Smt. Anjani Kumari Vardha, Vijayawada V. The ITO, Vijayawada

ITA 207/VIZ/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0882 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 6 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 29-08-2022
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 131; 143(3); 142(1); 143(2)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलȣयअͬधकरण, ͪवशाखापटणम पीठ, ͪवशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM Įी दुåवूǽ आर एल रेɬडी, ÛयाǓयक सदèय एवं Įी एस बालाकृçणन, लेखा सदèय के सम¢ BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 215/Viz/2015 & 207/Viz/2017 (Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Smt. Anjani Kumari Varada, Vijayawada. PAN: ACVPV 2970 M Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Vijayawada. (अपीलाथȸ/ Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/ Respondent) अपीलाथȸ कȧ ओर से/ Appellant by : No Representation Ĥ×याथȸ कȧ ओर से / Respondent by : Sri ON Harik Prasada Rao, Sr. AR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 30/08/2022 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 13/10/2022 O R D E R PER Bench : Both the captioned appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Vijayawada [Ld. CIT(A)] in appeal Nos. 109/CIT(A)/VJA/13014, dated 31/3/2015 and 277/CIT(A)/VJA/2014-15, dated 2/11/2016 arising out of the orders passed U/s. 143(3) of the 2 Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] for the AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. 2. Brief facts pertaining to AY 2010-11 are that the assessee is an individual, deriving income from other sources filed her return of income for the AY 2010-11 on 25/01/2012 admitting total income of Rs. 4,14,580/- and the same was processed U/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly statutory notices U/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. Since there was no response from the assessee to the notices and opportunity letters, summons U/s. 131 were issued to appear and furnish the required information. Even for summons, assessee did not appear and later on Mr. P.V. Bhaskar Sharma, ITP filed power of attorney before the Ld. AO and filed certain information as called for by the Ld. AO. But thereafter either assessee or her AR did not respond to the show cause letters issued by the Ld. AO proposing the additions made. Considering the assessee’s no response, the assessee proceeded to complete the assessment based on the material available and the submissions made before the Ld. AO. Thus, the Ld. AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) and passed assessment 3 order on 28/03/2013 wherein the Ld. AO made certain additions viz., Rs. 99,11,162/- on account of unexplained cash deposits; (ii) disallowance of claim made under Chapter-VIA amounting to Rs. 14,630/- and (iii) Rs. 9,67,000/- on account of unexplained credits aggregating to Rs. 1,08,92,792/-. Aggrieved by the additions made by the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed certain material in the form of additional evidences which was refused by the Ld. AO. The Ld. CIT(A) called for the remand report on the additional evidence furnished by the assessee. The Ld. AO submitted the remand report wherein the Ld. AO commented that the assessee is not entitled to produce any additional evidence since he is not covered by any of the four clauses laid down in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1961. Even then, the Ld. CIT (A) following the principles of natural justice, admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee and based on the report submitted by the Ld. AO as well as the material available before him and considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) granted part relief and confirmed the additions to the extent of 4 Rs. 40,15,000/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. Before the Tribunal the assessee filed the grounds of appeal (8 grounds) which are in the argumentative nature. However, the assessee contested the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the additions to the extent of 40,15,000/-. The assessee has also filed an additional ground questioning the validity of the assessment on the ground that the Ld. AO has passed the assessment order on the very same date which is given by the Ld. AO for filing the objections to the proposed assessment. 5. Before us, there is no representation on behalf of the assessee. The Ld. DR strongly relied on the orders of the Ld. Revenue authorities and supported their orders. 6. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record as well as the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. It is noted from the order sheet that on various occasions, in fact on all occasions, the case was adjourned as there was none appeared to represent the case of the assessee. However, on perusal of the facts, we observed that the though the Ld. AO made additions to the extent of Rs. Rs. 1,08,92,792/-, the 5 Ld. CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee and following the principles of natural justice allowed the additional evidence furnished before him and called for the remand report. Based on the assessee’s submissions, remand report of the Ld. AO as well as the additional evidences produced by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) granted substantial relief to the assessee more that 60% of the quantum additions. In our considered opinion, the onus is on the assessee to appear before the Tribunal and substantiate its claim by producing the cogent material and documentary evidence. In the present case, this lacks on the part of the assessee. Therefore, in the absence of any material / documentary evidence contrary to the decision of the Ld. CIT(A), we are of the considered opinion that there no interference is required in the order of Ld. CIT(A). It is ordered accordingly. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 207/Viz/2017 ( (Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / AY: 2011-12). 8. This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Vijayawada [Ld. CIT(A)] in ITA No.277/CIT(A)/VJA/2014-15, dated 2/11/2016 arising out of 6 the order passed U/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act]. 9. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed here return of income on 23/01/2013 for the AY 2011-12 admitting total income of Rs. 6,77,460/- and the same was processed U/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly Statutory notices U/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. In response Shri PV Bhaskar Sharm, ITP., Authorized Representative appeared before the Ld. AO and submitted the information called for byt eh ld. AO. During the scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO noted that there was large number of cash deposits in the assessee’s bank account and the assessee was asked to explain the sources for the said credits. In reply the assessee submitted that the amounts credited in the bank accounts are realized from the debtors during the year. Not satisfied and convinced with the explanation of the assessee and in the absence of any cogent documentary evidence, the Ld. AO made addition of Rs.24,41,066/- on account of unexplained cash credits. Further, the Ld. AO noted that the assessee made certain investments during the year aggregating to Rs. 1,15,04,600/- and the 7 assessee was asked to explain the details of the sources for these investments. In reply, after considering the submissions made by the assessee, the assessee brought to tax Rs. 20,00,000/- in the absence any evidence in respect of the gift from the assessee’s son Mr. V. Venkateswarlu. In toto the additions made by the Ld. AO worked out to Rs.46,41,066/- and added the same to the total income of the assessee and the assessed income was determined at Rs. 53,18,530/-. Aggrieved by the additions made by the Ld. AO who passed the order on 31/3/2014 u/s. 143(3) of the Act, the assessee went on appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 10. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee made submissions and reiterated the submissions made before the Ld. AO. After considering the submissions made by the assessee along with the documentary evidence submitted before the Ld. Revenue Authorities, the Ld. CIT(A) granted part relief to the assessee and sustained the addition to the extent of Rs. 39,76,010/- [Rs.14,98,000 + Rs. 24,78,010] and partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us contesting the decision of the Ld. CIT (A). 8 11. Before the Tribunal the assessee filed the grounds of appeal (5 grounds) which are in the argumentative nature. However, the assessee contested the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the additions to the extent of Rs. 39,76,010/-. 12. Before us, there is no representation on behalf of the assessee. The Ld. DR strongly relied on the orders of the Ld. Revenue authorities and supported their orders. 13. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record as well as the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. It is noted from the order sheet that on various occasions, in fact on all occasions, the case was adjourned as there was none appeared to represent the case of the assessee. However, on perusal of the facts, we observed that the Ld. CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee and considered the documentary evidence furnished before him. Based on the assessee’s submissions as well as the evidences produced by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) granted part relief to the assessee. In our considered opinion, the onus is on the assessee to appear before the Tribunal and substantiate its claim by producing the cogent material and documentary evidence. In the present case, this lacks on the part of the assessee. Therefore, in the absence of 9 any material / documentary evidence contrary to the decision of the Ld. CIT(A), we are of the considered opinion that no interference is required in the order of Ld. CIT(A). It is ordered accordingly. 14. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 15. Conclusively, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on the 13 t h October , 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (दुåवूǽ आर.एल रेɬडी) (एस बालाकृçणन) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) (S.BALAKRISHNAN) ÛयाǓयकसदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 13/10/2022 OKK - SPS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. Ǔनधा[ǐरती/ The Assessee – Smt. Anjani Kumari Varada, D.No. 11-25- 187, Samarangam Chowk, Vijayawada-520 001. 2. राजèव/The Revenue – Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Vijayawada. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 4. आयकर आयुÈत (अपील)/ The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Vijayawada. 5. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, ͪवशाखापटणम/ DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam 10 6. गाड[ फ़ाईल / Guard file आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam