PAVITTAR SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The assessee has approached this Court by way of instant appeal under Sec. 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") against the order dated 31.10.2014 (Annexure A -3) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in ITA No. 224(ASR)/2013, for the assessment year 2009 -10, claiming the following substantial questions of law: -

(2.) A few facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The assessee is employed as a Machine Operator with M/s. Nestle India Ltd., Moga and filed his return of income on 20.7.2009 for the assessment year 2009 -10 declaring income at Rs. 1,48,510/ -. The said return was processed under Sec. 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny and notices under Ss. 143(2)/142(1) of the Act were issued. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 16.11.2011 (Annexure A -1) assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 43,86,580/ -. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer, inter alia, made addition of Rs. 42,00,000/ - which was deposited in S/B A/c No. 114848 with Allahabad Bank, Moga branch as 'unexplained cash credit' under Sec. 68 of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for brevity "the CIT(A)"]. The CIT(A) vide order dated 28.2.2013 (Annexure A -2) partly allowed the appeal and sustained the addition of Rs. 11,75,000/ - towards unexplained investment with respect to purchase of the new agricultural land. Still dissatisfied, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal who vide order dated 31.10.2014 (Annexure A -3) partly allowed the appeal and restricted the addition of deficit of Rs. 11,75,000/ - sustained by the CIT(A) to Rs. 5,87,500/ -. Hence, the present appeal by the assessee.

(3.) Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the findings recorded by the authorities below are perverse, bad and against the record. It was further submitted that if the ratio of 50% each was accepted then it should have been assessed as capital gain and not income from other sources. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan : (1999) 237 ITR 570.