Girdhar Bajaj , Delhi V. ITO, Ward- 47(2), New Delhi

ITA 298/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9667 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 16-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV PUNDIR
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 201; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI SMC-1 BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING ) BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.298/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 GIRDHAR BAJAJ, 7331/1, KHARI BAOLI, DELHI-110006. PAN-AAIPB3187H VS ITO, WARD-47(2), NEW DELHI. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH.GAURAV PUNDIR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 20.07.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29 .07.2021 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2014-15 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-16, NEW DE LHI DATED 06.09.2018. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1) THAT THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS MUCH AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE BY CONFI RMING THE ADDITION OF RS.17,81,355/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICE R U/SEC. 68 OF THE ACT WITH RESPECT TO THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.12,61,355/- RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT TOWARDS THE SALE OF MALBA AND CASH DEPOSI T OF RS.5,20,000/- RECEIVED BY HIM AS REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURR ED BY HIM TOWARDS THE EXPENSES ON EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONSTRUCTION ON BEHALF OF THE PURCHASER TO WHOM THE APPELLANT HAD SOLD THE PROPER TY DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND SHARE CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SAME. 2) THAT THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS MUCH AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE BY REJECTIN G THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN SUPPORT OF THE A FORESAID ADDITION WITHOUT ITA NO.298/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 PAGE | 2 APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THROUGH THE EVIDENCES WE RE AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT THE SAME COULD NOT BE FURNISHED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AS N O SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT TO FURNISH THE SAME DE SPITE SPECIFIC REQUEST MADE FOR THE SAME AS THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED B Y HIM IN HASTE ON 30 TH JUNE, 2016 WHEN THE SAME WERE GETTING TIME BARRED ON 31 ST DEC., 2016. 3) THAT THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) WHILE UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.12,61,355/- MADE BY TH E LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARDS TO THE SALE OF MALBA FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT OUT OF DEMOLITION OF BUILDING AND SALE OF MALWA IS INTRICATELY LINKED TO EH SALE OF PLOT AND THAT THE SALE OF PLOT AND STRUCTUR E (WHICH IS DEMOLISHED) SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER FOR DERIVING THE TOTA L SALE CONSIDERATION AND THAT THE SAME IS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GA IN' AND NOT UNDER 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. 4) THAT THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAVE FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AS MUCH AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,03,562/- WITH REGARDS TO THE INTEREST RECEI VED ON FIXED DEPOSIT WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA, FEROZPUR ON ACCRUAL BASIS WITH WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAVE SHOWN THE INTEREST RECEIVED ON SUCH FDR IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 5-16 AS HE IS FOLLOWING RECEIPT / CASH BASIS OF ACCOUNTING AND HAVE ACCOUNT ED THE INTEREST IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT OF SUCH INTEREST IN HIS ACCOUNT. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SEEN THAT THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON VARI OUS DATES I.E. 29.05.2019, 23.09.2019, 18.02.2020, 30.12.2020, 23.02.2021, 12. 05.2021 AND 20.07.2021. NO APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THESE DA TES WAS MADE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. NOTICES SENT TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH SP EED POST, HAVE BEEN ITA NO.298/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 PAGE | 3 RETURNED BACK UNSERVED. THE NOTICE FOR HEARING FIX ED ON 20.07.2021 IS ALSO RETURNED BACK WITH REMARK NO SUCH NUMBER AT KHARI BAOLI, RETURNED. HOWEVER, THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO.36. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY OTHER ADD RESS TO THE REGISTRY. 3. LD. SR. DR PRAYED FOR DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE LD. SR. DR AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT BEFORE LD. CIT(A), VARIOUS OPPORTUN ITIES WERE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. SINCE NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSE SSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICES THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBL E SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS B. N. BHATTACHARYA (1997) 118 ITR 461 (SC) AND DECISION OF DELHI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 38 IT D 320 (DEL.). I HEREBY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ABOVE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED ON CONCLUSION OF VIRT UAL HEARING ON 29 TH JULY, 2021. SD/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI