TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 580
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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, Hoshiarpur, (in brevity 'the AO') the order passed u/s 143(3)/147 date of order 10.12.2018. The assessee has taken the following grounds which are extracted as below: "l) That the Ld. A.O recorded reasons dtd. 12-03-18 with zero material on record and even bank s' statement was not on the record of A.O, as per order sheet dtd. 12-03-18, hence no reasons to believe arises indicating firstly any income has escaped assessment and secondly there was nothing on record to show that any escapement has occurred by reason of either omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully or tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 -25,63,000 = Rs. 1,25,43,000 and this amount neither challenged by revenue nor followed the principle of consistency. d. That no action was taken by revenue u/s 131 and 133(6) to verify the agreement to sell, registered power of attorney (both dtd. 18-11- 10), concerned parties as signatories and witnesses who is a Numberdar/lambardar (appointed by District collector) and further ignored that revenue is empowered u/s 136 to act judiciously but wrongly rebutted all documents as filed, without bringing any evidence on record." 2. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee during appeal proceeding filed ground after that with the written submission of the assessee. The amended ground was filed. As per request of the ld. Counsel ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ered power of attorney for 1 kanal 10 maria, as per Para- 2.2. (ii) That the Ld. A.O has not disputed that assessee has deposited cash Rs. 25,63,000 in saving a/c of Allahabad Bank, Hoshiarpur, as per Para-2.3, however he has not considered the unregistered agreement as an evidence as per Para-2.3 of AO'order. (iii) The Ld. CIT(A), as per Para-6.1, admitted the sale rate of Rs. 1,66,000 per marla and also admitted total sale consideration of Rs. 1,51,06,000 but his main contention is that the agreement to sell is not registered. At page-5 of CIT(A)'s order, in the second last line, he says, the only proof in support of deposits is unregistered agreement to sell and he has not took the cognizance of the sam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... per PB-16, the appellant received the sale consideration of 1 kanal 10 maria = Rs. 49,80,000, whereas the revenue made the addition of Rs. 25,63,000 and left balance of 24,17,000 untouched for reasons best known to them. Argument: That assessee received Rs. 49,80,000 by virtue of signing of regd. Power of attorney in the court of law dtd. 18- 11-10 and on the basis of agreement to sell on non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 2000 dtd. 18-11-10 is not a sale, as per the following case law of Honorable Supreme Court :- Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana & Another 79 CCH 0728, 340 ITR 0001 (2012) (SC) Copy enclosed at Page at page 246 to 255." 5. The ld. Sr. DR vehemently argued and relied on the o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion relied on the documents available in the record. The assessee has challenged both the legal and factual grounds before the Bench. But during the appeal proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee had not challenged the legal grounds so there are first time challenging the issue before the ITAT. So, the entire legal ground was setting aside before the ld.AO for its verification. In the factual ground the grievance of the revenue that the acceptance of the instrument related to transfer of the property like agreement and power of attorney was in question. In the hearing before bench, the assessee also placed the registered power of attorney and the copy of the agreement as proof of the transaction. The revenue authority had not verifi....