Shri Bhagwatiben Jayantilal Patel, Mehsana V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Patan

ITA 1025/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4610 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SONIA KUMAR
• Keywords: Peak credit
• Section: 148; 144

Judgement Text

ITA NO.1025/AHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM] ITA NO.1025/AHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 BHAGWATIBEN JAYANTILAL PATEL, ............ APPELLANT UMIYA PARU NO.1, UNJHA. [PAN: AQVPP 7532 M] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, PATAN. ....................... RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: NONE FOR THE APPELLANT SONIA KUMAR FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 11.10.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 15.10.2018 O R D E R 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HA S CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 22.02.2017, PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A ), GANDHINAGAR, AHMEDABAD, IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S. 1 47 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8-09, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. LD. CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN HOLDING VALIDITY OF RE- OPENING AND REASSESSMENT U/S.147, IN AS MUCH AS, 1.1 THE NOTICE U/S 148 DT. 27.03.2015 ISSUED BY A.O . WARD-1, MEHSANA WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION SINCE APPELLANT WA S ASSESSED BY A.O. WARD-1, PATAN. THE REASSESSMENT I S BAD IN LAW AND VOID AB INITIO. 1.2 REASONS RECORDED U/S 147 NOT SUPPLIED TO APPELL ANT AND PROCEDURE OF REASSESSMENT AS RULED BY HON. SC IS NO T FOLLOWED BY A.O. 259 ITR 19 (SC). 2. LEARNED CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION ON BASIS OF PEAK CREDIT AT RS.16,43,500/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION MADE BY A.O. AT RS.27,33,500/-. ITA NO.1025/AHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 PAGE 2 OF 2 3. LEARNED CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN FURTHER CONFIRMING ADDI TION OF RS.49,500/- FROM CASH BOOK, WITHOUT GIVING NOTICE O F ENHANCEMENT AND FURTHER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. 2. IT IS NOTICED THAT WHEN THE MATTER CAME UP FOR H EARING, NONE APPEARED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT DESPITE NOTICE HAV ING BEEN SENT BY REGISTERED POST. FROM THIS, IT IS REASONABLE TO INFER THAT THE ASSES SEE IS NOT SERIOUS TO PURSUE ITS CASE. HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. B HATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, 118 ITR 461(SC) OBSERVED THAT PREFERRING AN APPEAL MEANS EF FECTIVELY PURSUING IT. HONBLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT, 223 ITR 480(M.P.) DISMISSED THE REFERENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR N OT TAKING NECESSARY STEPS. SIMILAR VIEW IS TAKEN BY I.T.A.T., DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., 38 ITD 320. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL. I, THEREFORE, DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 3. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 15 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018. SD/- PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: AHMEDABAD, THE 15 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018. PBN/* COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD