Ramesh Nagpal, Saharanpur V. Pr.CIT , Muzaffarnagar

ITA 3789/DEL/2018

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Ramesh Nagpal against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Muzaffarnagar, which was passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The original assessment for the assessment year 2013-14 was completed under section 143(3) by the Assessing Officer, which was later found by the Pr. CIT to be erroneous as it did not properly examine the accounts and allowed bogus creditors. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, supporting the Pr. CIT's decision for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 108603 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 11 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 15-05-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order; Income from undisclosed sources; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 263; 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 ITA No. 3789/Del/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3789/DEL/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ramesh Nagpal, 4/625, Jaffar Nawaz Pul Subji Mandi, Distt. Saharanpur-247001. PAN- ADSPN3605P Vs Pr.CIT, Muzaffarnagar. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by None Department represented by Sh. T. Kipgen, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 16.05.2023 Date of pronouncement 19.05.2023 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Muzaffarnagar, dated 27.03.2018 passed u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, pertaining to the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The order under section 263 made by the Ld Pr.CIT is bad in law having been made without carrying out any inquiry or verification of information. 2 ITA No. 3789/Del/2018 2. The Notice issued and order made under section 263 by Ld.Pr.CIT is bad in law and on facts since the order of the Ld DCIT under section 143(3) is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. The order under section 263 made by the Ld. Pr.CIT is bad in law being cryptic, self contradictory, unreasonable and totally based on conjectures, surmises and wrong facts. 4. The order under section 263 made by the Ld Pr.CIT is bad in Law having not fully considered the submissions of the appellants. 5. The order under section 263 has been made by the Ld. Pr.CIT without proper opportunity of being heard being afforded to the appellant. 6. The appellant craves for leave to add, amend, modify or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal.” 2. Facts, in brief, are that for A.Y. 2013-14 the assessee, an individual, filed his return on 30.09.2013, declaring income at Rs. 10,21,070/-. The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”), vide order dated 29.03.2016, at an income of Rs. 21,96,770/- after making addition on account of income from undisclosed sources. Subsequently, on examination of records, the Pr. CIT noticed that the AO had completed the assessment without examining the case properly. According to Ld. Pr.CIT, the accounts maintained by the assessee were not reliable; debtors and creditors were much higher than the sale and purchase of the assessee; during assessment proceedings of A.Y. 2014-15 the creditors were established as bogus out of amount of Rs. 6,89,79,290/- were raised in A.Y. 2013- 14, which should have been added in the income of the assessee. Thus the Learned Pr. CIT opined that the assessment order passed by the AO was erroneous and 3 ITA No. 3789/Del/2018 prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, the learned Pr. CIT issued notice u/s 263 of the Act to the assessee to show cause as to why order u/s 263 of the Act be not passed in his case. After taking into account the reply furnished by the assessee and the material available on record the Ld. Pr CIT vide order dated 27.03.2018 u/s 263 of the Act set aside the assessment being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, with directions to AO to pass fresh assessment order in accordance with law. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. At the time of hearing no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee despite issue of notice for hearing. From the record it reveals that no one is attending the proceedings on behalf of the assessee since 26.07.2021. The assessee has not provided his current address. Under these facts, appeal is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee and is being decided on the basis of material available on record. 4. The learned CIT(DR) supported the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT passed u/s 263 of the Act. He submitted that the assessee failed to point out that AO had examined all the issues and the assessment order was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 4 ITA No. 3789/Del/2018 5. We have heard learned DR and perused the material available on record. Looking to the facts that the learned Pr. CIT has categorically pointed out errors in the assessment order and the finding of the learned Pr. CIT is not rebutted by the assessee by placing any contrary evidence, therefore, in the absence of material rebutting the finding of the Pr. CIT, we do not see any reason to interfere in the finding of the learned Pr. CIT. Order pass u/s 263 stands accordingly affirmed. Grounds of appeal are rejected. 6. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 19 th May, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (KUL BHARAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI