ITO Ward-5(4), V. Moder Holdings Pvt.Ltd.,

ITA 190/DEL/2004

• Counselvise Citation: 19020114 RSA 2004
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 10 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 12-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2004
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R S NEGI
• Keywords: Assessment record

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH E NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV AND SHRI K.D. RANJAN ITA NO. 190/DEL/2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-01 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, VS. M/S. MODERN HOLDINGS PVT. LTD WARD 5(4), FLAT NO.10, NEW DELHI. C-1/2, MODEL TOWN, NEW DELHI1100 09 (PAN/GIR NO. M-62 ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI RS NEGI, S R.DR RESPONDENT BY: NONE DATE OF HEARING : 12.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.12.2011 ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV: JUDICIAL MEMBER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DATED 20.10.2002 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH RULE 8 OF THE ITAT'S RULES, THEY ARE DESCRIPTIVE AND ARGUM ENTATIVE IN NATURE. IN BRIEF, IT HAS TAKEN THREE MAIN GROUNDS WHICH HAVE F URTHER SUB-GROUNDS UNDER GROUND NO.(V), SUB-GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN, SIMILAR LY UNDER GROUND NO.2, THREE SUB-GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN AND UNDER GROUND NO.3, TWO SUB-GROUND HAVE BEEN TAKEN. THE ITAT DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF R EVENUE ON MERIT VIDE ORDER DATED 31 ST JULY 2008. IT TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION THE THREE MA IN GROUNDS 2 TAKEN BY THE REVENUE. THE REVENUE FILED A MISCELLAN EOUS APPLICATION BEARING NO.96/DEL/2009 PLEADING THEREIN THAT IN SUB-GROUND NO.(V) OF GROUND NO.1, REVENUE HAS CONTENDED THAT LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ADMITTEDLY FRESH EVIDENCE FROM THE ASSESSEE IN VIOLATION TO RULE 46A . THIS GROUND WAS NOT ADJUDICATED BY THE ITAT. THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICA TION OF THE REVENUE WAS REJECTED BY THE ITAT VIDE ORDER DATED 4.12.2009 ON THE GROUND THAT REVENUE FAILED TO EFFECT THE SERVICE OF NOTICE UPON THE ASS ESSEE INSPITE OF PROVIDING OF SIX OPPORTUNITIES. HOWEVER, ITAT GAVE A LIBERTY TO THE REVENUE TO FILE FRESH APPLICATION IN CASE IT IS ABLE TO LOCATE THE ASSESS EE AND EFFECTED THE SERVICE OF NOTICE. IN THIS WAY, REVENUE HAS FILED A M.A. NO.49 /DEL/2011. THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE I TAT VIDE ORDER DATED 5.8.2011. THE ITAT RESTORED GROUND NO.1(V) FOR ADJU DICATION AND FIXED THE DATE OF HEARING AS 12.12.2011. THIS DATE WAS ANNOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT. 2. NO ONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. W ITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, WE HAVE GONE T HROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY, HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD PU RCHASED SHARES FROM A NUMBER OF PARTIES. HE ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SEC. 33(6 ) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 TO 42 PARTIES. ALL THE PARTIES GAVE REPLY TO T HE ASSESSING OFFICER EXCEPT 3 THREE, NAMELY, FAIR PAPER (P) LTD., COZY HOLE RESOR TS (P) LTD. AND NIGHTANGINGLE PROPERTIES. THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASE D SHARES OF RS.1,16,500, RS.3,01,500 AND RS.2,01,000 FROM THESE PARTIES RESP ECTIVELY. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE T HESE PARTIES BEFORE HIM FOR VERIFICATION AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION COU LD NOT BE PROVED. THEREFORE, HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.6,19,000. LEAR NED CIT(APPEALS) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THESE PARTI ES ALSO RESPONDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON HIS SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE. THE ASS ESSEE HAS SUBMITTED CONFIRMED COPIES OF THE ACCOUNTS AND ALSO RECONCILE D STOCK-LEDGER. 3. LEARNED DR POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HA S RECORDED A FINDING OF FACT THAT NO REPLY WAS RECEIVED FROM THESE PARTI ES. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) THA T THESE PARTIES HAVE RESPONDED TO THE NOTICE OF ASSESSING OFFICER IS A F RESH EVIDENCE WHICH HAS BEEN ENTERTAINED BY THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUT HORITY. LEARNED DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO NOTICE WAS GIVEN TO THE A SSESSING OFFICER BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ON SUCH EVIDENCE. ON DUE CONSI DERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LE ARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NOT ENTERTAINED ANY NEW EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MOVED ANY APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A OF THE ACT. IT HAS O NLY FILED WRITTEN 4 SUBMISSIONS. LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS OBSERVED THE REPLY SENT BY THESE PARTIES WERE RECEIVED BY THE ITO, WARD 5(4) AND HE WAS SHOWN THE STAMP ON SUCH REPLY. ASSESSING OFFICER CONFIRMED THAT IT BEL ONGED TO HIM. IT CLEARLY INDICATES THAT WHATEVER DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON THE ASSESSMENT RECORD, ONLY THOSE WERE REITERATED IN THE SUBMISSIONS AND THOSE WERE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO. LEARNED DR WAS UNABL E TO POINT OUT ANY EVIDENCE WHICH WAS NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER, BUT HAS BEEN ENTERTAINED BY THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORIT Y. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. IT IS REJECTED. 4. THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE ALREADY BEEN RE JECTED BY THE ITAT, THEREFORE, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS REJECTED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12.12.2011 . SD/- SD/- ( K.D. RANJAN ) ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 12/12/2011 MOHAN LAL COPY FORWARDED TO: 5 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT 4) CIT(APPEALS) 5) DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR