Sh. Suresh Chaudhry, Ludhiana V. ITO, W-1(3), Ludhiana

ITA 1155/CHANDI/2019

AI Insights

This case involves three separate appeals filed by Shri Ashish Chaudhry, Shri Suresh Chaudhry, and Shri Amit Chaudhry against the orders of the CIT(A)-1 Ludhiana for the assessment year 2012-13. The appeals were heard together due to the similarity in facts and circumstances. The main issues revolved around the legality of the reopening of assessment proceedings, the rejection of claims under section 10(38), and the additions made under section 68 concerning unexplained credits. The Tribunal noted the absence of the assessees' counsel during the hearings and the repeated adjournments requested by them. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, upholding the findings of the CIT(A) and the additions made by the assessing officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 133737 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 05-12-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरणआयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च瀃डीगढ़ 瀈यायपीठ च瀃डीगढ़ 瀈यायपीठच瀃डीगढ़ 瀈यायपीठ च瀃डीगढ़ 瀈यायपीठ , च瀃डीगढ़ च瀃डीगढ़च瀃डीगढ़ च瀃डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर आयकरआयकर आयकर अपील अपीलअपील अपील सं संसं सं./ ITA No. 1153/CHD/2019 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Ashish Chaudhry, C-12, Focal Point, Phase-V, Ludhiana. बनाम VS The ITO, Ward-1(1), Ludhiana. 瀡थायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: AASPC4446N अपीलाथ牸/Appellant 灹瀄यथ牸/Respondent िनधा榁琇रती क琉 ओर से/Assessee by : None (Application for withdrawal of Power of Attorney). राज瀡व क琉 ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR & आयकर आयकरआयकर आयकर अपील अपीलअपील अपील सं संसं सं./ ITA No. 1155/CHD/2019 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Suresh Chaudhry, C-12, Focal Point, Phase-V, Ludhiana. बनाम VS The ITO, Ward-1(3), Ludhiana. 瀡थायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: AASPC4450C अपीलाथ牸/Appellant 灹瀄यथ牸/Respondent िनधा榁琇रती क琉 ओर से/Assessee by : None (Application for withdrawal of Power of Attorney). राज瀡व क琉 ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri M.P. Dwivedi, Sr. DR & आयकर आयकरआयकर आयकर अपील अपीलअपील अपील सं संसं सं./ ITA No. 1157/CHD/2019 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Amit Chaudhry, C-12, Focal Point, Phase-V, Ludhiana. बनाम VS The ITO, Ward-1(3), Ludhiana. 瀡थायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: AASPC4449N अपीलाथ牸/Appellant 灹瀄यथ牸/Respondent ITA 1153, 1155 & 1157 /CHD/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 Page 2 of 7 िनधा榁琇रती क琉 ओर से/Assessee by : None (Application for withdrawal of Power of Attorney). राज瀡व क琉 ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR तारीख/Date of Hearing : 06.12.2022 उदघोषणा क琉 तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 07.12.2022 आदेश आदेशआदेश आदेश/ORDER PER BENCH The se are three appeals filed by diffe rent asse ssees whe rein the correctness of the se parate o rde rs of CI T(A)-1 Ludhia na date d 04.06.2019 in I TA 1153/CHD/2019 & I TA 1157/CHD/2019 and date d 07.06.2019 in I TA 1155/CHD/2019 pertaining to 2012-13 asse ss ment ye ar is as sailed on ne ar ide ntical g rounds. 2. As the facts and circu mstance s are identical in all the appeals , t he refore , the se were he ard toge ther and are be ing decided by a common order. 3. At the time of he aring, no one was present on behalf of the asse ssee and an application was place d on re cord by the ld. AR in all the se appe als stating as under : “I am compelled to withdraw my Power of Attorney from all the above three cases due to some compelling professional reasons. I request the Hon'ble Bench to kindly issue a fresh notice to the appellant and relieve me of my obligation. Inconvenience caused is highly regretted.” 4. A perusal of the record shows that in the present appeals file d on 22.08.2019 initially time was s ought ove r the ye ars fo r obtaining re le vant informatio n whic h as per record had bee n ITA 1153, 1155 & 1157 /CHD/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 Page 3 of 7 grante d. The reafte r, v arious adjournme nts we re moved during the Cov id period whe rein time was again g ranted to the assesse e. Howe ve r, thereaft er it is se en that the present appeals have come up fo r he aring on more than half a dozen time s and on all the se occasions, a djou rnment was mov ed by the asse ssee 's counsel. Specific refere nce is made to the hearings fixed on 05.05.2022, 09.06.2022, 12.07.2022, 02.08.2022 and 22.11.2022 which shows that a djou rnments were granted o n t he written re que st of the ld. A R. A pe rusal of the re cord fu rther s hows that notices sent to the asse ssee by the Registry have repeatedly come back unserved alongwith the acknowle dgement with the co mments ‘Le ft’. Thu s, where appare nt ly re le vant facts have not bee n made available to the c ounsel who after see king time ad infinitum has ultimately withdrawn the Power of Attorne y and also has not cared to be pre se nt before the I TA T to e xplain the circ umstances and the asse ssee no t in a position to re ce ive notices on acc ount of change of address e tc. I n the said backdrop, we can safely presume that the respective asses se es may not wish to purs ue with the appe als file d as repeate dly despite opportunitie s, no effort has bee n made to assist t he Tribunal in c oncluding the hearing. Acco rdingly, after he aring ld. Sr.DR Ms. A manpre et Kaur for t he Re ve nue in I TA 1153 and 1157/CHD/2019 and Shri M.P.Dwive di in ITA 1155/CHD/2019, we propose to pass the ITA 1153, 1155 & 1157 /CHD/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 Page 4 of 7 orde r e x-parte qua the respective asse ssees after he aring the Depart ment. 5. The grounds raised in ITA 1153/CHD/2019 which are more or less ide ntical in the rema ining two appeals e xcept fo r the diffe re nce in the amounts. A ccordingly, treat ing them as repre se ntative grounds for t he remaining two appeals also, the se are re produced he reunde r : 1 . That the impugned order of penalty is bad both on facts and Law. 2. That the re-opening, of the assessment proceedings u/s 147/148 are bad in Law illegal, without jurisdiction and merely on guess, surmises & conjectures against the facts & circumstances of the case and even the sanctions by the Ld. Principal Commissioner is in mechanical manner and without application of mind. 3. Ld. Appellate Authority wrongly & illegally upheld the rejection of claim u/s 10(38) ignoring the fact that the shares were sold through recognised stock exchange on which STT has been charged merely on the basis of guess, surmises and conjectures. 4. That the Ld. Appellate Authority wrongly and illegally confirmed the additions of an amount of Rs 23,80,602/- u/s 68 against the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. the Ld Appellate Authority has wrongly & illegally rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal on account of technical glitches of income tax portal being in infancy stages of new e-filing procedure for filing appeals before Commissioner(Appeals. 6. That the interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D have been wrongly and illegally charged. 7. That the Appellant craves permission to add, amend, elucidate any ground of appeal at the time of hearing 6. The ld. Sr.DR s rely upon the orde rs. ITA 1153, 1155 & 1157 /CHD/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 Page 5 of 7 7. In the facts of the present case , it is se en that ground No.1 is mis-conce ive d and does not arise in the pre se nt procee dings, hence , dismis sed accordingly. 8. Ground No.2 rais ed in the present procee dings c halle nging the re-opening we find has not bee n agitated before the CI T(A). Copy of Form No. 35 available on re cord has be en see n. Hence , no finding of the First Appellate Authority is available on the issue . We find from t he record that before us de spite pro viding more than adequ ate opportunitie s to the asse ssee, no atte mpt has bee n made to show how the ground is maintainable and allowable. No thing ha s be en placed be fore u s to show tha t the asse ss ment was bad in law. According ly, ground No.2 cons idering t he re cord available is dismis se d. 9. On Grou nd Nos . 3 and 4 on which c hallenge we find has bee n posed be fore the CI T(A) also, we find that be fore us nothing has be en placed by the a ssessee to show that the finding arrive d at in the orders vide para 6 addressing t he backdrop, paras 7, 8 and 9 addre ssing the legal position and para 10 where in the conc lus ion arrive d at upholding the addit ion sustaine d is maintained. We find that para 12 of the asse ss ment order which has be en confirmed has not be en shown to be an incorre ct finding of fact. For re ady refere nc e, it is re produced he reunde r : ITA 1153, 1155 & 1157 /CHD/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 Page 6 of 7 12. In view of above, as well as the fact that the assessee had failed to furnish any document during the course of assessment proceedings, not to speak of to substantiating the genuineness of the claim of Long Term Capital Gain at Rs. 23,80,602/-, the same is held to be 'unexplained' in the light of provisions of section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 whish reads as under:- "Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to Income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year, " 9.1 Since nothing has be en placed before us to rebut the finding on fact or addre ss the issue on facts for want of submission and supporting e vidence s, the additions sust aine d by the CI T(A) are uphe ld. 10. On a pe rusal of the record, it is se e n that ground No. 5 does not arise in the present group of case s as in each of t he se appeals the issue s have been decided by the First Appellate Authority on merits. 10.1 Ground No. 6 is conse que ntial and ground No. 7 being a residuary ground re quire s no specific adju dic ation. 11. We find tha t the position qua t he issue s agitated be fore the First Appe llate Authority and the additions sus taine d by t he First Appe lla te Authority in the remaining two appeals als o remain identical. In the absence of any re butt al on facts and positio n of law applicable there to, we uphold the addit ions and dismiss the appeals filed by the respe ctive as se ssees. ITA 1153, 1155 & 1157 /CHD/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 Page 7 of 7 12. While so holding, we would like to se t out herein that in the event the assesse e is seriou s in pursuing the appe als filed and is ready to argue the m on me rits showing jus tifiable cause s for not remaining pre se nt and ke eping the Registry informe d about the asse ssee 's corre ct address, the assesse e would be at liberty to pray for a recall of this o rde r and dis posal of t he appeals on me rit. 13. In the re sult, all the appeals of the assesse es are dis misse d. Orde r prono unce d in the Ope n Cou rt on 07 t h Decembe r,2022. Sd/- Sd/- (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (DIVA SINGH) लेखा लेखालेखा लेखा सद瀡य सद瀡यसद瀡य सद瀡य/ Accountant Member 瀈याियक 瀈याियक瀈याियक 瀈याियक सद瀡य सद瀡यसद瀡य सद瀡य/ Judicial Member “Poonam” आदेश क琉 灹ितिलिप अ灡ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ牸/ The Appellant 2. 灹瀄यथ牸/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु猴/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु猴 (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय 灹ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च瀃डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड榁 फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar