Amarjeet Singh, Kanpur V. Income Tax Officer, Kanpur

ITA 205/LKW/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9115 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 4 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: 09-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 19-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 148; 144

Judgement Text

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.205&206/LKW/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:1998-99 & 1999-2000 AMARJEET SINGH 52/2, BLOCK NO.6, GOVIND NAGAR KANPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1) KANPUR TAN/PAN:ANYPS8605A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. AMIT NIGAM, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 09 01 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23 01 2015 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: THESE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998- 99 AND 1999-2000. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THESE APPEALS ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER:- GROUNDS IN I.T.A. NO. 205/LKW/2012: 1. THAT ID. CIT (A) II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE EX-PARTE APPEAL ORDER AND IN SUMMARILY REJECTING THE APPEAL. 2. THAT ID. CIT (A) II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN NOT DECIDING ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL ORDER IS BAD IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS. 3. THAT ID. CIT (A) II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING EVEN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE WHOLE DECIDING THE APPEAL. 4. THAT THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 ARE BAD IN :- 2 -: LAW AS THE SAME WERE INITIATED WITHOUT REASONS/IMPROPER REASONS. 5. THAT ID. A O HAS ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE INSTRUCTIONS OF HON'BLE IT AT MAKING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS BAD AND ID. CIT (A) II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE APPEAL ON FACTS AND GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. THAT ID. CIT (A) II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THERE WAS NO SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148 HAS BEEN MADE ON THE ASSESSEE. 7. THAT ID. CIT (A) II, KANPUR AS WELL AS ID. A O HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT WHEN ONE NOTICE U/S 148 HAS ALREADY BEEN ISSUED, ANOTHER NOTICE COULD NOT BE ISSUED. AND IF IT HAS BEEN ISSUED, ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS WOULD BE ILLEGAL. 8. THAT ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS ARE ILLEGAL BECAUSE THERE ARE NUMEROUS FLAW IN INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS. 9. THAT ID. A 0 HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 4000000.00 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN FDRS AND ID. CIT (A) II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. 10. THAT ID. A O HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 314449.00 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT AND ID. CIT (A) II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. 11. THAT ID. A O HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 65858.00 AS DIFFERENCE IN COME FROM DEALING IN SHARES AND ID. CIT (A) II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. 12. THAT ID. A O HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE FDRS WERE BEARING THE FIRST NAME OF SMT. SUMAN SONI AND WHATEVER ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN HER CASE ESPECIALLY WHEN SHE IS HAVING INDEPENDENT SOURCE OF INCOME AND ASSESSED TO TAX AND ID. CIT (A) II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. 13. THAT THE OBSERVATION OF ID. A O THAT WHATEVER HAS BEEN PLEADED IS AFTER THOUGHT IS NEITHER CORRECT NOR PROPER BECAUSE SINCE BEGINNING, ASSESSEE IS ARGUING THE CASE WITH THESE PLEAS :- 3 -: ONLY. 14. THAT THE NOTICE U/S 148 IS NOT VALID IN THE EYES OF LAW SO THE CONSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS. 15. THAT THE ID. A O HAS ERRED IN DISPOSING OFF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 IN SUMMARILY MANNER WITHOUT PASSING ANY SPEAKING ORDER. 16. THAT ID. A 0 HAS ERRED IN NOT ENTERTAINING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDING THE ISSUES ON MERIT AND ID. CIT (A) II, KANPUR IN NOT DECIDING THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ID. A O. 17. THAT ID. A O AND ID. CIT (A) II, KANPUR HAS ERRED NOT ALLOWING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 18. THAT THE IMPUGNED APPEAL ORDER; ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS ADDITIONS / DISALLOWANCES MADE IN THE SAME ARE BAD IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS AND APPROPRIATE RELIEF DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. 19. THAT STATEMENT OF FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ID. A O; IN EARLIER APPEALS AS WELL AS GROUNDS TAKEN IN EARLIER APPEALS MAY BE TREATED AS PART OF THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 20. THAT ID. A O HAS ERRED IN INITIATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND DEFAULT IN COMPLYING THE NOTICES. GROUNDS IN I.T.A. NO. 206/LKW/2012: 1. THAT ID. CIT (A) II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE EX-PARTE APPEAL ORDER AND IN SUMMARILY REJECTING THE APPEAL. 2. THAT ID. CIT (A) II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN NOT DECIDING ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL ORDER IS BAD IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS. 3. THAT ID. CIT (A) II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING EVEN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE WHOLE DECIDING THE APPEAL. :- 4 -: 4. THAT THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 ARE BAD IN LAW AS THE SAME WERE INITIATED WITHOUT REASONS/IMPROPER REASONS. 5. THAT ID. A O HAS ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE INSTRUCTIONS OF HON'BLE ITAT MAKING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS BAD AND ID. CIT (A) II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE APPEAL ON FACTS AND GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. THAT ID. CIT (A) II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THERE WAS NO SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148 HAS BEEN MADE ON THE ASSESSEE. 7. THAT ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS ARE ILLEGAL BECAUSE THERE ARE NUMEROUS FLAW IN INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS. 8. THAT ID. A O HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 650000.00 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN FDRS AND ID. CIT (A) II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. 9. THAT ID. A O HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 737455.00 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN SHARES FROM UNACCOUNTED SOURCES AND ID. CIT (A) II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. 10. THAT ID. A O HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 157088.00 ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES WITHOUT BRINGING ANYTHING ON RECORD SUGGESTING OR SUPPORTING HIS ADDITION AND ID. CIT (A) II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN NOT DECIDING THE SAME. 11. THAT ID. A O HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE FDRS WERE MADE FROM THE REGULAR BANK | ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE INSTRUCTIONS OF HON'BLE IT AT REGARDING CALLING I OF INFORMATION FROM BANK AND TRIED TO IMPROPERLY SHIFTING THE ONUS ON THE ASSESSEE AND ID. CIT (A) II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN NOT DECIDING THE SAME. 12. THAT THE OBSERVATION OF ID. A O THAT THERE IS CASH PURCHASE IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A (3) IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE AND ID. CIT (A) II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN NOT DECIDING THE SAME. 13. THAT THE NOTICE U/S 148 IS NOT VALID IN THE EYES OF LAW SO THE :- 5 -: CONSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS. 14. THAT ID. A O HAS ERRED IN NOT ENTERTAINING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDING THE ISSUES ON MERIT. 15. THAT ID. A Q HAS ERRED NOT ALLOWING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 16. THAT THE ID. A O HAS ERRED IN DISPOSING OFF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 IN SUMMARILY MANNER WITHOUT PASSING ANY SPEAKING ORDER. 17. THAT ID. A O HAS ERRED IN NOT ENTERTAINING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDING THE ISSUES ON MERIT AND ID. CIT (A) II, KANPUR IN NOT DECIDING THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ID. A O. 18. THAT ID. A O AND ID. CIT (A) II, KANPUR HAS ERRED NOT ALLOWING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 19. THAT THE IMPUGNED APPEAL ORDER; ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS ADDITIONS / DISALLOWANCES MADE IN THE SAME ARE BAD IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS AND APPROPRIATE RELIEF DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. 20. THAT STATEMENT OF FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ID. A O; IN EARLIER APPEALS AS WELL AS GROUNDS TAKEN IN EARLIER APPEALS MAY BE TREATED AS PART OF THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 21. THAT ID. A O HAS ERRED IN INITIATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND DEFAULT IN COMPLYING THE NOTICES. 2. THESE APPEALS CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 9.1.2015, BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD, WE FIND THAT THESE APPEALS WERE FILED IN 2012. THEREAFTER NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES. IN THE LAST, SHRI. ASHISH JAISWAL, ADVOCATE STARTED APPEARING. ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING, SHRI. JAISWAL HAD MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY ON THE GROUND THAT HE IS UNABLE TO CONTACT THE ASSESSEE. THE REQUEST OF SHRI. ASHISH JAISWAL, LD. :- 6 -: COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED AND HE WAS DISCHARGED FROM THIS CASE. THEREAFTER NOTICE BY REGISTERED A/D WAS ISSUED, BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO PROCEED WITH THE HEARING OF THE APPEALS. ACCORDINGLY, THE REVENUE WAS HEARD. 3. THIS IS SECOND ROUND OF APPEAL. IN THE FIRST ROUND, THE TRIBUNAL HAD SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON CERTAIN ISSUES AND THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REFRAMING THE ASSESSMENT. CONSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RESPOND THE SAME AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONSTRAINED TO PASS EX-PARTE ORDER UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 AND MADE CERTAIN ADDITIONS, AGAINST WHICH AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND SIMILAR IS THE POSITION BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), AS NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE REPEATED NOTICES ISSUED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NOW BEFORE US ALSO, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE TRIBUNAL. WE, HOWEVER, HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THE IMPUGNED ISSUES AND WE FIND NO INFIRMITY THEREIN. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN BOTH THE YEARS. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTIONED PAGE. SD/- SD/- [A. K. GARODIA] [SUNIL KUMAR YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:23 RD JANUARY, 2015 JJ:0901 :- 7 -: COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR