Smt. G. Vanaja, V. DCIT,

ITA 1006/BANG/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2729 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-02-2019
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C H SUNDAR RAO
• Section: 153A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A ND SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO S . 1006 TO 1008 /BANG/201 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 06 - 07 TO 2008 - 09 SMT. G. VANAJA, W/O G KARUNAKAR REDDY, NO. 52, SIRGUPPA ROAD, ASHOK NAGAR, HAVAMBAVI, BELLARY. PAN: AIHPG0429L VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (3), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI C.H. SUNDAR RAO, CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 20 .0 2 .2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 .0 2 .2019 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ALL THESE THREE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A ND THE SAME ARE DIRECTED AGAINST A COMBINED ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), MYSORE DATE D 31.01.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2008-09. ALL THESE APPEALS WERE H EARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAK E OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2006-07 IN ITA NO. 1006/BANG/2013 ARE AS UNDER. 1. THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN SO FAR AS IT IS AGAINST THE APPELLANT IS OPPOSED TO LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, NA TURAL JUSTICE, PROBABILITIES, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPEL LANT'S CASE. 2. THE APPELLANT DENIES HERSELF LIABLE TO BE ASSESS ED ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,62,75,100/- AS AGAINST RS.27,64,724/- RETUR NED BY THE APPELLANT AND IN FACT THE RETURNED INCOME IS EXCESS IVE AND NEEDS TO BE REDUCED UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE 3. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS BAD IN LAW AS THE ASSESS MENT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT AS THE APPELLANT IS A PERSON SEARCHED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER IS BAD IN LAW AS THE MANDATORY CONDITIONS TO INVOKE THE JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT DID NOT EXIST OR HAVING NOT BEEN CO MPLIED WITH AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BAD IN LAW FOR WANT OF REQUISITE JURISDICTION. ITA NOS. 1006 TO 1008/BANG/2013 PAGE 2 OF 5 5. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN ADDING A SUM OF R S.53,33,705/- UNDER SECTION ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF BANK BAL ANCE AND CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN ADDING A SUM OF R S.80,24,673/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNPROVED LIABILITIES UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 7. A) THE AUTHORITIES BELOW OUGHT TO HAVE MADE A RE ASONABLE ESTIMATE OF INCOME AT SOME REASONABLE PERCENTAGE OF THE TURN OVER UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 8. B) WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME A T A GREATER FIGURE THAN GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT IN ACCO RDANCE WITH LAW AND THUS THE INCOME ASSESSED NEEDS TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED UNDER THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 9. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN CONSIDERING CAPIT AL INTRODUCED IN CASH OF RS.1,52,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME UNDER T HE FACTS OF THE CASE. 10. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE INCOME ASSESSED AT RS.1, 62,75,100/- IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE AND NEEDS TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY REDU CED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 11. THE APPELLANT DENIES HERSELF LIABLE TO BE LEVIE D TO INTEREST UNDER SECTIONS 234A,B AND D OF THE ACT AND FURTHER THE CO MPUTATION OF INTEREST WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT AS REGAR D TO THE RATE, PERIOD AND METHOD OF CALCULATION OF INTEREST UNDER THE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE APPELLANT EXPRESSLY URGES THAT THE PERIOD OF LEVY OF INTEREST IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WIT H THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 12. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE INTEREST LEVIED UNDER SE CTIONS 234 A, B AND D OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN WAIVED ON THE FACTS OF THE CAS E. 13. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, DELET E OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OF THE GROUNDS URGED ABOVE. 14. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE APPELLANT PR AYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUIT Y. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2007-08 IN ITA NO. 1007/BANG/2013 ARE AS UNDER. 1. THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN SO FAR AS IT IS AGAINST THE APPELLANT IS OPPOSED TO LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, NA TURAL JUSTICE, PROBABILITIES, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPEL LANT'S CASE. 2. THE APPELLANT DENIES HERSELF LIABLE TO BE ASSESS ED ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,64,90,940/- AS AGAINST RS.52,61,582/- RETUR NED BY THE APPELLANT AND IN FACT THE RETURNED INCOME IS EXCESS IVE AND NEEDS TO BE REDUCED UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE 3. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS BAD IN LAW AS THE ASSESS MENT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT AS THE APPELLANT IS A PERSON SEARCHED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER IS BAD IN LAW AS THE MANDATORY CONDITIONS TO INVOKE THE JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION ITA NOS. 1006 TO 1008/BANG/2013 PAGE 3 OF 5 153C OF THE ACT DID NOT EXIST OR HAVING NOT BEEN CO MPLIED WITH AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BAD IN LAW FOR WANT OF REQUISITE JURISDICTION. 5. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN ADDING A SUM RS.6 7,98,330/- UNDER SECTION ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF BANK BALANCE W HICH IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN ADDING A SUM OF R S.44,31,030/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNPROVED LIABILITIES UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 7. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE ADDITION OF RS.1,12,29,36 0/- IS ON WRONG APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND REQUIRED TO BE MADE NIL U NDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 8. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE INCOME ASSESSED AT RS.1,6 4,90,940/- IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE AND NEEDS TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 9. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW OUGHT T O HAVE MADE A REASONABLE ESTIMATE OF INCOME AT SOME REASONABLE PE RCENTAGE OF THE TURNOVER UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE. 10. THE APPELLANT DENIES HERSELF LIABLE TO BE LEVIE D TO INTEREST UNDER SECTIONS 234A,B AND D OF THE ACT AND FURTHER THE CO MPUTATION OF INTEREST WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT AS REGAR D TO THE RATE, PERIOD AND METHOD OF CALCULATION OF INTEREST UNDER THE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE APPELLANT EXPRESSLY URGES THAT THE PERIOD OF LEVY OF INTEREST IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WIT H THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 11. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE INTEREST LEVIED UNDER SE CTIONS 234 A, B AND D OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN WAIVED ON THE FACTS OF THE CAS E. 12. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, DELET E OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OF THE GROUNDS URGED ABOVE. 13. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE APPELLANT PR AYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUIT Y. 4. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2008-09 IN ITA NO. 1008/BANG/2013 ARE AS UNDER. 1. THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN SO FAR AS IT IS AGAINST THE APPELLANT IS OPPOSED TO LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, NA TURAL JUSTICE, PROBABILITIES, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPEL LANT'S CASE. 2. THE APPELLANT DENIES HERSELF LIABLE TO BE ASSESS ED ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,40,46,030/- AS AGAINST RS.1,51,97,706/- RET URNED BY THE APPELLANT AND IN FACT THE RETURNED INCOME IS EXCESS IVE AND NEEDS TO BE REDUCED UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WITHOUT MAKING INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 4. THE CENTRALISATION OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE IS BA D IN LAW AND THUS THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT HAS NO LEGS TO STAND THE TEST O F LAW UNDER THE FACTS ITA NOS. 1006 TO 1008/BANG/2013 PAGE 4 OF 5 AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN ADDING A SUM OF R S.1,88,48,325/- UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE ADDITION OF RS.1,88,48,32 5/- IS ON WRONG APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND REQUIRED TO BE MADE NIL U NDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 7. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW OUGHT T O HAVE MADE A REASONABLE ESTIMATE OF THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AT SOME REASONABLE PERCENTAGE OF THE TURNOVER UNDER THE FACTS OF THE C ASE. 8. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN ASSESSING A SUM O F RS. 1 CRORE BEING THE AMOUNT INADVERTENTLY DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AS THE DECLARATION IS NOT BAS ED ON ANY FACTUAL FOUNDATION. 9. THE APPELLANT DENIES HERSELF LIABLE TO BE LEVIED TO INTEREST UNDER SECTIONS 234A,B,C AND D OF THE ACT AND FURTHER THE COMPUTATION OF INTEREST WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT AS REGAR D TO THE RATE, PERIOD AND METHOD OF CALCULATION OF INTEREST UNDER THE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE APPELLANT EXPRESSLY URGES THAT THE PERIOD OF LEVY OF INTEREST IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WIT H THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 10. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE INTEREST LEVIED UNDER SE CTIONS 234A, B, C AND D OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN WAIVED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 11. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, DELET E OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OF THE GROUNDS URGED ABOVE. 12. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE APPELLANT PR AYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUIT Y. 5. IN THIS CASE, EARLIER MR. PRASHANTH G S, CA WAS AUTHORIZED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS LD. AR OF ASSESSEE AND THE LETTER O F AUTHORIZATION IN HIS FAVOUR DATED 17.03.2014 IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. TH E SAID LD. AR OF ASSESSEE APPEARED ON SEVERAL DATES BUT ON 14.01.201 9, HE SUBMITTED A LETTER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN WHICH IT IS STATED TH AT ALTHOUGH HE HAD FILED THE LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION TO PRESENT THE CASE OF ASSE SSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BUT SUBSEQUENTLY, HE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY FURTHER I NSTRUCTIONS FROM THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, HE SOUGHT PERMISSION TO WIT HDRAW HIMSELF FROM THE BRIEF. HE ALSO REQUESTED THE TRIBUNAL TO SEND NOTI CE DIRECTLY TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE APPEAL MEMO. ACCOR DINGLY ON THIS DATE, ITA NOS. 1006 TO 1008/BANG/2013 PAGE 5 OF 5 HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 20.02.2019 AND NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD AT THE ADDRESS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO. 36 I.E. THE APPEAL MEMO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL. THIS NOTICE HAS BEEN DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE ACKNOWL EDGMENT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN SPITE OF THIS, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS DATE OF HEARING I.E. 20.02.2019 AND THERE IS NO REQ UEST FOR ADJOURNMENT ALSO. HENCE THE APPEALS WERE HEARD EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSES SEE. IN COURSE OF HEARING, IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE BENCH THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN SPITE OF SERVICE O F NOTICE OF HEARING ON THE ASSESSEE, IT SHOULD BE PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE I S NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THESE APPEALS AND THEREFORE, THE SAME A RE DISMISSED AS UNADMITTED BY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. AS REPORTED IN 38 ITD 320 (DEL ). RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER, THESE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASS ESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE ME NTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (LALIET KUMAR) (ARUN KUMAR G ARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 22 ND FEBRUARY, 2019. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALOR E.