Dolly Sabharwal, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3468/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5484 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDRA MEENA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 144; 69B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH B, NEW DELHI BEFORE : MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCO UNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3468/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 DOLLY SABHARWAL, C/O C.A. KAILASH THAPAR, D-32, 3 RD FLOOR, BALI NAGAR, NEW DELHI. PAN- AAXPS1663G (APPELLANT) VS. INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 41(1), NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. SURENDRA MEENA, SR. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, J.M.: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER DATED 09.12.2016, PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-14, NEW DELHI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL READ AS UNDER : 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL VIDE EX-PARTE APPELLATE ORDER DT. 09.12.2016, ON THE GRO UND THAT NONE ATTENDED THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, WITHOUT ENSURING THAT TH E NOTICES SENT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WERE SERVED UPON THE ASSE SSEE OR NOT. THE REASON FOR NOT ATTENDING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDIN GS WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHIFTED FROM '9/84, PUNJABI BAGH WEST, NEW DELHI-26'. DATE OF HEARING 08.08.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23 .08.2019 ITA NO. 3468/DEL/2017 2 2. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW, THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER IS LIABLE TO BE ANNULLED, AS THE NA TURAL JUSTICE WAS DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW, THE ASSESSEE DESERVES A CHANCE TO REPRESENT HER CASE BEFORE THE LD. A.O., AS THE LD. A.O. HAD PASSED THE EX-PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 144, W HILE MAKING HUGE UNCALLED FOR ADDITIONS. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW, THE ADDITION OF RS. 12,00,000/- IS UNJUSTIFIED. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW, THE ADDITION OF RS. 31,90,544/- IS UNJUSTIFIED. 6. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW, THE ADDITION OF RS. 12,78,194/- IS UNJUSTIFIED. 7. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW, THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,99,323/- IS UNJUSTIFIED. 8. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW, THE ADDITION OF RS. 73,47,500/- IS UNJUSTIFIED. 9. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW, THE DENIAL OF SET OFF OF LOSS OF RS. 53,400/- CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD 'INC OME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY', WHILE WRONGLY TREATING THE SAME AS BROUG HT FORWARD LOSS, IS UNJUSTIFIED ON VARIOUS FACTUAL & LEGAL GROUNDS. 2. THE RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS.3,65,166/- WAS FILED ON 26.09.2012. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE UNDERSTATED THE OPENING STOCK WITH CLOSING STOCK OF THE LAST YEAR BY RS.1.50 CRORES. THE ASSESSING O FFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ITA NO. 3468/DEL/2017 3 FROM THE WORKING OF TRADING ACCOUNT OF THIS YEAR, T HE GP RATE COMES TO 4%. AS THESE GOODS WORTH RS.1.5 CRORES WERE SOLD OUT OF TH E BOOKS, MUST BE AT HIGHER RATE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED 8% OF GP ON THESE SALES OUT OF BOOKS AND ADDITION OF RS.12 LACS WAS MADE TO THE IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS.31,90,54 4/- AND RS.12,78,194/- AT 8.5% ON ACCOUNT OF ACCRUED INTEREST. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER ADDED RS.2,99,323/- AND RS.73,47,500/- AS UNEXPLAINED UNS ECURED LOANS AND CASH DEPOSITS AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THEIR GENU INENESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES OF RS.53, 400/- IN ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASS ESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A).THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL. 4. DURING THE HEARING, NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESS EE DESPITE FILING THE POWER OF ATTORNEY. THE ASSESSEE WAS NEITHER REPRESE NTED NOR ATTENDED THE HEARING THOUGH THE NOTICE WAS GIVEN AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN FORM NO. 36. THE NOTICE WAS SERVED WELL WITHIN THE TIME, THEREFO RE, WE ARE TAKING UP THE MATTER FOR HEARING BY TAKING COGNIZANCE OF ASSESSME NT ORDER AND ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 5. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSE D U/S. 144 OF THE ACT DESPITE GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. AT THE TIME OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS ITA NO. 3468/DEL/2017 4 BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT APPEARED BE FORE THE CIT(A) AS WELL. THE ASSESSEE IS FILING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, B UT HAS NOT TAKEN ANY CAUTIOUS ACTION OF FOLLOWING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS EITHER BY HERSELF OR THROUGH HER REPRESENTATIVE. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED THROUGH DOCUMENTAR Y EVIDENCE THAT THE ESTIMATION TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AT HIG HER SIDE. THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE JUST AN D PROPER. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF ACCRUED INTEREST, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN GOVERNMENT AND OTH ER SECURITIES WHICH THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE OFFERED FOR TAXATION. THEREFOR E, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION. AS REGARDS, THE ADDITION U/S. 69B ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT, THE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE I N THE GOVERNMENT AND OTHER SECURITIES WHICH WERE DULY INCREASED IN THIS PARTICULAR YEAR. THEREFORE, WITHOUT THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION. AS REGARDS UNEXPLAINED UNSECURED LOANS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ANY CONFIRMATION HAS RIGHTLY MADE ADDITION. IN RESPECT OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES , AS THE SAME WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S MADE PROPER ADDITION. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 23 RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2019. SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SUCH ITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 23 RD AUGUST, 2019