Sh. Arun Puri, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3574/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0684 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 23-12-2010
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 26-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRATIMA KAUSHIK SENIOR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH A : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3574/DEL./2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) SHRI ARUN PURI, VS. ITO, WARD 9 (4), J 7/59A, RAJOURI GARDEN, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI 110 027. (PAN : AAJPP5674J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SMT. PRATIMA KAUSHIK, SENIOR DR O R D E R PER I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS DIR ECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) DATED 26.3.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER : 1. THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS BAD IN THE EYES OF L AW ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL OF NATU RAL JUSTICE. 2. THAT THE LD. ASSESSING AUTHORITY ASSESSED THE IN COME AT RS.4,38,901/- AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME AT RS.1,1 3,875/- AND RAISED THE IMPUGNED DEMAND OF RS.96,226/-. THE ADD ITION MADE TO THE INCOME IS UNJUSTIFIED AND MADE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND RECORD/REPLY SUBMITTED DURING THE COU RSE OF HEARING. 3. THAT THE LD. ASSESSING AUTHORITY DISALLOWS THE P AYMENT OF RS.3,25,026/- WHICH WAS MADE TO THE S.B.I. CREDI T CARD ITA NO.3574/DEL./2010 2 WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING OUR REPLY/INFORMATION/DOCUMENTS PRODUCED AT THE TIME OF HEARINGS. THE ADDITION IS BAD IN THE EYES OF LAW. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL HAS ALSO PASSED THE ORDER WITHOUT GIVING THE ADJOURNMENT BEC AUSE OF MIS-HAPPENING IN THE FAMILY. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER AND AME ND THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR AT TH E TIME OF HEARING. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVING INCOME BY WAY OF SALARY FROM M/S. SUPER CHEMFAB ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS PVT. LIM ITED, RENTAL INCOME OF RS.30,000/- AND DIRECTORS MEETING FEE OF RS.1,000/ -. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CREDIT CARD PAYMEN TS TO SBI AMOUNTING TO RS.3,35,575/-. THE SOURCE OF THE PAYMENT WAS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. DETAILS WERE ALSO NOT FILED. THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE ALSO NOT SHOWING SUCH WITHDRAWALS. IN ABSENC E OF ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION, THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,25,026/- WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ADDITION WAS AGITATED IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE CIT (A). 3. IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED BEFORE THE CIT ( A), IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH TRANSFERRING THE AMOUNT OF CREDIT LIMIT FROM OTHER CREDIT CARDS. THE CIT (A) HAS PROVIDED THE ASSESSEE VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES OF HEARING WHICH ASSESSEE DID NOT AVAIL. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION WAS CONFIRM ED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A). ITA NO.3574/DEL./2010 3 4. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FIRST FIXED FOR 2 7.9.2010 WHEN THE ASSESSEE TOOK THE ADJOURNMENT ON THE GROUND OF SOME UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED TO 23.12 .2010. AGAIN ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT ON THE GRO UND THAT HE IS UNDER MEDICAL TREATMENT BUT NO EVIDENCE REGARDING MEDICAL TREATMENT HAS BEEN FILED AND THERE WAS NO AUTHORIZED PERSON PRESENT TO TAKE NOTE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AS THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION IS FILED BY POST. IT IS IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED AND WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MER ITS AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR. 5. LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OF FICER AS WELL AS CIT (A). 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT OR DER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PROVIDED AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSES SEE TO PROVIDE THE DETAILS OF MAKING CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS. THOUGH ASSESSEE HA D TAKEN A CONTENTION THAT THESE PAYMENTS WERE MADE FROM THE CREDIT CARDS OF OTHER BANKS AND DETAILS OF OTHER CREDIT CARDS WERE ALSO SUBMITTED B UT AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SAME THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FOUND THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF PAYMENTS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3,25,026/-. SIMILAR SUBMISSION WAS MADE BEFORE THE CIT (A). THE CIT (A) PROVIDED AT L EAST SIX OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE LISTED IN PARAGRAPH 3 OF HER ORDER. THE ASSESSEE, ITA NO.3574/DEL./2010 4 DESPITE HAVING BEEN PROVIDED SO MANY OPPORTUNITIES, DID NOT FURNISH FURTHER DETAILS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CONTENTION THAT THE SOU RCE OF PAYMENTS MADE IN CREDIT CARDS IS PAYMENTS MADE THROUGH OTHER CREDIT CARDS. IN ABSENCE OF DETAILS, THE ADDITION CANNOT BE DELETED. THEREFORE , WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) VIDE WHICH THE IMPUGNED AD DITION HAS BEEN UPHELD. WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 7 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2011. SD/- SD/- (A.K. GARODIA) (I.P. BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 7 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2011 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-XII, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.