ARUNA BAID, MUMBAI V. PR CIT 18, MUMBAI

ITA 2423/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0077 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R P MEENA
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HONBLE S/SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JM), AND RAJESH KUMAR, ( AM ) ./ I.T.A. NO . 2423 / MUM/20 1 5 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 10 - 1 1 ) SMT.ARUNA BAID, 1 ST FLOOR, CHANDRA MAHAL, 241, SHAMALDAS GANDHI MARG, PRINCESS STREET, MUMBI - 400021 / VS. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 18, 6 TH FLOOR, EARNEST HOUSE, MUMBAI - 400021 ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ./PAN NO. : AA FPBO838E / APPELLANT BY: NONE / RESPONDENT BY SHRI R P MEENA / DATE OF HEARING : 31.8. 201 7 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31. 8. 201 7 / O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 18, MUMBAI D A T ED 16.3.2015 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 20 10 - 11 . AT THE OU TSET, WE WOULD LIKE TO MENTION HERE THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE OR HER AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALLED FOR HEARING NOR WAS ANY APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT OF THE HEARING RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF THE TR IBUNAL DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE THROUGH RPAD . THEREFORE, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EX - PARTE AFTER HEARING THE LD.DR. ITA NO . 2423 / M/1 5 2 2 . GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER : 1) THE LEARNED PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRED IN PASSING AN ORDER U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE REASONS ASSIGNED BY HIM FOR DOING THE SAME ARE WRONG AND INSUFFICIENT. PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN PROPERLY CONSTRUED BEFO RE DOING THE SAME. REGARD BEING HAD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE SAID ORDER U/S 263 OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN PASSED. 2) THE LEARNED PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT VERIFIED THE SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSITED AT RS.1557840 / - IN BANK A/C ON VARIOUS DATES. THE REASONS ASSIGNED BY HIM FOR DOING THE SAME ARE WRONG AND INSUFFICIENT. PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN PROPERLY CO NSTRUED BEFORE DOING THE SAME. REGARD BEING HAD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. OF THE CASE, THE SAID DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE LEARNED PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEEDS TO BE QUASHED. 3 . THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST EXERCISING THE RE VISIONARY JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT BY PCIT THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THE AO HAS NOT VERIFIED CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ON VARIOUS DA T ES AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO WAS ERRON EOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE TO THAT EXTENT . 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.DR ON THE ISSUE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US INCLUDING THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH INTO THE SBI ON VARIOUS DATES WHICH WAS NOT VERIFIED BY THE AO AND THE SAID LAPSE ON THE PART OF THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, WE DO NOT C O ME ACROSS ANY MATERIAL TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.PCIT THAT THE ITA NO . 2423 / M/1 5 3 OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE AO WAS NOT ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF T HE RE VENUE . WE, THEREFORE UPHOLD , T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.PCIT. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST AUG, 2017 . 31 ST AUG , 2017 SD SD (JOGINDER SINGH ) ( RAJESH KUMAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: 31. 8. 2017 . . ./ SRL , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - CONCERNED 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. 6. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , /ITAT, MUMBAI