Mr. Atul S.Mehta, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-9(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 2806/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 67952 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 21-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K C MATHEWS SRDR

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., ! '# '# '# '# $ %&, ! BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER #./ I.T.A. NO.2806/AHD/2010 ( ( ')( ( ')( ( ')( ( ')( / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) MR.ATUL S.MEHTA C/O.V.K.MOONDRA, C.A. 201, SARAP, OPP. NAVJIVAN PRESS ASHRAM ROAD AHMEDABAD / VS. THE ITO WARD-9(4) AHMEDABAD !* #./+, #./ PAN/GIR NO. : AFQPM 2370 G ( *- / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( ./*- / RESPONDENT ) *- 0 / APPELLANT BY : -NONE- ./*- 1 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.C. MATHEWS, SR.D.R. $'2 1 & / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 21/11/2013 34) 1 & / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22/11/2013 5 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XV, AHMEDABA D DATED 15/12/2009 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE ID. AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN MAKING AND ADDITION OF RS. 39,30,624/- BEING CREDITS IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT. THE ID. CIT [APPE ALS] HAS CONFIRMED THE ABOVE ADDITION ON THE GROUNDS THAT NO PROOFS WERE G IVEN FOR CLARIFYING THE NATURE OF CREDITS IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT AT THE APPELLA NT STAGE. HOWEVER, THE ACTUAL ITA NO.2806/AHD /2010 SHRI ATUL S.MEHTA VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 2 - FACT IS THAT ALL THE PROOFS WERE DULY SUBMITTED TO THE ID. CIT [APPEALS], BUT SHE DID NOT ACCEPT THE SAME ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT WAS A VERY BULKY SUBMISSION AND REQUESTED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT A SUMMARIZED S UBMISSION. ACCORDINGLY, A SUMMARIZED SUBMISSION IN A TABLE FORM WAS SUBMITT ED SUBSEQUENTLY. THE ORIGINAL BULKY SUBMISSION WAS SUBMITTED VIDE OUR LE TTER DATED 26/04/2010 IN WHICH WE HAVE CLEARLY SPECIFIED THE DETAILS AND DOC UMENTATION SUBMITTED ON LINE NO 5 OF THE GROUND NO 1. 2. THE ID. AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN MAKING AND ADDIT ION OF RS.9,00,000/- BEING LOAN TAKEN BY CHEQUE. THE ID CIT [APPEALS] HAS CONF IRMED THE SAME ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE CONFIRMATION SUBMITTED WAS HALF BA KED WITH NO DETAILS OF ADDRESS, BANK DETAILS OR PURPOSE OF LOAN SPECIFIED ON IT. HOWEVER, THE ID. CIT HAS FAILED TO NOTICE THAT DETAILS LIKE BANK DETAILS AND PURPOSE OF LOAN NEED NOT BE SPECIFIED ON THE CONFIRMATION. FURTHER, SHE HAVE NEVER ASKED FOR SUCH DETAILS LIKE ADDRESS, BANK DETAILS AND PURPOSE OF T HE LOAN DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. MOREOVER, THE CONFIRMATION HAS THE DETAILS LIKE NAME AND PAN OF THE LENDER SPECIFIED ON THE SAME AND MOR E DETAILS COULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY US TO THE ID. CIT [APPEALS] IF A R EQUIREMENT WAS RAISED. 3. THE ID. AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN MAKING AND ADDIT ION OF RS.2,3 9,24,763/- BEING LORRY HIRE CHARGES ON WHICH NO TDS DEDUCTED. THE SAME HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT [APPEALS] WITHOUT MAKING A DETAILED STUDY AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE SUBMISSION GIVEN ON 26/04/2010 . THE ID. CIT [A] HAS GROSSLY MISUNDERSTOOD THE CLARIFICATIONS GIVEN BY U S IN RESPECT OF REIMBURSEMENT OF FREIGHT CHARGES AND FREIGHT CHARGE S PAID ON WHICH TDS WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED. 4. ANY OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEALS SHALL BE SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHA LF OF THE APPELLANT- ASSESSEE. ON PREVIOUS OCCASION, I.E. ON 24/09/2013 ALSO ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR. LAST N OTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON 11/10/2013 FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 21/11/2013 AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 17/10/2103 (AD ON RECORD). ON THE DATE OF HEARING, NO ONE HAS AP PEARED FROM THE SIDE OF APPELLANT-ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO DISMISS THE APPEAL SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING WITH HIS APPEAL. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIG H COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKA VS. CWT (1997) ITA NO.2806/AHD /2010 SHRI ATUL S.MEHTA VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 3 - 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) AND OF HON'BLE DELHI TRIBUNAL DECISION IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (PVT.) LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DE LHI) , WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE . 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HER EINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- ( .. ) ($ %&) ! ! ( N.S. SAINI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 22/ 11 /2013 8.., '.../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS 5 1 .&9 :9)& 5 1 .&9 :9)& 5 1 .&9 :9)& 5 1 .&9 :9)&/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. *- / THE APPELLANT 2. ./*- / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ## & $; / CONCERNED CIT 4. $;() / THE CIT(A)-XV, AHMEDABAD 5. 9'%< .& , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. <( =2 / GUARD FILE. 5$ 5$ 5$ 5$ / BY ORDER, /9& .& //TRUE COPY// > >> >/ // / #+ #+ #+ #+ ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 21.11.13(VERBATIM) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 21.11.13P 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH FAIR ORDER PLACED BEFORE OTHER MEMBER 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.22.11.13 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 22.11.13 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER