Sh. Paramjit Singh Sarai, Jalandhar V. The Income-tax Officer, Jalandhar

ITA 353/ASR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 35320914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 10-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 30-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRIK CHAND
• Assessee Lawyers: J S BHASIN
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 353(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 PAN: ALNPS8466Q PARAMJIT SINGH SARAI, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 86, NEW JAWAHAR NAGAR, WARD-III(3), JALANDHAR JALANDHAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. J.S. BHASIN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SH. AMRIK CHAND, DR DATE OF HEARING: 10.12.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13.12.2013 ORDER PER BENCH 1. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.08.2011 PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX(APPEALS), JALANDHAR, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 08-09 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 30,00,000/- ON ERRONEOUS AND INSUFFICIENT GROUNDS. II. THAT SIMPLY BECAUSE THE PERSON WHO ADVANCED THE AMO UNT TO ASSESSEE, HAD DISAPPEARED, WOULD NOT IPSO FACTO MEA N THAT THE SAID 2 I.T.A. NO. 353(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 AMOUNT WAS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT OF ASSESSEE, IGNORING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND OTHER ATTENDANT FACTS OF T HE CASE. III. THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISTINGUISHING THE HON'BLE APEX COURT DECISION IN CIT V P.K. NOORJAHAN (1999) 237 I TR 570 (SC), TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION MADE BY LEARNED ITO. IV. THAT THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE AGAINS T LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE ARE T HAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 17.11.2008 DECLARING NET INCOME OF RS. 4930/- ACCOMPANYING COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND RELEV ANT DOCUMENTS AND THE SAME HAS BEEN PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1 ) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). LATER ON, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS BY ISSUING A NOTIC E UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS FROM TIME TO TIME AND FURNISHED INFORMATION. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE RE WERE CASH DEPOSIT, TOTAL AMOUNTING TO RS. 36,80,000/- IN THE ASSESSEE S SAVING BANK ACCOUNT NO. 5551 WITH THE CORPORATION BANK. CASH DEPOSITS T OTALING RS. 6,80,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS CLAIMED BY THE A SSESSEE AS THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE. THE BALANCE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 30 LACS ON 27.10.2007 IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVE D AGAINST THE 3 I.T.A. NO. 353(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 AGREEMENT TO SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND TO ONE MAHES H CHABRA, SON OF CHUNNI LAL CHABRA, RESIDENT OF CHABRA BHAWAN, RAMPU R GARDEN, BAREILLY. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED A COPY OF UNRE GISTERED SALE AGREEMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ASSESSIN G OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT A COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DE ED BUT THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT NO SALE DEED HAS BEEN EXECUTED TILL DAT E. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A LETTER TO SHRI MAHESH CHABRA, BAREILLY ON 08.09.2010 ASKING HIM TO SUBMIT DETAILS OF THE SALE TRANSACTION ENTERED I NTO BY HIM WITH THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, NO REPLY WAS RECEIVED FROM SHRI MAHESH CHABRA AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREAFTER, ISSUED A LETTER ON 04.11.2010 TO THE ASSESSEE INFORMING HIM THAT A LETTER HAD BEEN WRITT EN TO SHRI MAHESH CHABRA TO CONFIRM THE SALE TRANSACTION AND A DEPART MENTAL ENQUIRY HAD BEEN CONDUCTED AT BAREILLY FROM WHICH IT WAS FOUND THAT SHRI MAHESH CHABRA WAS NOT RESIDING AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS. THE A SSESSING OFFICER AGAIN ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH COMPLETE ADDRES S OF SHRI MAHESH CHABRA AND ALSO TO PRODUCE HIM SO THAT CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 30 LACS COULD BE CONFIRMED FROM HIM. THE ASSESSEE, IN REPLY, SUBM ITTED THE SAME ADDRESS WHICH HAD BEEN GIVEN EARLIER OF SHRI MAHESH CHABRA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO RECEIVED A REPORT FROM THE C IT, BAREILLY, TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ENQUIRIES REVEALED THAT NO BUILDING BY THE NAME OF CHABRA 4 I.T.A. NO. 353(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 BHAWAN, RAMPUR GARDEN, BAREILLY, EXISTED AND THERE WAS NO SUCH PERSON BY THE NAME OF SHRI MAHESH CHABRA, SON OF SHRI CHUN NI LAL CHABRA, ALLEGED RESIDENT OF CHABRA BHAWAN, RAMPUR GARDEN, B AREILLY. IT WAS REPORTED THAT INQUIRIES WERE CONDUCTED FROM LOCAL P ROPERTY DEALERS AND RESIDENT ASSOCIATIONS, AND NO PERSON OF SUCH NAME W AS REPORTED TO BE LIVING IN RAMPUR GARDEN, BAREILLY. THE CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT WERE ALSO POINTED OUT TO THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER , THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE THE SAID SHRI MAHESH CHABRA OR AN Y CONFIRMATION FROM HIM. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ASSES SMENT ORDER DATED 26.11.2010, ADDED A SUM OF RS. 30 LACS AS UNEXPLAIN ED DEPOSIT IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED WITH ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26.1 1.2010, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A), JAL ANDHAR, WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.08.2011, JUSTIFIED THE ADDI TION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE TUNE OF RS. 30 LACS TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. NOW, THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED WITH THE IMPU GNED ORDER, FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL, WHICH IS TIME BARRED BY 302 DAYS. THIS OFFICE ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE D ATED 03.09.2012 TO THE ASSESSEE STATING THEREIN THAT THE PRESENT APPEA L IS TIME BARRED BY 302 5 I.T.A. NO. 353(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 DAYS AND IT WAS ASKED TO THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE REASO N AS TO WHY THE APPEAL FILED BY HIM BE DISMISSED OF BEING TIME BARRED. HOW EVER, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS GIVE N ANY REPLY TO THIS NOTICE TILL THE CLOSING OF HEARING I.E. 10.12.2013. ON BEING ASKED BY THIS BENCH, WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WANTED TO FILE ANY APPL ICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, SH. J.S. BHASIN, ADVOCATE, LE ARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF D ELAY DATED 29.08.2012, IN WHICH, THE ASSESSEE MAINLY STATED THAT THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), JALANDHAR , DATED 11.08.2011, WAS RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE ON 02.09 .2011 AND HE PREFERRED THE APPEAL ON 19.09.2011 BY SENDING IT TO THIS BENCH THROUGH ANJANI COURIERS, HAVING THEIR OFFICE AT SEHDEV MARK ET, JALANDHAR. SH. J.S. BHASIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, FURT HER STATED THAT ON INQUIRY FROM THE OFFICE OF THIS BENCH, HE WAS INFOR MED VIDE LETTER DATED 17.08.2012 THAT THE OFFICE OF THIS BENCH HAS NOT RE CEIVED ANY SUCH APPEAL/DOCUMENT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. NO OTHER R EASON HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR DELAY OF 302 DAYS IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. HE LASTLY REQUESTED THAT THE DELAY IN DISPUTE MAY BE CONDONED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE HEARD ON MERIT. 5. LEARNED DR STRONGLY OPPOSED THE APPLICATION OF T HE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 302 DAYS IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL AND 6 I.T.A. NO. 353(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DOCUMENT ARY EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, DATED 29.08.2012. THEREFORE, THE DELAY IN DISPUTE SHOULD NOT BE CONDONED AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED BEING TIME-BARRED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US, ESPECIALLY THE CONTENTIONS RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, DATED 29.08.2 012. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, ARE AS UNDER: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRIT SAR BENCH, AMRITSAR I.T. APPEAL NO. 353 OF 2012 PARAMJIT SINGH SARAI, VS. INCOME TAX OFFIC ER, 86, NEW JAWAHAR NAGAR, WARD-III(3), JALANDHAR JALANDHAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FI LING OF APPEAL. RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH: THAT THE APPELLANT HEREIN, WHILE PREFERRING THE ENC LOSED APPEAL, WHEREBY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), JALANDHAR, DATED 1 1.08.2011 HAS BEEN BROUGHT IN DISPUTE, SEEKS CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 302 DAYS IN FILING OF THIS APPEAL, WHICH OCCASIONED INTER ALIA FOR FOLLOWING REASONS: 7 I.T.A. NO. 353(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 1. THAT THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), JALANDHAR, DATED 11.08.2011, WAS RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE ON 02.09.2011. 2. THAT FOR PREFERRING SECOND APPEAL, THE REQUISITE AP PEAL FEE OF RS. 10000/- WAS PAID ON 19.09.2011. 3. THAT THE APPEAL MEMO IN PRESCRIBED FORM NO. 36 WAS SIGNED IN TRIPLICATE, ALONGWITH VAKALATNAMA IN FAVOUR OF SHRI J S BHASIN, ADVOCATE OF JALANDHAR, ON 20.09.2011, AND LEFT WITH HIM FOR FILING OF APPEAL, WITH THE TRIBUNAL AT AMRITSAR. 4. THAT THE ABOVE APPEAL, COMPLETE IN ALL RESPECTS, AS INFORMED BY SHRI BHASIN, WAS FORWARDED TO THE TRIBUNAL, ON 04.1 0.2011, THROUGH ANJANI COURIERS, HAVING THEIR OFFICE AT SEH DEV MARKET, JALANDHAR, ADJACENT TO THE OFFICE OF SAID COUNSEL, ALONGWITH APPLICATION UNDER RULE 24 OF IT RULES, IN THE CASE OF ONE SHRI PARMINDER SINGH BINDRA, SEALED IN A SINGLE ENVELOP, AS PER RECEIPT NO. 389198 ISSUED BY THE SAID COURIERS. 5. THAT DUE TO NON-RECEIPT OF NOTICE FOR HEARING FOR Q UITE SOMETIME, A LETTER WAS ADDRESSED TO THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL BY ASS ESSEES COUNSEL ON 11.08.2012 (COPY ENCLOSED) TO FIND OUT THE STATU S OF THE ABOVE CASES. 6. VIDE LETTER DATED 17.08.2011 RECEIVED FROM THE AR I .T.A.T., AMRITSAR, (COPY ENCLOSED) THE RECEIPT OF ABOVE COUR IERS HAS BEEN DENIED. 7. THAT ON HAVING BEEN SO INFORMED, THE ASSESSEE AS NO W ADVISED, IS PREFERRING AND PRESENTING THE APPEAL AGAIN. 8. IT IS STATED THAT THE DELAY CAUSED IS UNINTENDED AN D DEVOID OF ANY MALA FIDE. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN ANY MANNER TO BE NEFIT FROM THE DELAY CAUSED. 9. IT IS THEREFORE HUMBLY PRAYED THAT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, NARRATED HEREIN ABOVE, WHICH CONSTIT UTED SUFFICIENT 8 I.T.A. NO. 353(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 CAUSE TO PREVENT THE GULLIBLE ASSESSEE FROM PRESENT ING THE APPEAL IN TIME, THE DELAY BE KINDLY CONDONED, SO AS TO ADV ANCE THE SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF JUSTICE, CONSISTENT WITH THE L AW LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT, IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION V. MST. KATIJI & OTHERS REPORTED IN (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) THAT SUFFICIENT CAUSE SHOULD BE INTERPRETED WITH A VIE W TO DO EVEN HANDED JUSTICE ON MERITS IN PREFERENCE TO APPROACH WHICH SCUTTLES A DECISION ON MERITS. SD/- PARAMJIT SINGH SARI DATE 29.08.2012 ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE THOROUGHLY GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPLICATION DATED 29.08.2012, REPRO DUCED ABOVE, AND THE LETTER DATED 17.08.2012 WRITTEN BY THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR TO THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL, IN WHICH, THE ASSISTANT REGISTR AR HAS INFORMED TO THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL THAT THIS OFFICE HAS NOT RECEIVE D ANY SUCH APPEAL/DOCUMENT IN THE CASE OF M/S SH. PARAMJIT SIN GH SARAI, JALANDHAR AND SH. PARVINDERJIT SINGH BINDRA, JALANDHAR. 8. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY ANJAN I COURIER, HAVING THEIR OFFICE AT JALANDHAR ADJACENT TO THE OF FICE OF ASSESSEES COUNSEL; AND WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT LEA RNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, DATED 29.08.2 012, BY ADDUCING ANY RELIABLE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. IN THE ABSENCE OF AN Y PLAUSIBLE/RELIABLE EVIDENCE, WE ARE UNABLE TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 302 DAYS IN FILLING THE 9 I.T.A. NO. 353(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 PRESENT APPEAL. MERELY FILING THE RECEIPT OF ANJANI COURIERS, HAVING THEIR OFFICE AT SEHDEV MARKET, JALANDHAR, DOES NOT MEAN T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE OFFICE OF T HIS TRIBUNAL. 9. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE AVERMENTS MADE BY THE AS SESSEE IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, DATED 29.08.2 012, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FILED ANY DOCUM ENTARY EVIDENCE REBUTTING THE LETTER DATED 17.08.2012 WRITTEN BY TH IS OFFICE TO THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL INFORMING THAT THIS OFFICE HAS N OT RECEIVED ANY APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 10. SH. J.S. BHASIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E, REGULARLY APPEARS BEFORE THIS BENCH; AS SUCH HE COULD HAVE IN QUIRED FROM THIS OFFICE ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FI LED BY HIM. HOWEVER, TO THIS EFFECT, HE HAS ONLY WRITTEN A LETTER DATED 11. 08.2012 TO THIS OFFICE AFTER ABOUT 10 MONTHS. 11. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DISC USSED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HI S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE COULD ESTABLISH THE CONTENTIONS RAIS ED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, DATED 29. 08.2012, BY ADDUCING ANY RELIABLE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND IN THE ABSENC E OF ANY SUCH EVIDENCE, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR US TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 302 DAYS 10 I.T.A. NO. 353(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 CAUSED IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, T HE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED BEING TIME-BARRED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED BEING TIME- BARRED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH DECEMBER, 2013 SD/./- SD/./- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 13 TH DECEMBER, 2013 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: PARAMJIT SINGH SARAI, 86, NEW JAWAHAR NAGAR, JALANDHAR 2. ITO, WARD-III(3), JALANDHAR 3. THE CIT(A), JALANDHAR 4. THE CIT, JALANDHAR 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., ASR TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.