Thiru Anantha Overseas Trade and Consultancies Private Ltd, V. ACIT CC-8,

ITA 358/DEL/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2008] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3563 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-07-2008
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 07-07-2010
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 22-01-2007
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUSHA KHURANA
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E APP REJECTED
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH I DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI C. L. SETHI, JM AND SHRI K. D. RANJAN, AM I. T. APPEAL NO. 358 (DEL) OF 2007. ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04. THIRU ANANTHA OVERSEAS TRADE AND ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CONSULTANCIES PRIVATE LIMITED, VS. CENTRAL CIRCLE : 8, F 84, EAST OF KAILASH, [GROUND FLOOR]; N E W D E L H I. N E W D E L H I 110 065. P A N / G I R NO. AAA CT 3637 R. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : N O N E [APP. REJECTED]; DEPARTMENT BY : MS. ANUSHA KHURANA, SR. D.R.; O R D E R. PER K. D. RANJAN, AM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 3-04 ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS)-II, NEW DELHI. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, A RE REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- 1. THAT THE ORDER OF LD. ACIT IS BAD IN LAW A ND ALSO ON FACTS; 2. THAT THE LD. ACIT FAILED TO BRING ON RE CORD COGENT MATERIAL ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY ADDITIONS AND ARBITRARY INFERENCES HAVE BEEN DRAWN IN COMPLETE VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE; 2 I. T. APPEAL NO. 358 (DEL) OF 2007. 3. THAT THE LD. ACIT IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN H OLDING MERELY ON SUSPICION ASSUMPTIONS AND PRESUMPTION THAT UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.174000/- RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT THROUGH NORMAL BANKING CHANNEL AND DU LY DISCLOSED IN THE HIS AUDITED ACCOUNTS AND INCOME TAX RETURN FILED WITH T HE DEPARTMENT IS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WHILE NO COGENT MATERIAL IS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO PROVE THE CONTENTION; 4. THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN CON FIRMING THE ADDITION TO TUNE OF RS.174000/- IN HIS APPELLANT ORDER DATED 11/10/2 006; 5. THE LD. ACIT ERRED IN CHARGING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234-B OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UN DER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 3. IN THIS CASE EX-PARTE ORDER WAS PASSED ON 23 RD FEBRUARY, 2009, WHICH WAS RECALLED AND THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. AFTER RECALL OF THE OR DER THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 20 TH MAY, 2010. ON THIS DATE, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED AT THE REQUEST OF THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE TO 7/07/2010. AGAIN WHEN THE CASE CAME UP FOR HEARING , THE ASSESSEE MOVED APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT ON THE GROUND THAT HIS COUNSEL WAS SUFF ERING FROM VIRAL FEVER. IN THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION, THE NAME OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED. HAVING REGARD TO THE ISSUE INVOLVED AND THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE SEEKING ADJOURNMENT, THE APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS REJECTED AND THE APPEAL IS DECIDED AFTER HEARING THE LD. SR. DR. 4. THE FIRST ISSUE RELATES TO CONFIRMING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.1,74,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UN-SECURED LOAN. THE FACTS OF THE CASE STATED IN B RIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD SHOWN UN-SECURED LOAN OF RS.6,74,000/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE T HE PARTIES. HOWEVER, DESPITE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO PR OVIDE DETAILS OF UNSECURED LOANS. NEITHER THE NAMES NOR PAN OR I.T. PARTICULARS OF CREDITORS WERE FILED. THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE CASH CREDITS. SINCE NO REPLY WAS FILED , THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.6,74,000/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. BEFORE THE LD . CIT (APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE FILED COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS AND LEDGER ACCOUNTS IN RESPECT OF L OANS OF RS.5,00,000/- RECEIVED FROM THREE PERSONS, NAMELY, SHRI M. K. SUBBA, USHA KISHAN KUMA R AND VIJAY CHOPRA WERE FILED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5,0 0,000/- SHOULD BE DELETED AS THE SAME COULD NOT 3 I. T. APPEAL NO. 358 (DEL) OF 2007. BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FOR THE YEAR 2003-04 SINCE TH OSE AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED IN PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. AS REGARDS TH E BALANCE LOAN OF RS.1,74,000/- THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED TO HAVE RECEIVED THE AMOUNT DURING THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED THROUGH CROSS ACCOUNT-PAYEE CHEQUE AND WAS INCORPORATED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION COULD BE M ADE. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, HELD THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/- COULD NOT BE MADE DURING THE YEAR AS THE AMOUNT OF LOAN PERTAINED TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 . HOWEVER, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ADDUCED ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE BALANCE AMOUNT O F RS.1,74,000/- DESPITE THE OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN ON 14/08/2006, 17/08/2006, 18/09/2006 AND 29/ 09/2006 THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE CONFIRMATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS ALSO B EFORE HIM. HE ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,74,000/-. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. SR. DR. FROM THE ABOVE FA CTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO FILE ANY CONFIRMATION BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER / CIT (APPEALS) IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED LOANS RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR AT RS.1,7 4,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN SEEKING ADJOURNMENT ON ONE REASON OR OTHER. SINCE THE ASSE SSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO FILE THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE NEITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR B EFORE THE LD. CIT (APPEALS), IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAD RIGHTLY CONFIRME D THE ADDITION. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT (APPEALS). 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON : 07 TH JULY, 2010. SD/- SD/- [ C. L. SETHI ] [ K. D. RANJAN ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 07 TH JULY, 2010. *MEHTA * 4 I. T. APPEAL NO. 358 (DEL) OF 2007. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : - 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT, 4. CIT (APPEALS), 5. DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT. 5 I. T. APPEAL NO. 358 (DEL) OF 2007. 6 I. T. APPEAL NO. 358 (DEL) OF 2007.