Mohamadrafiq Allabksha Bagwan, Ichalkaranji V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 1936/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9267 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 01-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Value adopted by valuation officer
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 148; 154; 15

Judgement Text

] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NO.1936/PUN/2016 ! / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1999-2000 MOHAMADRAFIQ ALLABKSHA BAGWAN, H.NO.103, W.NO.9, NEAR JAYASHREE SIZING, YELAJ MALA, SANGLI ROAD, ICHALKARANJI 416 115. PAN : ABAPB9890Q. . / APPELLANT V/S DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR. . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE. REVENUE BY : SHRI ACHAL SHARMA. / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS EMANATING OUT OF THE O RDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) 11, PUNE DT.28.06.201 6 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON R ECORD ARE AS UNDER :- / DATE OF HEARING : 21.02.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27.02.2018 2 2.1 ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF VEGETABLES AND FRUITS AND ALSO DERIVING INCOME BY LETTING HI S TEMPO TRAX. ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 1999-2000 ON 12.07.1999 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.62,270/-. THEREAFTER, THE CASE WAS RE-OPENED BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT DT.28.03.2006 WHICH WAS SERVED ON ASSESSEE ON 31.03.2006 . IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE, ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOM E ON 05.05.2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.62,270/-, BEING THE S AME INCOME DECLARED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN. THEREAFTER, ASSESS MENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT.19.12 .2006 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.5,89,270/-. THEREA FTER, ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 154 OF THE ACT BY AO ON 19.06.2017 AND THE REVISED TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.3,74,270/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO PASSED U/S 154 OF THE ACT, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE M ATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO VIDE ORDER DT.28.06.2016 DISMISSED THE APPEAL O F ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. BEFORE US, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH ARE ARGUMENTATIVE IN NATURE AND NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH RULE 8 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963. 4. THE CASE FILE REVEALS THAT THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED SE VERAL TIMES IN THE PAST AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THE DAT E OF HEARING NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY ADJOURNMEN T APPLICATION WAS FILED THOUGH THE NOTICE OF HEARING HAS BEEN SERVED O N THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE 3 APPEAL EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND AFTER HEARING THE LD.D.R. 5. BEFORE US, LD.D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE H AS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS BUT HE IS CHALLENGING THE ORDER PASSED U/S 15 4 OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT ORIGINALLY AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.5,12,600/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT THE HOUSE WAS CONSTRUCTED IN TWO YEARS AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION BE SPREAD OVER TWO YEARS. THE AO REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DV O AND BASED ON HIS REPORT REDUCED THE ADDITION TO RS.2,97,000/-. HE THER EFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S 154 OF THE ACT IS TO THE BENEFIT OF ASSESSEE. HE THUS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.D.R. AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. AO IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 154 OF THE ACT HAS NOTED T HAT WHILE FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT, ADDITION OF RS.5,12,600/- WAS MADE O N ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF RES IDENTIAL PROPERTY AT PLOT NO.684/B-1, SANGLI ROAD, ITCHALKARNAJI AND IT WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION OF PROPERTY MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT VALUER BEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS AND THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO. THER EAFTER, ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DT.06.01.2007 SUBMITTED THAT THE INVE STMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY WAS IN TWO YEARS F.Y. 1998- 99 I.E., A.Y. 1999-2000 AND 2000-01 AND IN A.Y. 1998-99 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 1999- 2000, CONSTRUCTION WAS AT PRELIMINARY STAGE AND MAJOR PO RTION OF THE INVESTMENT IS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE AND WAS MAD E IN A.Y. 4 2000-01 AND HE ACCORDINGLY DECLARED RS.4,36,000/- IN T HE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2000-01, WHICH WAS FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOT ICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT. AO NOTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSIO NS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE DVO WAS REQUESTED TO BIFURCATE THE TOTA L INVESTMENT AS DETERMINED BY HIM ASSESSMENT YEAR-WISE. THE DVO THEREA FTER HAS GIVEN THE YEAR-WISE BIFURCATION AS UNDER : 1) VALUATION BEFORE 31.03.1999 - RS.5,03,000/-. 2) VALUATION AFTER 01.04.1999 - RS.2,15,600/-. AFTER CONSIDERING THE BIFURCATION AS GIVEN BY THE DVO, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS AND TH E VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO HAS WORKED AT RS.2,97,000/- (RS.5,03,000/- - - RS.2,06,000/-) WHICH WAS CONSIDERED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR A.Y. 1999-2000. HE ACCORDINGLY REVISED THE TOTAL INCOME. WE FIND THAT AGAINST THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATT ER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDIN G AS UNDER : 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT AS PE R THE R EPORT OF THE DVO THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.5 , 12 , 600/ IN ASST YEAR 1999-2000 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE CONSTRU CTION OF A HOUSE. THE APPEL L ANT ON THE OTHER HAND DISCLOSED AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,3 6,000/- ON TH I S ACCOUNT IN ASST YEAR 2000-01 . THE APPELLANT REQUESTED THE AO THA T T HE HOUSE WAS CONSTRUCTED I N TWO YEARS AND THEREFORE THE ADD IT ION SHOULD BE SPREAD OVER TWO ASST YEARS . THE AO AGAIN REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DVO AND AS PER HIS REPORT, REDUCED TH E ADDITION IN ASST . YEAR 1999-2000 TO RS.2,97,000/-. THUS IN A WAY THE ORDER PASSED U/S 154 IS TO THE BENEFIT OF THE APPELLANT . 6 . STILL THE APPELLANT IS AGGRIEVED AND HAS ARGUED T HAT THE DVO'S REPORT SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON. THE APPELLANT'S C ONTENTION IS THAT HE HIMSELF HAD DISCLOSED AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,36,000/- IN ASST 2000-01 ON THE BASIS OF A GOVT. APPROVED VALUER . ACCORDINGLY THE APPELLANT CLAIMS THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF TH E DVOS REPORT IS NOT CORRECT IN LAW. 5 7. WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE APPELLANTS ARGUMENT REGARDING VALIDITY OF THE DVOS REPORT, I SIMPLY HOLD THAT TH E ISSUE RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS CONTENTIOUS. RELIANCE ON THE DVOS RE PORT IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORDS WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED U/ S 154 OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANTS GRIEVANCE AGAINST THE 154 ORDER IS THUS ILL FOUNDED. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE THEREFORE REJECTED AND TH E APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT IS DISMISSED . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APP EAL BEFORE US. 7. WE FIND THAT LD.CIT(A) WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL HAS NOTE D THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING CONTENTIOUS , RELIANCE ON THE DVO REPORT IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD W HICH COULD BE RECTIFIED U/S 154 OF THE ACT. HE HAS FURTHER NOTED THAT IN A WAY THE ORDER PASSED BY AO U/S 154 OF THE ACT IS TO THE BENE FIT OF ASSESSEE. BEFORE US, NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE T O ESTABLISH ANY FALLACY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A). WE THEREFORE DIS MISS THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 8 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 27 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018. SD/- SD/- ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 27 TH FEBRUARY, 2018. YAMINI 6 $%&'()(!& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. 4. 5 6. CIT(A), PUNE 11. PR. CIT(CENTRAL), PUNE. '#$ %%&',) &', +, / DR, ITAT, SMC PUNE; $./0/ GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER // // TRUE COPY // 123%4&5 / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) &', / ITAT, PUNE.