Hardev Singh,, New Delhi vs Assessee

Shri Hardev Singh, vs Income Tax Officer, B-3, Gujranwala Town, Ward 20(4), Room No.303, Part-I, New Delhi. F Block, Vikas Bhawan, (PAN: ANZPS9184M) New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by: Shri Kapil Goel, Adv. Respondent by : Shri T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 11.3.2015 Date of pronouncement: ORDER

PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The above captioned appeals have been filed against the order of CIT(A)-

XXII, New Delhi dated 31.03.2010 passed in Appeal No. 196/08-09 and

197/08-09 for AY 2001-02 and 2002-03 respectively. At the very outset, ld.

Counsel for the assessee submitted that in both the appeals, the assessee does

not want to press ground no. 1, 2, 3 and 4, therefore, these grounds in both the

appeals are dismissed as not pressed. The remaining ground no. 5 in ITA No.

2882/Del/2010 reads as under:-

1

ITA 2881 & 2882/D/2010 Asstt.Year: 2002-03 and 2001-02

"5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT(A) erred in not deleting the addition of Rs.38,20,072 as made by ld. AO on account of alleged capital gains, where revenue has accepted CIT(A) (Amritsar)'s favourable order in cases of other co-owners and buyers."

2. The remaining ground no. 5 in ITA No. 2881/Del/2010 reads as under:-

"5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT(A) erred in not deleting the addition of Rs.3,66,666 as made by ld.AO on account of alleged capital gains, where revenue has accepted CIT(A)- (Amritsar)'s favourable order in cases of other co-owners and buyers."

3. We have heard arguments of both the sides and carefully perused the

relevant material placed on record. Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that

the CIT(A) erred in not deleting the addition of Rs.38,20,072 and Rs. 3,66,666

as made by ld. AO in AY 2001-02 and 2002-03 respectively on account of

alleged capital gains, specially when the revenue has accepted the order of the

CIT(A) (Amritsar) favourable to the other co-owners and buyers, wherein

similar additions have been found to be unsustainable as the additions made by

the AO in the case of Amritsar Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. on the similar set of facts

and allegation has been upheld. Ld. Counsel has also drawn our attention

towards paper book page no. 79 to 99 and submitted that when the substantial

additions have been made in the case of respective company viz. Amritsar Rice

Mills Ltd., then addition on similar ground was held to be not sustainable in the

case of other co-owners and buyers and the assessee is also one of the co-

owners, therefore, the additions made in the hands of assessee are also not 2 ITA 2881 & 2882/D/2010 Asstt.Year: 2002-03 and 2001-02

sustainable in the light of decision of CIT (A) Amritsar in the case of other co-

owners and buyers.

4. Replying to the above, ld. DR submitted that despite several efforts, he is

unable to get final report from CIT(A) Amritsar about the cases of other co-

owners and buyers and the department has no serious objection if the sole issue

involved in both the appeals is restored to the file of AO for verification and

examination in accordance with the orders of CIT(A), Amritsar in the case of

other co-owners and buyers.

5. Ld. Counsel of the assessee placing rejoinder on above submission of the

revenue submitted that the AO cannot be allowed to take a second round of

proceedings merely because the department is unable to find out final position

of the cases of the other co-owners and buyers who are being assessed at

Amritsar. However, subsequently, ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that if

it is found just and proper, then the sole issue involved in both the appeals may

be restored to the file of AO for limited purpose only.

6. On consideration of above submissions of both the sides and on vigilant

perusal of material placed on record before us, we are of the considered view

that while the CIT(A), Amritsar has deleted the addition in the cases of other

co-owners and buyers on the similar set of fact and circumstances then

obviously in a peculiar situation when it is undisputed that the assessee is also

one of the co-owners, then similar additions, deleted by the CIT(A), Amritsar 3 ITA 2881 & 2882/D/2010 Asstt.Year: 2002-03 and 2001-02

in the case of other co-owners and buyers, cannot be sustained in the case of

present appellant assessee.

7. We may further point out that despite several opportunities, which have

been afforded to the revenue, ld. DR is unable to get a final report and status of

the case of other co-owners and buyers. Under these facts and circumstances,

when both the parties are agreed that the issue may be restored to the file of AO

for verification and examination in the light of decision of CIT(A)-Amritsar in

the cases of other co-owners and buyers, then we find it just and proper to

restore the issue to the file of AO. Hence, sole issue in both the appeals is

restored to the file of AO for verification and examination in the manner as

indicated above affording due opportunity of hearing for the assessee for this

limited purpose only. Accordingly, ground no.5 in both the appeals is deemed

to be allowed for statistical purposes.

8. In the result, both the appeals are deemed to be partly allowed for

statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16.3.2015.

Sd/- Sd/-

(S. V. MEHROTRA) (CHANDRAMOHAN GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

DT. 16th MARCH 2015 'GS'

4 ITA 2881 & 2882/D/2010 Asstt.Year: 2002-03 and 2001-02

Copy forwarded to:-

1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. C.I.T.(A) 4. C.I.T. 5. DR By Order

Asstt.Registrar

5