Shri Alpeshkumar Chandulal Shah(HUF), Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-9(1), Surat

ITA 241/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8901 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 10-02-2010
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEETU SHAH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH SMC, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI I.S. VERMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.241/AHD/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01) SHRI ALPESHKUMAR CHANDULAL SHAH (HUF) VS THE ITO, WD.9(1) 110, SANTOK APARTMENT SURAT VARACHHA ROAD, SURAT PAN : AABHA8012P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY: SMT. NEETU SHAH O R D E R IN THIS APPEAL ASSESSEE HAS OBJECTED TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-V, SURAT DATED 30-09-2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 BY WAY O F FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF THE INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND RE- OPENING THE ASSESSMENT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF THE INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.56,710/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF UNVERIFIABLE PURCHASES. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF THE INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.24,001/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED CAPITAL. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF THE INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.1,75,000 /- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. ITA NO.241/AHD/2010 2 5. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ABOVE ADDITION M AY PLEASE BE DELETED AS LEARNED MEMBERS OF THE TRIBUNAL MAY DEEM IT PROPER. 6. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR DELETE A NY GROUND(S) EITHER BEFORE OR IN THE COURSE OF THE HEARING OF TH E APPEAL. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE CASE IS CALLED ON FOR HEARING. THERE IS ALSO NO APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNM ENT EITHER. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE THROUGH RPAD. EVEN OTHE RWISE, IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE OR ITS COUNSEL IS NOT AW ARE OF THE DATE OF HEARING AS THE CAUSE LISTS ARE LISTED IN ITAT ONLINE. IN TH E CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HAVE NO HESITATION TO PRESUME THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTE RESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. THE LAW ASSISTS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN THE WE LL KNOWN DICTUM VIGILANTIBUS, NON DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT THEREFORE, APPLYING THE RATIO OF DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF LATE TUKAOJIRAO HOLKAR 223 ITR 480 (MP) AND THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD 38 ITD 320 (DEL) I TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 4. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 10 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010. SD/- (I.S. VERMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD, DT : 10 TH FEBRUARY, 2010 PK/- COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3. THE CIT(A)-V, SURAT 4. THE CIT-III, SURAT BY ORDER 5. THE DR, SMC BENCH (TRUE COPY) DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD