Sh. Ramesh Chand, Nabha V. ITO, Nabha

ITA 1063/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80912 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J S NAGAR
• Assessee Lawyers: H R SALDI
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation; Reasonable cause
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1063/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 SH.RAMESH CHAND, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER. S/O SH.RAMM PARKASH NABHA. C/O BANARSI DASS RAM CHAND NEW GRAIN MARKET, NABHA. PAN: AAPPG3815L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI H.R.SALDI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.S.NAGAR, DR DATE OF HEARING : 29.09.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.09.2014 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), PATIALA DATED 2 5.10.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME AT RS.1,83,917/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.10,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE LOANS MO RE THAN RS.10 LACS AND THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 24.7. 2006, WHICH WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 31.7.2006. THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM RICE SHELLER. THE AS SESSEE DID 2 NOT ATTEND THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN RESPONSE T O THE SERVICE OF THE SAID NOTICE. ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY W AS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH STATUTORY NOTICE BUT THE NOTIC E COULD NOT BE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS LEF T THE PREMISES WITHOUT ADDRESS. THE LOCAL ENQUIRIES REV EALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS LEFT THE CITY WITHOUT ANY ADDRESS. FURTHER NOTICE ALONGWITH QUESTIONNAIRE WERE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE THROUGH AFFIXTURE ON 24.11.2007 FOR 26.11.2007. T HIS NOTICE REMAIN UN-COMPLIED WITH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE PASSED EX-PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND MADE THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GP, LOW YIELD AND UNEXPLAINED UNSECURED LOANS AND COMPU TED THE INCOME AT RS.12,03,770/-. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WA S PASSED ON DATED 24.12.2007. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEA L BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) IN WHICH IT WAS CONTENDED THAT NO SUFFICIENT TIME WAS GIVEN BEFORE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) NOTED THAT THERE WAS INOR DINATE DELAY OF ABOUT 2 YEARS IN FILING THE APPEAL WHICH W AS WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE AND THE APPEAL WAS ACCORDINGLY DIS MISSED. THEREAFTER THE TRIBUNAL RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (APPEALS) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. THE ASSESSE ES COUNSEL THEREAFTER APPEARED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS ) AND IT WAS CONTENDED THAT NO NOTICE OR ASSESSMENT ORDER HA VE BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE COMMENTS OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER WERE CALLED FOR IN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFI CER REITERATED THE FACT STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND JUSTIFIED PASSING OF THE EX-PARTE ORDER. THE LEA RNED CIT 3 (APPEALS) DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT SERVICE OF THE NOTICE THROUGH AFFIXTURE IS NOT VALI D BECAUSE THE SERVICE WAS EFFECTED AS PER LAW ON THE LAST KNOWN A DDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE REPORT OF THE NOTICE SERVER WAS AVAILABLE ON RECORD THAT AFFIXTURE WAS MADE IN THE PRESENCE O F TWO WITNESSES. FURTHER COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE ALSO TAKEN AND THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ON GOING THROUGH THE RECORD FOUND THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE NOT CORRECT. IT WAS FOUND THAT NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED AS PER PROCEDURE ON 24.11.2007. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY EFFORT TO SEEK ADJOURNMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFO RE, THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS NOT CONDONED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOT H THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) DA TED 24.7.2006 WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 31.7.2006. THEREAFTER THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF T HE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE LEFT THE PREMISES WITHOUT GIVING FURTHER ADDRESS TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. THEREF ORE, NOTICE WAS SERVED THROUGH AFFIXTURE FOR FURTHER PRO CEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ACCORDING TO THE R EPORT OF THE NOTICE SERVER IT WAS THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS AND THE PROCEEDINGS WERE ATTENDED BY TWO EYE WITNESSES. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO REPORTED THAT EX-PARTE ASSES SMENT ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE WERE ALSO AFFIXED AT THE LAST KNO WN ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS FACT WOULD CLEARLY REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF THE EARLIER NOTICE DID NOT 4 APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FOR THE REM AINING NOTICES THE SAME WERE SERVED THROUGH AFFIXED AS PER LAW AND ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS ALSO SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE THROUGH AFFIXTURE IN THE PRESENCE OF TWO WITNESSES. THE H ON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF V.R.A. C OTTON MILLS P. LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS [359 ITR 495 (SC)] HELD THAT THE NOTICE WHICH WAS SERVED BY AFFIXTURE ON THE LAST DATE OF LIMITATION WAS VALID. THIS FACT ON RECORD CLEARLY PROVES THAT NOTICES WERE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE A ND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS ALSO SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE THROUGH AFFIXTURE. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL PREFERRED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) WAS CLEARLY TIME BARRED AND NO REASON ABLE CAUSE HAS BEEN EXPLAINED OR FILING THE APPEAL BELATEDLY B EFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) W AS, THEREFORE, JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THE APPEAL TO BE TI ME BARRED AND DISMISSED THE SAME. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF NOTICE WAS SERVED BY AFFIXTURE, NO SUFFICIENT TIME HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT THE CASE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEC AUSE ONLY TWO DAYS TIME WAS LEFT AFTER AFFIXTURE OF THE NOTI CE ON 24.11.2007 FOR PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ON 26.11.2007. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAIN ED AS TO WHY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY EFFORT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REPRESENT THE CASE FOR FILING THE APPEAL ON TIME BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). NO MATERIAL IS PRODUCED BEFORE US TO SUBSTANTIATE ANY CONTENTION RAISED BEF ORE US. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. NO OTHER GROUND ON MERIT HAS BEEN RAISE D BECAUSE 5 THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED BY THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL S) HOLDING THE APPEAL TIME BARRED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH