Kamal Kishore, Patiala V. Income Tax Officer, Patiala

ITA 1403/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5160 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDERKANATA
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER& MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1403/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SH. KAMAL KISHORE, VS. THE ITO, WARD-2, H.NO. 427, MIG FLATS, PATIALA URBAN ESTATE, PHASE I PATIALA PAN NO. AOMPK0470L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. CHANDERKANATA, ADDL CIT DATE OF HEARING : 21.03.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.03.2018 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S), [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)], PATIALA DATED 10.10.2016. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/ S 271(1)(C) OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') AMOUNTING TO RS. 19,12,404/-. NO ONE HAS COME PRESENT DESPITE NOTICE . HENCE, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL BY HEARING THE LD. DR. ITA NO.1403/CHD/2016- KAMAL KISHORE. 2 3. THE LD. DR HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE IMP UGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR HAS AL SO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.12.2011 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 144 OF THE ACT. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT A SSESSEE FILED RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS.1,46,460/-. HOWEVER, DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SEVERAL NOTICES / SUMM ONS TO THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE REQUIRED INFORMATION BUT NO ONE HAD COME PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OF FICER, THEREFORE, WAS LEFT WITH NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO FRAME EX-PARTE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER APPRECIATION OF THE RECORD OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS INVOLVED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN IRON AND STEEL GOODS. THAT THOUGH, THERE WERE HEAVY TRANSACTIONS O F DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, YE T THE INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS VERY MEAGER. HE, THEREF ORE, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE OVERALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, APPLIED GROSS PROFIT RATE @ 1% AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 56,35,562/- ON THIS ACCOUNT, APART FROM THAT ASSESSING OFFICER MA DE ADDITION OF RS. 1.65 LAC ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, DI D NOT MAKE ANY SEPARATE ADDITION IN RELATIONS TO THE HEAVY TRANSAC TIONS IN THE BANK ITA NO.1403/CHD/2016- KAMAL KISHORE. 3 ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENALTY PR OCEEDINGS AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED ABOUT THE BANK TRANSACTIONS AND HAD SHOWED VERY MEAGRE INCOME AS C OMPARED TO THE INCOME ASSESSED, HENCE, IT WAS A CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND THEREBY CONCEALMENT OF IN COME. HE, ACCORDINGLY LEVIED THE IMPUGNED PENALTY WHICH HAS B EEN FURTHER CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 5. BEFORE US, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ANYONE APPEA RED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE OR HAS EXPLAINED AS TO WHY IMPUGNED PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE CONFIRMED. IT IS A FACT ON THE FILE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COOPERATE WITH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND FAILED TO FURNISHED ANY EXPLANATION REGARDING BANK TRANSACTIONS. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT LEFT WITH ANY ALTERNA TIVE THAN TO ASSESS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ESTIMATION OF GROSS P ROFITS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN OUR VIEW, HAS ACTED VERY FAIR LY AS HE HAD NOT MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITS OR HEAVY BANK TRANSACTIONS BUT HAD CONSIDERED THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESS EE I.E. OF TRADING IN IRON AND STEEL GOODS AND ESTIMATED THE GROSS PRO FITS. THE ASSESSEE NEITHER EXPLAINED ABOUT THE BANK TRANSACTIONS NOR P RODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN OUR VIEW, THE ACT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IS OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BY WAY OF OMISSION TO PRODUCE THE NECESSARY EVIDENCES AND DETAILS. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE DO NOT F IND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND UPHOLD THE PENALTY. ITA NO.1403/CHD/2016- KAMAL KISHORE. 4 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED :21.03.2018 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR