TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 846
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs with an order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 Of 2020 date of order 10/01/2022 considering the Covid Pandemic. Accordingly, the delay was extended till 28.02.2022 by the order of Hon'ble Apex Court. The ld. DR had not made any objection related to condonation petition. Accordingly, the delay of 740 days is condoned. 3. At the outset, all the appeals are under the same factual backdrop and have a common issue. All the appeals are taken together, heard together, and disposed of together. ITA No. 90/Asr/2022 is taken as lead case. ITA No. 90/Asr/2022 4. The assessee has taken the following grounds: 1. That the Id CIT(A) misdirected herself in law and facts, in upholding the assumption of jurisdiction by the ITO by invoking the provisions of section 147/148. 2. That when the material relied upon to record such reasons had become nonest by virtue of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court order on the core issue, it was not competent of the Id.CIT(A) to still uphold the validity of reasons recorded and in further sustaining the additions made by AO, in total defiance to High Court order. 3. That the Id.CIT(A) erred in s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shanpur and it was alleged that in the above land deal, over and above the apparent consideration of Rs. 32.74.000/-. cash payments of Rs. 48.50 lacs were made by the assessees herein. The ld. AR has accepted the fact that during assessment of the seller Sh. Jagtar Singh, that the excess cash deposited in his bank accounts, was claimed to have been received from this assessee, which he supported with a few forged cash receipts bearing latter's signatures. Though the ITO did not believe the contention of Jagtar Singh and made addition of the said cash in his assessment. The Id. CIT(A) Chandigarh deleted the addition, and thereafter, referred the matter to ITO Nawanshahr to reopen the cases of the buyers. The assessments were framed and orders were passed on dated 24.03.2005 with addition of alleged cash payment 48.5 lakh. The assessee was being unsuccessful in 1st appeal and filed appeal before ITAT Amritsar Bench. The said bench set aside the appeal order. 6. The ld. AR first argued and submitted that the appeal is placed before the ITAT-Amritsar bench in third round. The appellate authority during adjudication had not considered the order of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Punjab & ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment orders were passed on 24.03.2005, two of Sh Surjit Singh and one of Sh Navraj Singh, making the impugned additions of cash paid in respective years, with some more additions made for other credits in bank accounts. Statements of a few witnesses were recorded by the ITO Nawanshar at assessee's back to justify the additions made. d) The first appeals preferred before the Id.CIT(A) Jalandhar, were substantially rejected but for some petty relief given, vide orders dated 15.06.2009 (copy at PB page 21-34). Assessee preferred second appeals before the Hon'ble ITAT Amritsar and filed additional evidence in the shape of affidavits of the persons who had deposed against him before ITO Nawanshahr. The ITAT vide its consolidated order dated 24.11.2009 in ITA Nos.352-353(ASR)2009, set aside the issue of purchase of 16 acres of land back to CIT(A) Jalandhar for fresh consideration. e) In the second round, the Id.CIT(A) Jalandhar vide order dated 07.08.2013, (copy at APB pg. 35-39) deleted the impugned addition of Rs. 48.50 lacs, made in three cases, by relying upon the order of Hon'ble P&H High Court dated 02.12.2010 in ITA No.373 of 2206, in the case of seller Sh Jag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Chandigarh/Patiala (Appeal No.105/P/2001-02 dated 27.03.2002 and the Hon'ble ITAT, Chandigarh (ITA No.507/Chandi/2002 dated 16.11.2005) for the A. Y. 2000-01 in the case of Sh. Jagtar Singh, on the basis of which I.T.O.. Nawanshahr has initiated assessment proceedings under reference. 10. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has held (in the case of Sh. Jagtar Singh, (ITA No. 373 of 2006) as under:- "The point for consideration in this appeal is, whether cash deposits which were found in the bank accounts of the assessee had been duty explained by him, or not, and the CIT(A) and the Tribunal were justified in deleting the said addition? It is well settled that wherever a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the Department is required to prove that the same falls within the taxing provision, and where the receipt is in the nature of an income, the burden lies on the assessee to show that it is not taxable as it falls within the purview of exemption provided by the Act. However, under Section 68 of the Act, where any amount is found credited in the accounts of the assessee relating to any previous year, the same can be charged to income tax as the inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the onus was wrongly placed on the Department and the assessee had failed to produce any cogent and convincing material to establish that the deposits were on account of sale of land, the addition made by the assessing officer could not have been deleted and the fuming as recorded by him could not be held to be perverse. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal were, thus, not justified in reversing the finding of the assessing officer and thereby deleting the addition. In view of the above, the substantial question of law is, therefore, answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, Accordingly, the appeals stand allowed." 6.4 The ld. AR vehemently argued and submitted the cash trail in APB page 15-16 and mentioned that no such cash amount was paid by the assessee. There is no such any evidence that proof that the assessee paid the cash for purchasing of land related to A.Y. 1999-2000 and 2000-01. So, the entire amount claimed as payment in cash amount of Rs. 48.50 lacs over and above the registered sale price of land purchased has no basis and the assessee's issues is already covered by the Hon'ble P & H High Court vide order dated 02.12.2010 bearing no. 373/2006 ....