Sheela Gokulprasad Pandey, Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-3(4), Surat

ITA 2039/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 85633 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 06-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 18-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROOP CHAND
• Assessee Lawyers: R N VEPARI
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI , A.M.) I. T. A. NO. 2039 / AHD/ 20 1 1 (A SSESSMENT YEAR: 2003 - 04) SHEELA GOKULPRASAD PANDEY B - 219, MEERA NAGAR SOCIETY, NEAR JHANSI RANI GARDEN, UDHNA, SURAT V/S THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 3( 4), SURAT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AOWPP 0389 P APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.N. VEPARI, A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ROOP CHAND, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 06 - 01 - 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 - 01 - 2015 PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI,A.M. 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - II , SURAT DATED 05.07.2011 FOR A.Y. 2003 - 04. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD ARE AS UND ER. 3. ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND STATED TO BE A HOUSEWIFE. A.O ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM DRI AUTHORITIES NOTICED THAT FDR S/TDR S TO THE TUNE OF RS. 20 LACS WERE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN INVESTED WITH ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, ITA NO 2039/AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2003 - 04 2 SURAT IN THE NAM E OF MINORS UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. A.O ALSO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUBMITTED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 DISCLOSING THE AFORESAID FDR S. THEREFO RE ACTION U/S. 147 WAS TAKEN AND NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FILE HER RETURN OF INCOME. A.O HAS NOTED THAT NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE . A.O THEREAFTER ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD PROCEEDED TO FRAME ASSESSMENT U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 VIDE ORDER DATED 26.11.2010 AND DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 22,15,500/ - . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 05.07.2011 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS FILED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH HAVE BEEN LATER ON CONCISED AND WHICH READS AS UNDER: - (I) REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT: THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ER RED IN CONFIRMING REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WHEN THE CONDITIONS FOR VALID REOPENING WERE NOT SATISFIED. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW, THE REOPENING BEING BAD IN LAW, THE ORDER MAY BE QUASHED. (II) DENIAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE: THE LE ARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAVING BEEN COMPLETED WITHOUT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY AND DENYING NATURAL JUSTICE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DISMISSED. (III) ADDITION OF RS.20,00,000 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION IN RESPECT OF FIXED DEPOSITS WITH THE ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE WHEN THE APPELLANT HAD NOT MADE THIS INVESTMENT AND THEREFORE, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ADDITION OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DELE TED. (IV) INTEREST OF RS.15,500 ON FDR: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) IN MAKING ADDITION OF RESULTANT ADDITION OF R S .2,15,500 / - ON THE AFOREMENTIONED FIXED DEPOSITS. (V) MISCELLANEOUS ( 1) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED CHARGE OF INTEREST U/S,234A, 234B, 234C AND 234D OF THE ACT. (2) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR VARY ANY OF T HE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4. BEFORE US, LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH VARIOUS GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BUT THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND IS WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION OF FDRS AND INTEREST THEREON. 5. BEFORE US, L D. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS AN UNEDUCATED HOUSEWIF E. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE , SHRI GOKUL PRASAD PANDEY IS ABSCONDING SINCE 2001 AND SHE BEING UNEDUCATED WAS NOT AWARE OF THE INCOME ITA NO 2039/AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2003 - 04 3 TAX MATTERS. FURTHER THE AMOUNT OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK WERE IN THE NAME OF THE MINORS UNDE R THE GUARDIANSHIP OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED THE MONEY. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN ALL PROBABILITY IT IS THE FATHER OF THE MINORS (SHRI GOKUL PRASAD PANDEY) WHO MUST HAVE DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT AS HE WAS DO ING THE BUSINESS AND EARNING INCOME. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO DEPOSIT THE MONEY BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT DOING ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND HAD NO SOURCE OF INCOME OR THE KIND OF SAVING TO MAKE SUCH DEPOSITS. IT WAS FUR THER SUBMITTED THAT THE MONEY IS NOT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE IN ASSESSEE S CASE AND FURTHER THE WIFE OF SHRI GOKUL PRASAD PANDEY WIFE SHOULD NOT SUFFER FOR THE DEEDS OF HER HUSBAND SHRI GOKUL PRASAD PANDEY. IT WAS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BE DELETED. 6. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF A.O AND LD. CIT(A). HE FURTHER SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING NON CO - OP ERATIVE . THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT. THE L D. D.R. FURTHER POINTED TO THE FACT NOTED BY THE A.O THAT ON THE BASIS OF INQUIRIES CONDUCTED FROM ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE , IT WAS FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD APPROACHED THE BANK FOR WITHDRAWAL OF THE SAID FDR S AND TDR S. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT ON ONE HAND, THE ASSESSEE WAS CLAIMING THAT SHE HAS NOT MADE ANY INVESTMENT IN FIXED DEPOSIT AND ON THE OTHER HAND SHE HAS APPROACHED THE BANK FOR ENCASHMENT OF THE FDR S WHICH CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE NAME OF HER MINORS AND THE ONUS REST UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE AN D EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS. HE THUS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF A.O AND LD. CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT CIT(A) WHILE DISMISSING T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME DESPITE THE ISSUANCE NOTICE U/S. 148 R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT. WITH RESPECT TO THE QUANTUM ADDITION , LD. CIT(A) HAS NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS AND HAD ITA NO 2039/AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2003 - 04 4 MADE CONTRADICTORY STATEMENT BY STATING ON ONE HAND THAT THE INVESTMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN MADE BY HER AND ON THE OTHER HAND APPROACHED THE BANK FOR WITHDRAWAL OF THE FDR S. BEFORE US LD. A.R. HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CO NTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF A.O AND LD. CIT(A) AND IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND THUS THESE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUN CED IN OPEN COURT ON 23 - 01 - 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - (G.C.GUPTA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHMEDABAD