Anand Kumar Singh, Barabanki V. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Barabanki

ITA 202/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 20223714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 25-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y P SRIVASTA VA
• Keywords: Business income

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.202/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008 - 09 SHRI ANAND KUMAR SINGH, PROP. M/S VINDHYAVASINI DISTRIBUTORS, CIVIL LINES, BARABANKI. PAN:AWOPS7882A VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARABANKI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI Y. P. SRIVASTAVA, D. R. DATE OF HEARING 06/05/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 7 /05/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT (A) - II, LUCKNOW DATED 05/10/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 2009. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: THAT THE LEARNED COURTS BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASSESSING THE INCOME AT RS.5,57,080/ - . THAT THE LEARNED COURTS BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASSESSING THE TOTAL RECEIPTS AS BUSINESS INCOME. THAT THE INCOME ASSESSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS BAD IN LAW AS NO TAX HAS BEEN QUANTIFIED IN THE BODY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER. 2 THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED COURTS BELOW ARE CONTRARY TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. THAT NO APPEAL ORDER HAS BEEN SERVED ON THE HUMB LE APPELLANT. HENCE AN APPLICATION WAS MADE FOR ISSUE OF ORDER BUT IT WAS NOT SERVED TILL 06/03/2014. HENCE CERTIFIED COPY WAS TAKEN AND APPEAL FILED. THAT THE LEARNED COURTS BELOW HAVE FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FULL FACTS OF THE CASE. 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE INSPITE OF NOTICE AND HENCE, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EX - PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED D.R. AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT AN ADDITION OF RS.3,04,943/ - WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING A CURRENT ACCOUNT WITH BANK OF BARODA, BA RABANKI, WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT. IT WAS ALSO NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE CREDIT BALANCE IN THE ACCOUNT WAS RS.3,04,943/ - . SINCE NO EXPLANATION WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R MADE THE ADDITION OF THIS AMOUNT TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS ADDITION WAS UPHELD BY LEARNED CIT(A) BY STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND HE HAS HELD THAT SINCE THE BANK ACCOUN T IS UNDISCLOSED, THE AMOUNT IN CREDIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 5. THE SECOND ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF RS.629/ - BEING INTEREST ON FDR OF RS.1.5 LAC MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON 14/03/2008 @8.5%. REGARDING THIS ADDITION ALSO, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE 3 ORDER S OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND HENCE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 6 . IN TH E RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 7 /05/2014. *C.L.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., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR