Anil Kumar Avasthi, Hardoi V. ITO, Ward-1(5), Shahjahanpur

ITA 198/LKW/2022

AI Insights

The appeals in question were filed by Shri Anil Kumar Avasthi and Shri Rahul Gupta against the orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2017-18, respectively. Both appellants challenged the appellate orders on grounds including the violation of natural justice due to ex-parte decisions and the confirmation of additions as unexplained investments under section 69 of the Income Tax Act. Additionally, Shri Rahul Gupta's appeal included issues regarding the assessment of income post-inheritance and the incorrect computation of business income. However, due to procedural defects in the appeals, the tribunal dismissed both cases without delving into the substantive issues raised.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 113241 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 30-04-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 08-11-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARISH GIDWANI
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Business income; Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

I.T.A. No.198 & 197/Lkw/2022 Assessment year:2011-12 & 2017-18 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.198/Lkw/2022 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Anil Kumar Avasthi, C/o CA Sanjay Saxena, 12, Pratap Enclave, Bisrat Road, Shahjahanpur. PAN:AXJPA4796M Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Shahjahanpur. (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.197/Lkw/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Rahul Gupta, C/o CA Sanjay Saxena, 12, Pratap Enclave, Bisrat Road, Shahjahanpur. PAN:BXBPG6232M Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Shahjahanpur. (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER BENCH: A. The appeal in I.T.A. No.198/Lkw/2022 for assessment year 2011-12 has been filed by Shri Anil Kumar Avasthi, the assessee, against the Appellants by None Respondent by Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing 01/05/2023 Date of pronouncement 08/05/2023 I.T.A. No.198 & 197/Lkw/2022 Assessment year:2011-12 & 2017-18 2 impugned appellate order dated 07/09/2022. The grounds of appeal are as under: “1. That the learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in passing the appeal order ex-parte without taking consideration to facts stated in statement of facts and the appeal order passed is against the violation of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside. 2. That the learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.19,87,500/- as unexplained investments u/s 69 of the I.T. Act.” A.1 The appeal in I.T.A. No.197/Lkw/2022 for assessment year 2017-18 has been filed by Shri Rahul Gupta, the assessee, against the impugned appellate order dated 08/09/2022. The grounds of appeal are as under: “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in passing the appeal order ex-parte without taking consideration to facts stated in statement of facts and the appeal order passed is against the violation of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set-a-side. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A)/A.O. be directed to assess the income from 01.08.2016 as this business was inherited by the appellant after the death of his father, Late Sri Sushil Kumar Gupta died on 20.07.2016 and the income upto 20.07.2016 was to be taken in his hands only. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in laws in confirming the addition of Rs.7,66,500/- as unexplained investments u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the computing the business income at Rs.40,91,668/- ignoring the business income as per audited financial statements, which is contrary to the facts and circumstances. I.T.A. No.198 & 197/Lkw/2022 Assessment year:2011-12 & 2017-18 3 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in taxing income of Rs.7,66,500/- u/s 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961 by taxing the same @ 60% and surcharge. Further this rate is applicable for A.Y. 2017-18.” (A.2) For the sake convenience, these two appeals are hereby disposed of by this consolidated order. (B) In the case of aforesaid appeal vide I.T.A. No.198/Lkw/2022, defect memo dated 30/11/2022 was issued by registry, intimating the following defects: “1. Appeal fee not filed in minor head 300” (B.1) Similarly in the case of aforesaid appeal vide I.T.A. No.197/Lkw/2022, defect memo dated 30/11/2022 was issued by registry intimating the following defects: “1. Appeal fee not filed in minor head 300 2. Affidavit not filed.” (B.2.1) Despite substantial lapse of time since issue of defect memo by the registry, the appellant assessees in the aforesaid two appeals have not removed the defect(s) pointed out through the defect memos. Therefore, both these appeals are hereby dismissed on account of failure on the part of assessees to remove the defect(s) intimated to the appellants in these two appeals. However, the assessee(s) will be at liberty to approach the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“I.T.A.T.” for short) for restoration of the appeal(s) after the defect(s) are removed by the appellant assessee(s). If such request(s) is/are received in ITAT from the assessee(s), the same will be I.T.A. No.198 & 197/Lkw/2022 Assessment year:2011-12 & 2017-18 4 considered by ITAT in accordance with law having regard to relevant facts and circumstances. (C). In the result, both the appeals are dismissed on account of failure on the part of the appellants to remove the defect(s). (Order pronounced in the open court on 08/05/2023) Sd/. Sd/. (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated:08/05/2023 *Singh Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., Assistant Registrar