Subhashchandra Kanhaiyalal Lonawat, V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 2240/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1191 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANN KAPUTHAMA
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 133A; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUN E , , ! ' , #$ BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM / ITA NO. 2240/PN/2013 #% & '& / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2000-01 SUBHASHCHANDRA KANHAIYALAL LONAWAT, 443, BEGUM PETH, SOLAPUR 413003 PAN : AAFPL6941C ....... / APPELLANT (% / V/S. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), SOLAPUR / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : N O N E REVENUE BY : SMT. ANN KAPUTHAMA / DATE OF HEARING : 24-08-2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26-08-2015 ) / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III, PUNE DATED 02-0 9-2013 FOR 2 ITA NO. 2240/PN/2013, A.Y. 2000-01 THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL. 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-III, PUNE HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT YOUR PETITIONER HAS DECLARED ADDITIONAL INCOME AND HENCE SAME CANNOT BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME A ND THE SAME IS TO BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III, PUNE HAS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT YOUR PETITIONER HAD NOT SHOWN THE E XPENDITURE ON THE 02 PROJECT IN HIS REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOUND AT T HE TIME OF SURVEY. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, PUNE F AILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOUR PETITIONER HAS NOT RETRACTED THE INCOME DECLARED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY BUT SAME HAS JUST BEEN RECONCILED WIT H SURVEY FIGURES. 4. THE INCOME AS RETURNED BY YOUR PETITIONER BE ACCEPT ED AND THE RECONCILIATION OF DISCLOSED INCOME WITH DECLARED IN COME BE ACCEPTED. 5. IF RETURNED INCOME IS NOT ACCEPTABLE WITH RECONCILI ATION DEDUCTION U/S. 80 IB(10) OF INCOME TAX BE ENHANCED FROM RS. 88,597 DULY ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO 11,93,597. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO LEAVE, AMEND, MODIFY AND AD D OR DELETE TO THE GROUNDS ALREADY TAKEN OR TAKE ANY ADDITIONAL GROUND IF FOUND NECESSARY. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RECORDS ARE : THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN CIVIL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. A SURV EY ACTION U/S. 133A WAS CARRIED OUT ON 21-12-1999 ON ASSESSEE. A QUIRE REGISTER WAS FOUND DURING SURVEY, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAD MAINTA INED DETAILS OF EXPENSE IN RESPECT OF PROJECTS AT POONAM NAGAR AND SAI PRASAD NAGAR. CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES WERE FOUND IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES RECORDED AND ACTUALLY INCURRED. THE ASSESSEE VOLUNTARIL Y OFFERED INCOME OF RS.11,50,000/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2000-01. A 3 ITA NO. 2240/PN/2013, A.Y. 2000-01 NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 08-02-20 02. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 19-09-2002 DECLARIN G TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,21,274/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) ON THE HOUSING PROJECT, WHICH WAS ACCEPTED. HO WEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED CERTAIN EXPENSES ON THE BASIS OF SELF MADE VOUCHERS AND DURING S URVEY HAD ADMITTED A SUM OF RS.11,50,000/- AND AGREED TO OFFER THE S AME FOR TAXATION, BUT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAD O FFERED ONLY RS.1,20,000/-. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER DATED 24-03-2003 MADE ADDITION OF RS.10,37,000/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24-03-2003, T HE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 26-03-2004. AG AINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE PREFER RED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 805/PN/2004. THE CO -ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 21-08-2007 REMITT ED THE FILE BACK TO COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR DECIDING TH E ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBU NAL WHICH READS AS UNDER: THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE DIRECTED TO ENHANCE THE D EDUCTION ALLOWED U/S. 80IB(10) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FROM RS.88,597/- T O RS.11,93,597/-. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN PURSUANCE OF TH E ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DECIDED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE VIDE ORD ER DATED 02-09-2013. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4 ITA NO. 2240/PN/2013, A.Y. 2000-01 3. TODAY, NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THE PREVIOUS OCCASION I.E. 27-10-2014, 11-02-2015 AND 14-05- 2015 NONE HAD APPEARED TO REPRESENT THE ASSESSEE DESPITE THE FA CT THAT NOTICE WERE ISSUED TO ASSESSEE THROUGH RPAD. ON 14-05-2015 REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED THROUGH POST ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS AR. HOWEVER, NO ONE WAS REPRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE A SSESSEE IN THE COURT. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE CASE WAS ADJOURN ED TO 24-08-2015 I.E. TODAY. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE T HROUGH THE OFFICE OF DR. NEITHER ASSESSEE NOR HIS AR IS PRESENT IN CO URT. IT SEEMS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING HIS APPEAL. DUE TO LACKADAISICAL APPROACH OF THE ASSESSEE, THE APPEAL IS TAKEN UP TODAY IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE OR HIS AR. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. DR AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD. DR HAD VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS). THE LD. DR POINTED OUT THAT EVEN BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN NON-COOPERATIVE. EVEN AFTER REC EIPT OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT COMPLIED WITH T HE SAME INITIALLY. 5. THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND ROUND OF LITIGATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. CONSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 21-08-2007 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS PASSED THE PRESE NT IMPUGNED ORDER. WE HAVE EXAMINED THE ORDER OF COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND CONCUR WITH THE SAME. WE DO N OT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW, FROM THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE 5 ITA NO. 2240/PN/2013, A.Y. 2000-01 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ACCORDINGLY, THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 26 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015. SD/- SD/- ( . . / R.K. PANDA) ( ! ' / VIKAS AWASTHY) #' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ % #' / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; &# / DATED : 26 TH AUGUST, 2015 RK )*+#,-!.!', / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ' () / THE CIT(A)-III, PUNE 4. ' / THE CIT-IV, PUNE 5. !*+ %%,- , ,- , . /01 , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6. + 2 34 / GUARD FILE. // ! % // TRUE COPY// #5 / BY ORDER, %6 ,1 / PRIVATE SECRETARY, ,- / ITAT, PUNE