Deepak Kapoor, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1104/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 65462 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 12-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V.MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULBHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.- 1104/DEL/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2005-06) DEEPAK KAPOOR, VS DCIT, 230-E, MASJID MOTH, CIRCLE-6(1), 16-A, UDAY PARK, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI-110049. PAN-AEZPK9006M (A PPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SH. A.K.SINGH, SR. D R APPEAL HEARD ON-13.09.2012 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON-14.09.2012 ORDER PER KULBHARAT, JM THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-IX, NEW DELHI DATED 08.122009.. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL:- 1). THAT THE LD. A.O HAS ARBITRARILY ADDED AN AMO UNT OF RS. 8,03,000/- TO THE RETURNED INCOME WHICH WERE THE CA SH DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNTS WITHOUT TAKING INTO A CCOUNT CASH WITHDRAWALS OF RS. 5,72,000/- FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT S. 2). THAT EVEN A CASH FLOW STATEMENT WAS PRESENTED B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE APPELLATE AUTH ORITY THE SAME WAS NEVER CONSIDERED AND ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASS ED WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE EXPLANATIONS O FFERED. 3). THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEE N GENERALLY MET FROM HIS TWO BANK ACCOUNTS AND IT MAY BE CONSTRUED THAT WHEN PERSON IS HAVING SOME SHORTAGE OF FUNDS HE I.T.A .NO.- 1104/DEL/2010 2 WILL BORROW SOME SMALL FUNDS FROM HIS FRIENDS AND R ELATIVES. SINCE THE ASSESSEE LIVES WITH HIS PARENTS IN A JOIN T FAMILY COMPRISING OF HIS FATHER, MOTHER, BROTHER AND HIS O WN FAMILY THE EXPENSES TENT TO GET DIVIDED AND GETS REDUCED T O A LARGE EXTENT. 4). THAT IT HAS NEVER BEEN THE INTENTION OF THE ASS ESSEE TO ABSTAIN FROM ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ; RATHER HE AND HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAVE ALWAYS COOPERATED WI TH THE DEPARTMENT IN FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT MUCH BEFORE THE TIME BARRING DATE. THAT DATES ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ATTEND OR PRESENT WERE DULY EXPLAINED TO THE A.O, WHO CONT INUED TO ASK FOR A BALANCE SHEET/ STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS. SINCE T HE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND HE DERIVES HIS INCOME FROM DIRECT ORS REMUNERATION OF HIS TWO PVT. LTD. COMPANIES, MAINTE NANCE OF ACCOUNTS WAS NOT MANDATORY UNDER THE LAW BUT EVEN T HEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE GAVE FULL DETAILS OF HIS MOVABLE AND I MMOVABLE ASSETS FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE AUTHORITIES CONCE RNED. EVEN A CASH FLOW STATEMENT WAS SUBMITTED DURING THE ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 5). THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED ALL HIS BANK PA YMENTS, CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS, CASH EXPENSES, SMALL PERSONAL LOANS, REPAYMENT OF LOANS OUT OF HIS TOTAL INCOME DERIVED AND CASH FLOW STATEMENTS THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,03,000/- IS P RAYED TO BE DELETED. 6). ANY OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL THAT MAY BE RELEVAN T AND APPROPRIATE. 3. NO ONE IS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. LD . SENIOR DR IS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. FROM THE RECORDS, IT IS TRANSPIRED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ATTENDING THE HEARING. A NOTICE BY RP AD WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 01.05.2012, TODAY ALSO, THE ASSESSEE I S NOT PRESENT. THEREFORE,2 IT IS PRESUMED THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN P ROSECUTING THE PRESENT APPEAL. HENCE, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION IN VIEW OF THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- I.T.A .NO.- 1104/DEL/2010 3 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N.BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTH ER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT : THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APP EAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2. IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (M.P) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MA DE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER: IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS M ADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFE RENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL, THE APPEAL FILED B Y THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPE LLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. TH ERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OF INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVEN UE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE RE VENUE AS UN- ADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF TH E APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 4. HENCE, THE PRESENT APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION IN THE CASE OF MULTI PLAN (SUPRA). 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON14.09.2012. SD/- SD/- (S.V.MEHROTRA) (KULBHARAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 14/09/2012 *AMIT KUMAR* I.T.A .NO.- 1104/DEL/2010 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI