Karmic Business Specialities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, Circle-14(1), New Delhi

ITA 2395/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9735 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Reason to believe
• Section: 143(3); 153C

Judgement Text

1 ITA no. 2395/Del/2019 Karmic Business Specialities p. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2395/DEL/2019 [Assessment Year: 2009-10 Karmic Business Specialities Pvt. Ltd., 1517, Devika Towers, 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019. PAN- AADCK6335Q Vs ACIT, Circle-14(1), New Delhi. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of hearing 25.05.2022 Date of pronouncement 07.06.2022 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-5, New Delhi, dated 21.02.2019, pertaining to the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in passing the order u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 which is void ab-initio deserves to be quashed. 2 ITA no. 2395/Del/2019 Karmic Business Specialities p. Ltd. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in holding that the assessee company had received loss through client code modification by the broker. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred confirming the addition of Rs. 17,77,110/- by disallowance of loss claimed by the assessee in share transactions. 4. The assessee craves your indulgence to add amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 2. At the time of hearing no one attended the proceedings. It is seen from the record that no one has been appearing on behalf of the assessee despite having given various opportunities. Further, it is seen that the notice of hearing sent through speed post has been returned by the postal authorities with the remark “refused”. Therefore, under these facts it is presumed that the assessee is not interested to prosecute the present appeal and the appeal is being decided on the basis of the material available on record. 3. Ground nos. 1 and 2 are against the validity of the reopening of assessment. The facts, in brief, are that in this case return of income, declaring total loss of Rs. 8,06,790/- was originally filed on 29.09.2009. In response to notice u/s 153C the assessee filed another return of income declaring loss of Rs. 1,80,94,965/-. Thereafter, the income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 1,82,76,261/- u/s 143(3) read with section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the “Act”. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment and assessed 3 ITA no. 2395/Del/2019 Karmic Business Specialities p. Ltd. income at Rs. 9,70,320/- against the total loss of Rs. 8,06,790/-. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who, after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal. The assessee, therefore, aggrieved against this has filed the present appeal. 4. Learned DR submitted that the assessee has been given sufficient opportunity. There is no material on record suggesting that the action of the authorities below is not justified. He submitted that the learned CIT(Appeals) has duly considered the objections of the assessee regarding reopening of the assessment, and has passed a well reasoned order. Hence no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned DR and perused the material on record. I find that the learned CIT(Appeals) has decided the issue by observing as under: “7.3 It is clear from the above that working of escaped income has been clearly mentioned and there has been a prima fecie basis for reopening. It is further noted that appellant has no where made any objection for such reopening and duly participated the assessment proceedings before AO. The reasons have not been asked for, neither anything substantiated in this regard. Therefore, it is concluded that there is no force in the arguments of the appellant. The decision on Writ petition 2627 in the case of Coronation Industries Ltd.,(By Hon'ble Bombay High Court) as relied upon by the appellant is also distinguishable because the basis of reopening has been mentioned in this case and the reasons are based on the outcome of Surveys and analysis of data of client code modification. The AO got information and after considering the same he has recorded his reason to believe for the escapement of income of Rs. 17,77,100/-. 4 ITA no. 2395/Del/2019 Karmic Business Specialities p. Ltd. 7.4. Therefore, looking to the facts and the circumstances of this case, the argument by the appellant are not acceptable and rejected accordingly.” 6. The assessee has not brought any material suggesting that the above finding of the learned CIT(Appeals) is perverse or arbitrary. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere in the finding of learned CIT(Appeals). The same is hereby affirmed. Ground nos. 1 & 2 are rejected. 7. Ground no. 3 is on merit of the addition. Learned DR supported the orders of the authorities below and contended that the assessee has not brought any material to take a contrary view. 8. I have heard learned DR. I find that the learned CIT(Appeals) has decided the issue by observing as under: “8.3 Therefore, the contention of appellant that AO was not in the possession of details and working of the client code modification on presumption basis is found factually incorrect. All the information was provided to the appellant and in the absence of any cogent justification this addition has been made. The decision of Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Abhishek Fincap Services Pvt Ltd., relied upon by the appellant, is distinguishable on facts and in law. Therefore, contention of appellant is not found acceptable. 8.4 It is also stated that no opportunity provided by the AO and principle of natural justice has not been followed. It is not substantiated by the appellant that whether any opportunity for cross examination has been sought by appellant during assessment proceedings. Further appellant has been given due opportunities, as evident from the assessment order and also asked certain information and to produce the concerned person from whom client code was modified. The appellant could not produce any such person or evidence. Here it is noted that during appellate proceedings also the appellant has been given various opportunities but it did not availed such 5 ITA no. 2395/Del/2019 Karmic Business Specialities p. Ltd. occasions and in fact on 11.12.2018 the notice was refuse to be received on the given address. Therefore, this argument of appellant is not palatable. 8.5 In view of discussions of foregoing paragraphs, I do not find any reason to differ with the findings of AO and hence this addition is confirmed and appeal is rejected on these grounds.” 9. The assessee has not placed any material before me to rebut the finding of the learned CIT(Appeals) and the same is hereby affirmed. Grounds raised in this appeal are rejected. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 7 th June, 2022. Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI