Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3255 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
11 month(s) 14 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
05-06-2013
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
B
Next Hearing Date
05-06-2013
Assessment Year
2006-2007
Appeal Filed On
21-06-2012
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B : LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 342 /LKW/ 2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 SHRI MOHD. KHALID AZEEM, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1(2), FLAT NO. 209, EMPIRE ESTATE, KANPUR. 15/43, CIVIL LINES, KANPUR. PAN:AMGPK7051H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR, CIT, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 05 /0 6 /201 3 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :05/06/2013 ORDER PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 ON VARIOUS GROUNDS WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 1. BECAUSE ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED FOR SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF ` 26,91,000.00 AS ADDED BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE HEAD UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK. 2 2. BECAUSE ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED FOR SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF ` 49,68,592.00 AS ADDED BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE HEAD UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUND. 3. BECAUSE ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN NOT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER. 4. BECAUSE ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ORDER U/S 143(3) PASSED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IS INVALID, BAD IN L AW, WITHOUT SATISFYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION AND SUB SECTION OF SECTION 143 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 1961. 5. BECAUSE ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS CIT(A) IS ARBITRARY, AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 2. THIS APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 0 5 /06/2013 BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. FROM PERUSAL OF RECORD, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH REGISTERED POST BUT RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED WITH THE REMARK THAT THE ADDRESSEE IS NOT AVAILABLE. THE OFFICE OF THE TRIBUNAL HAD MADE ITS SINCERE EFFORTS TO GET THE NOTICE SERVED BUT FAILED TO GET IT SERVED. TH IS APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS H IS DUTY TO REMAIN VIGILANT WITH REGARD TO THE PENDENCY OF THE APPEAL. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO PROCEED EX - PARTE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE REVENUE WAS HEARD. 3 3. WE HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON IMPUGN ED ISSUES AND FIND THAT HE HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE IN DETAIL AND IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE. SINCE NO INFIRMITY IS FOUND THEREIN , W E CONFIRM HIS ORDER. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05/06/2013 ) SD/. SD/. ( PRAMOD KUMAR) ( SUNIL KUMAR YADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 06/06/2013 *SINGH COPY FORWARDED TO THE: 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT (A) 4. CIT 5. DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRA R
Mehul