Smt. Minaxiben M.Bhatt, Baroda V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-8(1), Baroda

ITA 3465/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 346520514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 24-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VINOD TANWANI
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NO.3465/AHD/2010 A. Y.: 2005-06 SMT. MINAXIBEN M BHATT, 13-C, DAHIBA NAGAR SOCIETY, MANJALPUR, BARODA VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 8 (1), BARODA PA NO. AGPPB 6959 A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI M. K. PATEL, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI VINOD TANWANI, DR DATE OF HEARING: 23-08-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25-08-2011 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-VI, BARODA DAT ED 121-10-2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, CHALLENGING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.2,62,500/- BEING THE CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT . 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING T HE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN T HE SOURCE CREDITS TOTALING TO RS.2,62,500/- IN HER BANK ACCOU NT. THE AO REPRODUCED THE DETAILS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON V ERIFICATION OF THE BANK PASS BOOK/BANK STATEMENT. THE AO, THEREFORE, N OTED WHEN ITA NO. 3465/AHD/2010 SMT. MINAXIBEN M. BHATT VS ITO, W- 8 (1), BARODA 2 INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE, SOURCES OF INVESTMENTS ETC. ARE NOT GIVEN. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION AND INSUFF ICIENCY OF THE TOTAL CREDITS OF RS.2,62,500/- WERE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINE D DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND ADDITION WAS ACCORDINGLY MADE. THE ADDITION WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED C IT(A) GAVE 17 OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE ABOVE ISSUE. FINAL OPPORTUNITY WAS ALSO GIVEN TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE BUT ULTIMATELY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT AVAIL OF THE OP PORTUNITIES OF HEARING. THEREFORE, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DECI DED EX-PARTE CONSIDERING NON-COOPERATION FROM THE SIDE OF THE AS SESSEE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) NOTED THAT NOTHING IS EXPLAINED EVEN IN THE STATEMENT OF FACT FILED BEFORE HIM. SINCE, THE INVESTMENTS IN THE BANK AND THE SOURCE OF THE BANK DEPOSIT WAS NOT EXPLAINED EVEN B EFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT DUE TO REASONABLE CAUSE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFO RE THE LEARNED CIT(A). THEREFORE, ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVE N TO EXPLAIN THE ABOVE ISSUE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR RELI ED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AO ALSO NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE ISSUE BUT THE ASSESSEE REMA INED NON- COOPERATIVE. EVEN, BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THE SA ME POSITION WAS THERE AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE STAT UTORY NOTICES. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE. ITA NO. 3465/AHD/2010 SMT. MINAXIBEN M. BHATT VS ITO, W- 8 (1), BARODA 3 4. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS I AM O F THE VIEW THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE MATTER. THE AO NOTED SEVERAL DEFAULTS BY THE ASSESSEE EVEN AT THE ASSESSMENT STA GE AND THE PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT ATTENDED TO BEFORE THE AO. THE AO ON VERIFICATION OF THE BANK PASS BOOK/BANK STATEMENT F OUND SEVERAL CREDIT AMOUNTS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT TOTALING TO RS.2 ,62,500/-. THE ASSESSEE GAVE NARRATION OF THE SAME AS INVESTMENTS MAINLY. HOWEVER, SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENTS WAS NOT EXPLAINE D AT ALL BEFORE THE AO. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE LEARNED CIT( A) GAVE 17 OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE ABOVE UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT BUT THE ASSESSEE DID N OT EXPLAIN THE ISSUE AT ALL. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE OR MAT ERIAL EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE J USTIFIED IN MAKING AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION. NO GROUND WAS RAISED B EFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) EXPLAINING THE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES AND EVEN NO GROUND IS RAISED BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL EXPLAINING REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE STA TUTORY NOTICES. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC GROUND OF APPEAL AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL TO JUSTIFY GIVING OF FURTH ER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE, I AM NOT INCLINED TO GRANT FURTHER OPPORT UNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO ARGUE AND APPEAR BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A). NOTHING IS ARGUED ON MERIT BEFORE ME AND NO MATERIAL IS PRODUC ED TO EXPLAIN THE ADDITION ON MERIT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE O R MATERIAL, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NO MERIT. THE SAME IS AC CORDINGLY DISMISSED. ITA NO. 3465/AHD/2010 SMT. MINAXIBEN M. BHATT VS ITO, W- 8 (1), BARODA 4 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER LAKSHMIKANT/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, CONCERNED 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER D Y. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD