Gurdev Chand, Ambala Cantt V. ITO Ward-3, Ambala

ITA 264/CHANDI/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2388 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA DHAR
• Keywords: Gift; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,च डीगढ़ यायपीठ “एकल सद यीय’, च डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘SMC’ CHANDIGARH ीमती दवा संह, या#यक सद य BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 264/CHD/2020 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Gurdev Chand, S/o Shri Devi Chand, #9, Pooja Vihar, Ambala Cantt. बनाम VS The ITO, Ward 3, Ambala. थायी लेखा सं./PAN No: AJUPC9980E अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent नधा रती क! ओर से/Assessee by : None राज व क! ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr.DR स ु नवाई क! तार&ख/Date of Hearing : 02.06.2022 उदघोषणा क! तार&ख/Date of Pronouncement : 28.06.2022 आदेश/ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the assessee wherein the correctness of the order dated 31.12.2019 of CIT(A) Panchkula pertaining to 2007-08 assessment year is assailed on various grounds. It is necessary first for the sake of completeness to address the fact that the original grounds raised by the assessee have been substituted by the assessee with the revised grounds filed in the Registry on 31.01.2022. These are taken on record noting that the ld. Sr.DR has no objection if these are substituted for the ITA/264/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2007-08 Page 2 of 6 original which were found to be argumentative. These are reproduced hereunder: 1. That the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed U/s 250(6) of Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad against facts and law. 2. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has gravely erred, without appreciating the facts, circumstances and evidences placed on record, in sustaining the addition of Rs.1,00,000/- of the money gifted by Sh. Vinod Singh S/o Sh. Naib Singh. 3. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals), has erred by sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- received from Sh. Naib Singh and Rs. 1,00,000/- received from Sh. Ravi Kumar, without adhering to the law of Natural Justice. 4 . That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) have erred by allowing the addition of Rs. 2,04,000/- on cash deposit by appellant, as it is merely on presumptions, and bad in the- eyes of law, as it is against the law of natural Justice. 2. The record shows that on earlier occasions, the grounds repeatedly had been found to be argumentative and ultimately these had been revised. Reference is made to the date of hearing on 25.05.2021, 22.06.2021, 15.07.2021 and 04.01.2022 on the ordersheet. The original grounds, accordingly, are discarded and substituted. 3. At the time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee. The appeal was passed over. Despite this, the assessee remained unrepresented. Considering the record which shows that more than adequate opportunities had been granted to the assessee and despite notice, the assessee has chosen to remain unrepresented, it was deemed appropriate to proceed with the present appeal ex-parte qua the assessee appellant on merits after hearing the Sr.DR wherein as per record even in the two pass overs given, the assessee continuously remained unrepresented. ITA/264/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2007-08 Page 3 of 6 4. Before addressing the revised grounds, it is necessary to address the delay of 86 days pointed out by the Registry. The assessee has explained the same by referring to the Pandemic conditions and also by relying upon the decision of the Apex Court of dated 23.09.2021 in MA No.665 of 2021 in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020 praying that the period of filing of the appeal during the Covid-19 Pandemic may be excluded. 5. Considering the aforesaid position of law and noticing that the appeal was filed on 09.06.2022, the delay of 86 days pointed out by the Registry stands addressed. Accordingly, the delay of 86 days pointed out by the Registry is condoned. Ld. Sr.DR also did not place any counter arguments to this. She was required to argue on merits. 6. Coming to the grounds raised by the assessee wherein the challenge is posed to the additions sustained by the CIT(A) it is seen that fresh evidences filed by the assessee were admitted. 7. The ld. Sr.DR inviting attention to para 7.2 submitted that addition of Rs.1 lac has been confirmed. The amount is claimed to have been given by Shri Naib Singh, father-in-law of the assessee mentioned at Sr.No. 1. It has been confirmed by the CIT(A) holding as under : “No evidence has been filed by the appellant from Shri Naib Singh.Hence, cash deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- stands unexplained. ITA/264/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2007-08 Page 4 of 6 8. Similarly, at page 15 para 7.2 considering the assessee's submission that Rs.1 lac available with him is flowing from his brother-in-law Shri Vinod Singh ( typographic error in Sr.No. 4 by mentioning as Vinod Kumar) is correctly noticed as Vinod Kumar in the 5 th column. The typographic error in second column, the ld. Sr.DR stated should be read as Vinod Kumar as correctly noticed in column No. 5 in the remarks column. Referring to this column, it was submitted, that the CIT(A) mentioned the correct name) has confirmed holding as under : Statement of one Sh.Vinod Singh s/o Sh. Naib Singh was recorded who is in teaching profession and running a coaching centre. His annual income is Rs.1,80,000/-. He as admitted that he has given gift of Rs. One lac in cash to the appellant. However, appellant has not claimed that he has got gift from any one namely Sh. Vinod Singh. Hence, this statement is of no use. No evidence has been filed by the appellant from Sh.Vijay Kumar. Hence, Cash deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- stands unexplained . 9. Similarly, the assessee has claimed that from Shri Ravi Kumar, brother-in-law mentioned at Sr.No. 5, Rs. 1 lac has been received. Addition made by the AO considering the fresh evidences filed has been confirmed holding as under : “No evidence has been filed by the appellant from Sh.Ravi Kumar. Hence, Rs.1,00,000/- stands unexplained.” 10. Similarly, for the bald claim of savings of Rs. 2,04,000/- in the hands of the assessee, it was submitted, considering the evidences filed has been confirmed for the following reasons: ITA/264/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2007-08 Page 5 of 6 “Appellant in his statement has stated that he has Annual Income of Rs. 1,50,000/- from animal husbandry. He is father of two daughters and a son. He has further stated that he has old savings out of which he has deposited in the bank amounting to Rs.2,04,000/-.It is very strange that appellant has deposited out of his past savings in cash in his bank account and then spent it for construction of his house as if he was debarred from spending on construction by cash Appellant's' has tried to cook up the story against the common practices of construction business in India. There is no evidence that he has surplus funds with him in cash over the years. What was reason to open a bank Account when he was to first keep surplus in cash at home and then deposit it in order to invest the same for construction ? This act of appellant is against the normal behavior. Hence, explanation of the appellant is not tenable. Cash deposit of Rs.2,04,000/- stands unexplained.” 11. It was her submission that the assessee despite so much opportunities has failed to file any evidence to upset these findings and infact for want of evidence has remained absent. The additions challenged by the assessee in the aforesaid grounds, accordingly, on the basis of material available on record, it was her prayer may be confirmed. 12. I have heard the submissions and perused the material available on record. In the absence of any evidence or submission to the contrary on record, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) is confirmed. While so confirming, liberty is given to the assessee to pray for a recall, if deemed fit, of this order in the eventuality the assessee can explain the reasons for not remaining present in the proceedings alongwith an undertaking that the assessee is in possession of supportive evidences qua the grounds raised. Said order was pronounced in the Open Court at the time of hearing itself. ITA/264/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2007-08 Page 6 of 6 13. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 28 th June,2022. Sd/- ( दवा संह ) (DIVA SINGH) या#यक सद य/Judicial Member “प ू नम” आदेश क! त,ल-प अ.े-षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant – 2. यथ / The Respondent – 3. आयकर आय ु /त/ CIT 4. .आयकर आय ु /त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. -वभागीय त न2ध, आयकर अपील&य आ2धकरण, च4डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड फाईल/ Guard File आदेशान ु सार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar