by Assessing Officer in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... produced copies of Sale Deeds in respect of the transactions carried out through these agreement to sell and the sale deeds have been executed between the sellers and one Mr. Deepak Chauhan, Veena Jindal, Vijay Jain etc. and all the payments are made through cheques. Therefore, the copies of sale deed would disclose that assessee was not a party to any of the transactions otherwise the sale deed of 50% as alleged by Revenue Department should be executed in the name of the assessee as well. The assessee also filed copies of the jamabandi of the property in question which shows that after the sale of properties in question, mutation have been made in the name of purchasers and the name of the assessee did not contain in any the jamabandi. This fact would also strengthen the case of the assessee that assessee was not party to any of the agreement in question and did not make any investment. 18. Further, the case of Assessing Officer had been that assessee made investments in these properties having half shares of investment i.e. 50% of the entire transaction. 50% transaction was considered as undisclosed investment in the case of M/s Basera Realtors P.Ltd. and their Directors. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8,36,000/- on account of unexplained investment in purchase of land as well as addition of Rs. 2,98,39,000/- on account of profit on sale of alleged plots. 23. Ld. Representatives of both the parties submitted that issue is same as have been considered in assessment year 2006-07. The same agreements dated 05.10.2005 and 30.01.2006 are in issue for the purpose of making the addition against the assessee. Therefore, following the reasons for decision in assessment year 2006-07, we delete the addition of Rs. 1,28,36,000/- on account of unexplained investment in purchase of lands. This ground of appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed. 24. The Assessing Officer also noted that DCIT, Circle-I, Ludhiana informed that the company in the name of M/s Basera Realtors P.Ltd. purchased the land alongwith Shri Harinder Singh, assessee under reference. The plots were developed and converted into residential colony. Both of them have earned net profit of Rs. 596.79 lacs on sale of residential plots and therefore, 50% of the profit belongs to the assessee i.e. Rs. 2,98,39,000/-. It was also intimated that the share of the profit of the company has been declared in their return of income.....