Ita/326/2016 Of Ashwani Kumar v. Commissioner Of Income Tax Patiala

I N THE HI GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDI GARH --I TA 326 2016 ( O&M) -Dat e of deci si on: 23. 11. 2016 Ashwani Kumar Ver sus . . . Appel l ant Commi ssi oner of I ncome Tax, Pat i al a ( Punj ab) . . . Respondent CORAM: HON’ BLE MR. JUSTI CE S. J. VAZI FDAR, CHI EF JUSTI CEHON’ BLE MR. JUSTI CE A. B. CHAUDHARI Pr esent : -Mr . Sachi n Bhar dwaj , Advocat e,f or t he appel l ant . * * * * S. J. VAZI FDAR, C. J. ( ORAL) Thi s i s an appeal agai nst t he or der of t he I ncome TaxAppel l at e Tr i bunal conf i r mi ng t he or der of t he CI T ( Appeal s)whi ch i n t ur n uphel d t he assessment or der . The mat t er per t ai nst o t he assessment year 2009- 2010. 2.The appel l ant cont ends t hat t he f ol l owi ng subst ant i alquest i ons of l aw ar i se: - “ I . Whet her under t he f act &ci r cumst ances of t he case, t heTr i bunal or der i s unr easonabl e whi l eover l ooki ng & nei t her r et ur ni ng anyf i ndi ngs on t he ‘ f act and di r ectevi dence’ u/ s 32 of I ndi an Evi denceAct , 1872 qua t he exi st ence of t hepayee t o t he capi t al accountt r ansact i ons u/ s 2( 14) of t he I ncomeTax Act , 1961? I I .Whet her under t he f act &ci r cumst ances of t he case, pur suant t ot he pr ovi si ons of Sect i on 2( 14) , 45( 1)r . w. Sect i on 51, t he advance moneyar i si ng out of agr eement t o sel l shal lbe deduct ed f r om t he ‘ cost of asset ’and ( or ) t he whol e amount i s ‘ char geabl e’t o t ax u/ s 5 as ‘ r evenuer ecei pt ’ ?” 3.I n our vi ew,a subst ant i al quest i on of l aw does notar i se i n t hi s case. The appel l ant / assessee al l eges havi ngent er ed i nt o t wo agr eement s dat ed 19. 06. 2008 and 27. 06. 2008 f ort he sal e of hi s pr oper t i es t o t wo di f f er ent pur chaser s. Thet ot alsal e consi der at i on i n r espect of t he agr eement s wasRs. 70 l acs and Rs. 60 l acs. The agr eement s st at e t hat t heear nest money deposi t ed i n r espect t her eof was Rs. 35 l acs andRs. 30 l acs r espect i vel y. Accor di ng t o t he appel l ant , t heent i r e ear nest money amount i ng t o Rs. 65 l acs was pai d i n cash.He f ur t her cont ends t hat as t he pur chaser s di d not pr esentt hemsel ves f or r egi st r at i on,he f or f ei t ed t he EMD. TheAssessi ng Of f i cer , CI T ( Appeal s) and t he Tr i bunal di sbel i evedt he st or y.4.The al l eged pur chaser s wer e not pr oduced by t heappel l ant . The Assessi ng Of f i cer i ssued summons at t heappel l ant ’ s r equest . The pur chaser s coul d not be t r aced. Ther ei s a doubt as t o whet her t hey wer e r esi dent s of t he vi l l age i nwhi ch t he l and i s si t uat ed. One of t he al l eged pur chaser s haddi ed t hr ee year s ear l i er . Mor eover , i t i s unusual t hat 50% oft he consi der at i on was pai d as ear nest money. The appel l ant i sunabl e t o ment i on t he dat e on whi ch t he amount was deposi t ed i nhi s bank account . I t was pr esumabl y i n t he same f i nanci al year ,namel y, 2008- 2009 r el evant t o t he assessment year i n quest i on,namel y, 2009- 2010. A pur chaser havi ng pai d 50% of t heconsi der at i on i s not l i kel y t o abandon t he agr eement al mosti mmedi at el y. Ther e i s not hi ng on evi dence t o i ndi cat e why t heywoul d do so. Ther e was no cor r espondence bet ween t he assesseeand t he pur chaser s. I n t hese ci r cumst ances, t he r ef usal of t hr eeaut hor i t i es under t he Act t o accept t he appel l ant ’ s case cannotbe sai d t o be per ver se or absur d. The l east t hat must be sai di s t hat t hey have t aken a possi bl e vi ew. The same, t her ef or e,does not r ai se a subst ant i al quest i on of l aw.5.The appeal i s accor di ngl y di smi ssed. ( S. J. VAZI FDAR)CHI EF JUSTI CE 23. 11. 2016AmodhWhet her speaki ng/ r easonedYes/ NoWhet her r epor t abl eYes/ No ( A. B. CHAUDHARI )JUDGE