North India Developers Pvt Ltd, New Delhi V. ITO WARD 18(4), New Delhi

ITA 3558/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1092 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 13-07-2022
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 147; 68; 69C; 143(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3558/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2007-08 North India Developers Pvt. Ltd., 83/1, Block-02, WHS, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-1100 15 Vs. ITO, Ward 18(4), New Delhi PAN :AACCN4303L (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 28.11.2018 of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals)-12, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2007-08. 2. When the appeal was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee to represent the case. Even, there is no application filed by the assessee seeking adjournment, despite, timely issuance of hearing notice. Appellant by N o n e Respondent by Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR Date of hearing 14.07.2022 Date of pronouncement 12.10.2022 2 ITA No.3558/Del.19 3. On perusal of record, it is observed, on multiple occasions, though, notice of hearing has been issued to the assessee, however, on each date of hearing, assessee remained absent. The record further reveals, some of the notices issued through speed post, returned back unserved with the postal remarks “left”. Even, the last notice of hearing issued to assessee in the e-mail address provided in Form No.36 failed to invoke any response from the assessee. Thus, the aforesaid facts clearly reveal assessee’s lack of interest in pursuing the present appeal. Since, adequate opportunity of being heard has already been extended to the assessee, I proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and based on material on record. 4. The assessee has raised as many as ten grounds in the Memorandum of Appeal. However, the grounds raised are basically pertained to two issues, firstly, the validity of reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act and secondly, the merits of the additions made under Section 68 and 69C of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. 5. Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is a resident corporate entity. For the assessment year under dispute, assessee filed its return of 3 ITA No.3558/Del.19 income on 27.09.2007 declaring income of Rs.14,100. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received information that in the year under consideration, assessee had received accommodation entry to the tune of Rs.20,00,000 from a known entry operator Shri Surender Kumar Jain. Based on such information, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under Section 147 of the Act. 6. In course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of the amount of Rs.20,00,000 received from four entities, who allegedly are dumb/paper companies being operated by Shri Surender Kumar Jain & Group. Alleging that the assessee could not prove the genuineness of the amount received of Rs.20,00,000 from four entities, the Assessing Officer treated it as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act and added back to the income of the assessee. Further, being of the view that the assessee must have obtained the accommodation entry on payment of commission, the Assessing Officer applied rate of commission of 6% and added back an amount of Rs.1,20,000 under Section 69C of the Act. Against the assessment 4 ITA No.3558/Del.19 order so passed, assessee preferred an appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). Findings no merit in the submissions of the assessee, learned Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. 7. I have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the material on record. 8. As regards the ground raised by the assessee on the validity of reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act and the assessment order passed there under, it is evident, the return of income filed by the assessee was not subjected to scrutiny assessment but was only processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer has received tangible information indicating that assessee is a beneficiary of accommodation entry provided by a known entry operator. 9. Based on such information, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under Section 147 of the Act. In course of assessment proceedings, assessee had raised objection challenging the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act which was disposed of by the Assessing Officer vide a separate order passed on 25.02.2015. It is 5 ITA No.3558/Del.19 further relevant to observe, as observed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee failed to furnish its submission on query raised by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. The position remained identical before learned Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, in my considered opinion, the Assessing Officer had tangible material in his possession to form the belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. That being the factual position emerging on record, there cannot be any question regarding the validity of reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee challenging the validity of reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act are dismissed. 10 As regards the merits of the addition made under Section 68 and 69C of the Act, neither before the Assessing Officer nor before learned Commissioner (Appeals), assessee could produce any cogent evidence to establish that the credits of Rs.20,00,000 availed by the assessee is genuine. The departmental authorities have given a categorical factual finding that no corroborative evidence was furnished by the assessee in this regard. The factual position remained 6 ITA No.3558/Del.19 unaltered before me as well. Therefore, I do not find any valid reason to interfere with the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in so far as it relates to additions of Rs.20,00,000 under Section 68 of the Act and Rs.1,20,000 under Section 69C of the Act. Grounds are dismissed. 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12 th October, 2022. Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 12 th October, 2022. Mohan Lal Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi