Sudhir Bhalla, Meerut V. DCIT, Circle- 2, Meerut

ITA 3174/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2202 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “G” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.3174/Del./2018 Assessment Year 2015-16 Sudhir Bhalla 199/7, Kash Complex, Durga Bari, Sadar, Meerut PAN : AAQPB 1802 P [vs. DCIT Circle – 2 Meerut (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 28.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.07.2022 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M. This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Meerut, dated 22.03.2018, relating to the A.Y. 2015-16. 2. The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under : 2.1. The assessee is an individual who electronically filed his return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 29.09.2015 2 declaring income of Rs.35,71,550/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2017 and the total income was determined at Rs.1,85,24,880/- inter alia by making the addition of Rs.1,49,53,330/- by considering the Long Term Capital Gain claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act to be unexplained for the reasons stated in the order. 2.2 Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide order dated 22.03.2018 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 1. “That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case by confirming the addition of Rs. 1,49,53,330/-, being the amount of LTCG earned by the appellant on STT paid sales of listed equity shares of M/s Goldline International Finvest Ltd., ignoring the evidences, documents and case laws relied upon by the appellant, for various reasons including the followings:- a. That the conclusions drawn by the authorities below for making/confirming the aforesaid addition are unjust, unlawful and based upon incorrect appreciations of the facts on record and the submissions of the appellant have not been considered in right perspective. 3 b. That the ld. CIT(A) did not give any reason whatsoever for not accepting or applying the ratios laid down by the Various high courts and ITAT’s, in the various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant before him. The said action of the ld. CIT(A) is against the principles of judicial hierarchy. c. That nothing has been brought on record to show any linking between the alleged entry operators whose statements have been relied upon and the appellant. The evidences and arguments used by the authorities below are generic in nature and can in no sense be related to the appellant. d. That the authorities below have made & confirmed the impugned addition without any basis and without brining on record any corroborative material found during the course of assessment proceedings and also by completely ignoring the well established law that no addition can be made solely on the basis of statements recorded on oath during the course of survey conducted by the Investigation Wing of Income Tax, Kolkata and departmentally communicated to the A.O., without making his own independent enquiry and efforts. Thus the additions made solely on the basis of the statements recorded behind the back of the appellant deserve to be deleted. e. That the statements of 2 persons namely Sh. Anil Kumar Khemka and Sh. Narendra Balasia, as relied upon the Id. A.O. cannot be taken cognizance with, as the same have been recorded at the back of the appellant and no opportunity of their cross examination has been provided. Further, their statements were only general statement and no where did the name of the appellant appear therein. 2. The appellant respectfully craves leave to add, alter, omit or substitute any or all of the above grounds of appeal.” ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; 4 4. The case file reveals that assessee has filed appeal in 2018 and the appeal was listed for hearing on 14.01.2020, 18.11.2021, 08.02.2022, 02.05.2022 and 28.07.2022, but there was neither any appearance on behalf of the assessee before the Tribunal nor any application was filed seeking adjournment despite notices being issued through RPAD. The notice for hearing on 28.07.2022 was issued through RPAD but the same was returned undelivered by postal authorities with the remarks that no person was found at the given address. Assessee has not filed any document informing the change of address. Preferring an appeal does not mean merely formally filing an appeal but also taking all the steps to effectively pursue the appeal. Further when an appeal is filed by the assessee before the Tribunal, it is expected that assessee shall put forth documentary evidences to support his claim. The fact that the assessee has not appeared before the Tribunal despite various opportunities granted to the assessee shows the negligent approach of the assessee and that he is not serious in pursuing the appeal filed by him. In the absence of any co- operation from the side of the assessee in helping to decide 5 the appeal, we don’t find any reason to keep the matter pending before us. Considering the aforesaid facts, we have no option except to dispose of the appeal on merits, after hearing the Ld. D.R. 5. The brief facts are that AO on perusing the return of income filed noticed that assessee had claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.1,49,53,330/- being the gain on sale of shares of Gold Line International Finvest Pvt. Ltd. AO for the detailed reasons noted in the assessment order concluded that assessee had taken accommodation entry in the form of Long Term Capital Gain. He treated the gains shown by the assessee to be unexplained cash credit and made its addition u/s 68 of the Act. CIT(A) upheld the order of AO. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before Tribunal. 6. Before us, the Ld. D.R. strongly supported the orders of the CIT(A). 6 7. We have heard the Ld. D.R. and perused the material on record. We find that AO by a well reasoned and detailed order has held that the Capital Gain claimed by the assessee on sale of shares of M/s. Gold Line International Finvest Pvt. Ltd. to be a case of assessee having taken accommodation entry in the form of Long Term Capital Gain and considered it to be unexplained credit and addition was made u/s 68 of the Act. The order of AO was upheld by CIT(A). The appeal being of assessee, it is his duty to lead evidence in support of his claim. Before us, assessee has not placed any material on record to controvert the findings of lower authorities. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus the grounds of assessee are dismissed. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.07.2022. Sd/- Sd/- [ANUBHAV SHARMA] [ANIL CHATURVEDI] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Delhi, Dated 28 th July, 2022 PY* 7 Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. Ld. CIT(A) concerned 4. CIT concerned 5. DR ITAT “SMC” Bench, Delhi 6. Guard File //By Order// Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Benches, Delhi. Date of dictation on 28.06.2022 Date on which the typed draft order is placed before the dictation Member 28.06.2022 Date on which the approval draft comes to the Sr. PS 28.07.2022 Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictation member for pronouncement 28.07.2022 Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. P.S. 28.07.2022 Date on which the final order is uploaded on the website of ITAT 28.07.2022 Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 28.07.2022 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order Date of dispatch of the Order.