Naveen Kumar, Gohana V. ITO, Ward-32(2), New Delhi

ITA 1179/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6741 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L ANURAGI
• Keywords: Gift; Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Additional evidence; Condonation of delay
• Section: 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES SMC: DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.1179/DEL./2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 NAVEEN KUMAR H.NO. 53, WARD NO. 3, PATEL BASTI, BARODA ROAD KATH MANDI, GOHANA, HARYANA. APFPK8849H VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 32(23), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : NONE FOR REVENUE : SHRI S.L. ANURAGI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 1 7 .07 .201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01 .0 8 .2 01 9 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-11, NEW DELHI DATED 07.09 .2018 FOR AY 2010-11. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT AO HAD RE OPENED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF AIR I NFORMATION THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 17,94,0 00/- IN 2 ITA.NO.1179/DEL./2019 HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RE TURN OF INCOME ON 19.03.2012 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2, 18,400/-. BEFORE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 SEVERAL LETTERS WERE ISSUED BY THE AO TO ASK FOR THE DETAILS OF THE RETURN FILED A ND SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS. HOWEVER, NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE ALSO AO GIVE VAR IOUS OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS, HOWEVER, ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY COMPLI ANCE. THEREFORE, AO PASSED THE EX-PARTE ORDER U/S 144 OF THE ACT AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 17,94,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE FI LED TO CHALLENGE THE ADDITION BUT NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS FILED TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS. IT WAS MER ELY CONTENDED THAT CASH DEPOSITS WERE MADE OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF THE BUSINESS AND GIFT RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE FROM HIS MOTHER. THE LD. CIT(A) ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE ADDITIONA L EVIDENCES ALONG WITH APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A. HOWEVER, AS SESSEE DID NOT TAKE ANY STEP. THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED MANY T IMES BUT 3 ITA.NO.1179/DEL./2019 NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) . THE LD. CIT(A), ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF ASSESS EE. 3. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 91 DAYS AS PER NOTINGS OF THE REGISTRY. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPLIC ATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE WA S SICK AND HOSPITALIZED WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVIT. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN NOTIFIED THE DATE OF HEARI NG THROUGH REGISTERED POST. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 5. I HAVE HEARD LD. DR AND PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, I AM SATISFIE D THAT ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN NOT F ILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, CONDONED. 4 ITA.NO.1179/DEL./2019 7. ON MERITS, I FIND THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF INTER FERENCE AT ALL. THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL MERELY STATED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF FACTS AND THAT NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE IMPUGNED ORDER SHOWS THAT AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAVE GIVEN SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS. HOWEVER, A SSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO EXPLA IN SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS. NO STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAI N THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, N O INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE MATTER. I CONFIR M THE ADDITION AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 01.08.2019 5 ITA.NO.1179/DEL./2019 *KAVITA ARORA COPY TO 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R. ITAT SMC BENCH, DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. // BY ORDER // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR : ITAT DELHI BENCHES : DELHI. DATE OF DICTATION 1 7 .07.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 1 7 .07.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P S/PS 01.08.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 01.08.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS 01.08.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WE BSITE OF ITAT 01.08.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 01.08.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHIC H THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER