Mrs. Shubhar Agarwal, Agra V. CIT, Agra

ITA 26/AGR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0340 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 year(s) 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 02-05-2013
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 10-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings; Set aside
• Section: 205; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 26/AGRA/2010 ASSTT. YEAR : 2000-01 M/S. SHUBHRA AGARWAL, VS. COMMISSIONER OF C/O M/S. KAMLA NAGAR SERVICE STATION, INCOME-TAX- I, AGRA F-1, PROFESSOR COLONY, KAMLA NAGAR, AGRA (PAN : AAKPA 3021 B) ITA NO. 431/AGRA/2010 ASSTT. YEAR : 2000-01 M/S. SHUBHRA AGARWAL, VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, C/O M/S. KAMLA NAGAR SERVICE STATION, 4(2), AGRA. F-1, PROFESSOR COLONY, KAMLA NAGAR, AGRA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI WASEEM ARSHAD, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 02.05.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 02.05.2013 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.: ITA NO. 26/AGRA/2010 IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT- II, AGRA DATED 14.12.2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 000-01, CHALLENGING THE ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE IT ACT. ITA NO. 26 & 431/AGRA/2010 2 2. IT IS OBSERVED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT COMPLA INT WAS RECEIVED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNED AN ILLEG AL BANK ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF SHUSHNA AT STATE BANK OF INDIA, KAMLA NAGAR, AGR A. THE COMPLAINT WAS ATTACHED WITH COPIES OF CHEQUES OF RS.5,00,000/- & RS.10,00,000/- SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE AS SHUSHNA. FURTHER, CHEQUES OF RS.2,00,00 0/-, RS.2,00,000/-, RS.1,00,000/- AND RS.5,00,000/- WERE SIGNED BY S. A GARWAL. THE AO, THEREFORE, INITIATED REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS THERE IS ESCA PEMENT OF INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.25,00,000/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 31. 12.2007 ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.25,94,370/- AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS.94, 366/-, MAKING ADDITION OF RS.25,00,000/-. THE LD. CIT-II, AGRA EXAMINED THE R ECORD AND FOUND THE ORDER TO BE ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE U/S. 263 OF THE IT ACT AND IT WAS OBSERVED THAT WHILE EXAMINING THE BENAMI BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN OTHER NAME, IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN TRANSFER ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT FROM OTHER BANK ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF GOPA L DAS AND IN BOTH THE BANK ACCOUNTS, THERE WERE ENTRIES OF CASH DEPOSITS AND C ASH PAYMENTS OF HUGE AMOUNTS BY TRANSFER. THEREFORE, THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT AND CREDITS BY WAY OF TRANSFER SHALL HAVE TO BE ENQUIRED INTO BY THE AO AND THE AO IS SUPPOSED TO MAKE THOROUGH ENQUIRY IN THE MATTER, WHICH THE AO HAS FAILED TO D O SO AND FURTHER, THE AO WAS REQUIRED TO FIND OUT THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE MONE Y HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THESE BANK ACCOUNTS. THE LD. CIT AFTER DISCUSSING T HE MATTER AND REPLY OF THE ITA NO. 26 & 431/AGRA/2010 3 ASSESSEE FOUND THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 263 CANNOT BE DROPPED BECAUSE THE ORDER OF THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTER EST OF REVENUE, AS THE AO DID NOT MAKE REQUISITE ENQUIRY INTO THE MATTER. THE ASSESSM ENT WAS, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE WITH CERTAIN DIRECTIONS TO THE AO AS TO HOW DETAILE D ENQUIRY SHALL HAVE TO BE MADE IN THE MATTER. 3. THE ORDER SHEETS WOULD REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSEE ON ONE OR THE OTHER REASONS HAS BEEN SEEKING ADJOURNMENTS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. EVEN ON 14.02.2013, THE REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS REJECTED. HOWEVER, ON U NDERTAKING BY THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE, LAST OPPORTUNITY WAS GRANTED TO ARGUE THE CASE. AGAIN UNDERTAKING WAS GIVEN BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, O N HIS REQUEST THE ADJOURNMENT WAS GIVEN AND NOW ON THE DATE OF HEARING, THE ASSES SEE OR HER COUNSEL INSTEAD OF ARGUING THE APPEAL, DID NOT PUT IN APPEARANCE. THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER IN THE OFFICE OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD, IN WHICH IT WAS STATED THAT AFTER APPRAISING THE PRESENT PREVALENT GROUND REALITIES A ND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE HAS DECIDED NOT TO PRESS ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPE AL RAISED IN APPEAL TO THE TRIBUNAL. IT WOULD, THEREFORE, SHOW THAT THE ASSESS EE DOES NOT WANT TO PRESS ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND AS SUCH, THE APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE SHALL HAVE TO BE DISMISSED. FURTHER ON CONSIDERATION OF THE OBSERVAT IONS AND FINDINGS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT WAS JUSTIF IED IN HOLDING THAT THE ITA NO. 26 & 431/AGRA/2010 4 ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO WAS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND PROPER DIRECTIONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN AS TO HOW THE AO SHALL HAVE TO ENQUIRE INTO THE MATTER IN DETAIL TO FIND O UT THE EXACT QUANTUM OF UNACCOUNTED MONEY IN BENAMI ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE . IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT FAILURE BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO MAKE ENQUIRY, IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND THAT THE COMMISSIONER C AN GIVE DIRECTIONS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS TO HOW THE DETAILED ENQUIRY IN TO THE MATTER SHALL HAVE TO BE MADE. WE ARE FORTIFIED IN OUR VIEW BY THE JUDGMENT OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GEE VEE ENTERPRISES LTD. VS. ADDL. CIT, 99 ITR 3 75, GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TARAJAN TEA COMPANY PVT. LTD. VS. CIT, 205 ITR 45 AND DECISION OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF K.A. RAMASWAMY CHE TTIAR AND ANOTHER VS. CIT, 220 ITR 657. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED, AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT AND ALSO DID NOT PRESS ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE US. I N THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 431/AGRA/2010 : 4. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-II, AGRA DATED 27.08.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000- 01. THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE LD. CIT-II , AGRA VIDE ORDER DATED ITA NO. 26 & 431/AGRA/2010 5 14.12.2009 HAS SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY T HE AO U/S. 263 OF THE IT ACT AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AGAINST WHICH THE APPEAL H AS BEEN FILED DOES NOT SURVIVE. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THE APPEAL TO BE IN FRUCTUOUS AND THE SAME WAS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. THE ASSESSEE SIMILARLY, MOVE D APPLICATION STATING THE SAME FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECIDED NOT TO PRESS ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED IN APPEAL TO THE TRIBUNAL. THE APPLICATION IS PLACE D ON RECORD. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER U /S. 263 HAS BEEN DISMISSED, THEREFORE, THE PRESENT APPEAL WAS RIGHTLY HELD TO B E INFRUCTUOUS BY THE LD. CIT(A). THIS APPEAL IS ALSO DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY TRUE COPY