M/s. Pragya Vision Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3847/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3398 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 30-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAMITA M BISWAS
• Keywords: Depreciation; Search and seizure; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Wrong claim
• Section: 68; 132; 144

Judgement Text

PAGE | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3847/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) PRAGYA VISION PVT. LTD, FLAT NO. 909, KAILASH BUILDING, KG MARG, NEW DELHI PAN: AADCP8289N VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY: MS. PRAMITA M. BISWAS, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING 21/08/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19/11/2019 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT (A)-25, NEW DELHI DATED 29.03.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL:- 1. THAT AN APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF TH E LEARNED A.O. WAS FILED BEFORE CIT (APPEALS] ON 26TH APRIL 2013 BUT C IT (APPEALS] HAS PASSED AN EX-PARTE ORDER BY CONFIRMING THE DEMAND O F LD. A.O. ON 29.03.2016 WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE RE ASONS DUE TO WHICH THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PROVIDE THE NECESSARY DOCUM ENTS AND EVIDENCE AND COULD NOT ATTEND THE HEARINGS BEFORE THE CIT (A PPEALS]. SOME OF THE REASONS ARE PROVIDED BELOW:- (A] THAT INITIALLY THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY WE RE MRS. MEENA TEWARI AND MRS. REENA TEWARI. MR. P.K. TEWARI WAS D IRECTOR FROM 07.10.2010 TO 03.01.2012, MRS REENA TEWARI RES IGNED ON 17.07.2015 AND MS. LUBNA PANWAR WAS APPOINTED DIREC TOR ON 09.07.2015. (B] THAT THE FAMILY OF MRS. MEENA TIWARI WAS UNDER GOING SEVERE PROBLEMS. HER ELDER SON MR. ANAND TIWARI HAS BEEN S UFFERING FROM A CHRONIC LIVER DISEASE FOR THE PAST 4-5 YEARS . ON ACCOUNT OF HIS SEVERE ILLNESS HE HAS BEEN ADMITTED/TREATED IN VARIOUS HOSPITALS IN INDIA AS WELL AS ABROAD ON INNUMERABLE OCCASIONS AND HAS BEEN BEDRIDDEN FOR MOST OF THE TIME DURING THESE YEARS. ON ACCOUNT OF HIS SEVERE MEDICAL CONDITION, MR. ANA ND TIWARI HAS BEEN COMPLETELY INCAPACITATED AND MRS. MEENA TIWARI HAD TO PAGE | 2 DEVOTE SUBSTANTIAL TIME WITH HER SAID SON. THE YOUN GER SON OF MRS. MEENA TIWARI ALSO WAS UNDERGOING EXTREMELY BAD PHASE DUE TO ADDICTION, SO HIS WIFE MRS. REENA TIWARI COU LD NOT GIVE TIME IN BUSINESS AFFAIRS AND MRS, MEENA TIWARI ALSO WAS IN CONTINUOUS STRESS. HER HUSBAND MR. P.K. TIWARI WAS ALSO SUFFERING FROM VARIOUS ILLNESSES AND HAD ALSO BEEN INCARCERATED IN CONNECTION WITH THE CBI CASES RELATING TO HIS CO MPANIES FROM JULY, 2012 TO OCTOBER, 2012 AND FROM SEPTEMBER 2014 TO MARCH 2015.HER AILING SON ANAND XIWARI WAS ALSO INCARCERA TED IN FALSE CBI MATTERS. THUS MRS. MEENA TIWARI WAS SINGLE HAND EDLY RUNNING THE COMPANY IN WHATEVER TIME SHE COULD SPAR E. AS SHE WAS ATTENDING THE OFFICE VERY RARELY, CERTAIN EMPLO YEES TOOK BENEFIT OF THE SITUATION AND DID NOT PERFORM THEIR DUTY. MOREOVER THE, APPELLANT COMPANY WAS ALSO GOING THROUGH SEVER E FINANCIAL CRUNCH DURING ALL THESE YEARS. ALSO, LATER MRS. MEE NA TEWARI HAD CERTAIN DISPUTE WITH HER HUSBAND AND HE RESIGNED AS DIRECTOR. CERTAIN OFFICIAL APPOINTED BY MR. P.K. TEWARI DID N OT COOPERATE WITH MRS. MEENA TEWARI AND THERE WAS COMPLETE STAND S STILL AND MESSY SITUATION. DUE TO THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF AL L THE ABOVE EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES MRS. MEENA TEWARI HERSELF WEN T INTO ACUTE DEPRESSION, THIS COUPLED WITH FALIOUR OF THE OFFICIAL OF THE COMPANY IN TAKING STEPS FOR COMPLIANCES IN RELATION TO TAXATION AND OTHER STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS, CREATED EXTREME SI TUATION FOR THE COMPANY. (C) THAT THE SENIOR OFFICIALS OF THE COMPANY IN FIN ANCE DEPARTMENT COMMITTED SERIOUS ACTS OF OMISSIONS AND COMMISSION. IT IS LEARNT THAT SUCH OFFICIALS HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN VARIOUS IR REGULARITIES DUE TO WHICH THE COMPANY AND ITS PRESENT DIRECTORS HAVE SUFFERED THE EXTRA ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES AND TRAUMA. ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH GRAVE SITUATION, THE MATTER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT C OULD NOT BE PURSUED IN A PROPER MANNER. (D) THAT THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, REPRESENTIN G THE APPELLANT COMPANY BEFORE THE RESPONDENT EXTRACTED HUGE MONEY FROM THE APPELLANT BUT DID NOT PROPERLY PUT FORWARD THE CASE BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. THEY SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE REPRESENTED T HE DIFFICULTIES BEING FACED BY THE COMPANY AND OUGHT TO HAVE DEFEND ED THE APPELLANT TO THE BEST OF THEIR CAPACITY ON THE BASI S OF RECORDS WHICH WERE WITHIN THEIR POSSESSION AND KNOWLEDGE. B UT MOST UNFORTUNATELY THEY FAILED TO PERFORM THEIR PROFESSI ONAL DUTY, RESULTING IN PASSING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IT IS S UBMITTED THAT MRS. MEENA TEWARI PROVIDED ALL RECORDS TO THE AUTHO RIZED REPRESENTATIVE BUT IT HAS KNOW COME TO KNOWLEDGE TH AT THE SAME WAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE DEPARTMENT. (E) THAT THE RESPONDENT OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED TH E AFOREMENTIONED BONA FIDE REASONS AND EXTRA ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES AND SHOULD HAVE GRANTED FURTHER TIME TO THE APPELLANT TO SATIS FY THE RESPONDENT ON THE ASPECT THAT THE DEMAND RAISED BY THE LD. A.O. WAS ILLEGAL AND UNWARRANTED. THE EX-PARTE ORDER PAS SED BY THE RESPONDENT IS UNWARRANTED AND HAS RESULTED IN EXTRE ME PREJUDICE TO THE APPELLANT. PAGE | 3 [F) THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED FOR HEARING INS TEAD OF THE CASE BEING DECIDED UNHEARD. [G) THAT THE FAILURE ON PART OF THE APPELLANT IN P URSUING ITS APPEAL WAS NEITHER DELIBERATE NOR INTENTIONAL AND THE SAME WAS OCCASIONED DUE TO REASONS MENTIONED ABOVE. (H) THAT THE EXTRA-ORDINARY ADVERSE SITUATION SUFF ERED BY THE APPELLANT ENTITLES IT FOR A FAIR HEARING BEFORE THI S TRIBUNAL SO THAT THE CASE CAN BE DECIDED ON MERITS INSTEAD OF BEING THROWN OUT ON ACCOUNT OF NON REPRESENTATION. (I) THE COMPANY DID EVERYTHING WITHIN ITS POWER BY ENGAGING PROFESSIONALS TO REPRESENT IT BEFORE THE RESPONDENT BUT THE SAID PROFESSIONALS FAILED TO PERFORM THEIR DUTY BY NOT A DVISING THE COMPANY IN THE MATTER AND BY NOT REPRESENTING IT IN BONA-FIDE MANNER. [J] THAT THE COMPANY SOUGHT A NUMBER OF ADJOURNMEN TS AND TRIED TO PRESENT ITS CASE. (K) THAT DUE TO LACK OF FUNDS AND NON AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS AS EXPLAINED ABOVE, THE COMPANY, INSPITE OF TAKING MAN Y ADJOURNMENTS, WAS NOT ABLE TO DEFEND ITS (L} THAT NO REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY TO PRESENT ITS CASE AND TO JUSTIFY THE GROUNDS FOR QUA SHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED A.O. (M] THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER, CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF A.O., WAS PASSED BY THE CIT (APPEALS} WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE GROUNDS PROVIDED BY THE COMPANY OR THE DOCUMENTS OR EVIDENC ES TO BE PROVIDED ON PART OF THE COMPANY AND THE ORDER WAS P ASSED EX PARTE. (N} THAT THE COMPANY HAS VALID GROUNDS AND WILL BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEA RNED A.O. WAS BAD IN LAW AND WAS BASED ONLY ON PRESUMPTIONS, IF A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY IS PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY. (0} THAT THE GROUNDS PROVIDED BY THE COMPANY IN TH E APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS} WHICH WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY IT B EFORE CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LEARNED A.O. ARE P ROVIDED BELOW. 2. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.03.2013, PAS SED BY THE LD. A.O. U/S 144, IS BAD IN LAW. 3. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.03.2013 PASS ED U/S 144, DESERVES TO BE QUASHED, BECAUSE NATURAL JUSTICE HAS BEEN DENIED BY THE LD. A.O. TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW , THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE'S REP LY, VIDE LETTER DATED 15.03.2013(FILED ON 18.03.2013}. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW , THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN ALTOGETHER IGNORING THE ASSESSEE'S REPLY, VIDE L ETTER DATED 15.03.2013(FRIDAY), WHICH HAD BEEN FILED ON 18.03.2 013 (MONDAY). PAGE | 4 6. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW , THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE TOTAL LOSS OF RS. 13,64,35,972/-DEC LARED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS RETURN OF INCOME , WHILE COMPUTING THE TOT AL INCOME ASSESSED. 7. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW , THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,60,82,658/-, ON ACC OUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON THE PLANT & MACHINER Y. THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. A.O. ARE EITHER FACTUALL Y INCORRECT OR ARE LEGALLY UNTENABLE. 8. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW , THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 17,80,62,138/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN RECEIVED ,THEREBY TREATING THE SAID AMOUNT AS UNEXP LAINED CREDIT. THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. A.O. ARE EITHER FACTUALL Y INCORRECT OR ARE LEGALLY UNTENABLE. 9. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW , THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 20,23,87,561/- BEING THE EXPENDITURE OTHER THAN DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE P&L A/C, THEREBY TREATING THE SAID AMOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED EXP ENDITURE. THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. A.O. ARE EITHER FACTUALL Y INCORRECT OR ARE LEGALLY UNTENABLE. 10. THAT THE TOTAL INCOME ASSESSED AT RS. 40,65,32 ,357/- IS ARBITRARY, UNJUST, ILLEGAL & HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 11. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LA W, THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING SET OFF OF LOSSES OF THE EARLIER YE ARS. 12. THAT THE INCOME TAX LIABILITY CREATED AT RS. 1 3,50,39,887/- IS ARBITRARY, UNJUST, ILLEGAL & HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 13. THAT THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN NOT GIVING FULL CREDIT OF PREPAID TAXES. 14. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW , THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234A. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE INTEREST CHARGED IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 15. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW , THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234B, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE INTEREST CHARGED IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. THAT THE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY BE PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY FOR EVIDENCING AND ESTABLISHING THE ABOVE MENTIONED GROUNDS WHICH IT COULD NOT DO BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS). THE APPEALLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GRO UND(S) OF APPEAL TO ALTER/MODIFY THE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL, AND/OR TO WIT HDRAW THE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL, EITHER PRIOR TO OR DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. PAGE | 5 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE SHOW THAT ASSESSEE IS A COMPA NY. SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 WAS CONDU CTED ON CENTURY COMMUNICATION GROUP ON 11/3/2011. ASSESSEE WAS ALSO COVERED IN THAT SEARCH. NOTICE U/S 142 (1) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSES SEE ON 27/9/2012 HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DID NOT FILE ANY RETUR N OF INCOME IN TIME ALLOWED. ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ITS RETURN OF INCOME O N 26/2/2013, JUST BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT WAS GETTING TIME BARRED, DECLARING N IL INCOME. SUBSEQUENTLY DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUED BY A O, HOWEVER NO REPLY WAS SUBMITTED. IN THE END, AO ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NO TICE ALSO WHICH WAS NOT REPLIED. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFI CER DID NOT HAVE ANY OTHER ALTERNATIVE BUT TO PASS AN ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE AO PASSED SUCH AN ORDER ON 18/3/2013 DETERMININ G TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT INR 406532357/. LD AO MADE DISALLOWA NCE OF A. DEPRECIATION CLAIM OF ASSESSEE OF RS. 2 6 6082658/ IN ABSENCE OF ANY DETAIL OF THE ASSETS, B. ADDITION OF UNSECURED LOAN OF INR 1 78062138/ U/S 68 OF THE ACT AS ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY CONFIRMATION SHOWING I DENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND C. DISALLOWANCE OF ALL THE EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING T O INR 2 02387561/ AS ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY INFORMAT ION OR PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SHOW THAT THESE EXPENDITURE WERE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FO R BUSINESS PURPOSE. 4. ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT A. THE ASSESSEE U/R 46 A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1963, SUBMITTED AN APPLICATIO N FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT A. TH E REASON SHOWN THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THIS INFORMATION BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE OF A. THERE WAS A CBI SEARCH ON APPELLANT ON 7/2/2012. B. LARGE NUMBER OF CASES INVOLVED IN THE GROUP AND DIR ECTORS WHO HAD THE KNOWLEDGE OF FINANCE AND ACCOUNTS WERE UNDER CB I JUDICIAL CUSTODY FROM 18/7/2012 TO 15/10/2012, C. ACCOUNTANT AND OTHER STAFF HAD LEFT, D. ABSENCE OF STAFF RESULTED INTO NON-TRACING OF THE R ECORDS, PAGE | 6 E. MENTAL AGONY AND DEPRESSION ON THE DIRECTORS AFTE R GETTING RELEASED FROM THE JUDICIAL CUSTODY. THEREFORE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBMIT THE DETAILS BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES MENTIONED WITH RESPECT TO DEPR ECIATION WERE DETAILS OF BLOCK -WISE ADDITION OF FIXED ASSETS ALONG WITH THE COPY OF QUARTERLY SUMMARY WITH BREAKUP OF ADDITION SHOWING DEPRECIATI ON ALLOWABLE FOR MORE THAN 180 DAYS OR LESS THAN 180 DAYS. ASSESSEE ATTA CHED INDEX OF PAPER BOOK (NOT THE PAPER BOOK). FURTHER, WITH RESPECT T O THE ALLOWABILITY OF EXPENDITURE AND ONUS WITH RESPECT TO UNSECURED LOAN ASSESSEE MERELY SUBMITTED THE COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET AND COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT. 6. DESPITE THIS FACT THE LEARNED CIT A ASKED FOR REM AND REPORT FROM THE AO WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED B Y THE ASSESSEE. AS PER REMAND REPORT DATED 6/1/2016 THE AO SUBMITTED THAT ON 20/1/2015 ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH ALL THE SUPPORTING EV IDENCES AS PER PAPER BOOK FILED BEFORE THE CIT A. CASE WAS FIXED FOR H EARING ON 27/1/2015. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NONE APPEARED OR SUBMI TTED ANY DETAIL. THEREFORE, IN THE REMAND REPORT THE LEARNED ASSESSI NG OFFICER REQUESTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE U NDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES MAY BE REJECTED. THE LEARNED CIT A GAVE THIS REMAND REPORT TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT A COUNTER REPLIES. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED LETTER DATED 22/3/2016, WHICH IS LISTED AT PAGE N UMBER 14 ONWARDS OF HIS ORDER. THERE IS NO ANSWER IN THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT WHY IT DID NOT COMPLY DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. WITH RESPECT TO THE DEPRECIATI ON ASSESSEE ONCE AGAIN REITERATED, THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED DETAILS OF ADDI TION TO THE FIXED ASSETS ALONG WITH BILLS AND VOUCHERS EVIDENCING THE PURCHA SE OF THE FIXED ASSETS. THE REFERENCE WAS MADE TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 11 WHERE SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WERE SUBMITTED. WITH RESPECT TO THE CLAIM OF THE EXPENDITURE, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BALANCE SHEET FOR T HE YEAR ENDED ON 31/3/2013 (WHERE THE ASSESSMENT IS GOING ON FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2011 12) DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE IN THE FORM OF LEDGER AC COUNT WERE SUBMITTED. CLAIM WAS MADE THAT ASSESSEE HAD A TURNOVER OF INR 92,000,000 AND THEREFORE VARIOUS EXPENDITURE HAVE BEEN INCURRED WH ICH ARE REFLECTED IN THE PAGE | 7 PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THA T SALE OF INR 92,000,000 CANNOT BE MADE WITHOUT INCURRING THE EXPENDITURE. WITH RESPECT TO CLAIM OF ALLOWABILITY OF LOSS OF INR 136435972/ WAS MADE WH ICH WAS FILED ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER RETURN ON 25/2/2013. 7. THE LEARNED CIT A CONSIDERED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER PARA NUMBER 8.7 8.17 OF HIS ORDER GIVING SEVERAL REASONS FOR NOT ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS IT DID NOT SATISFY ANY OF THE CRITERIA LAID DOWN UNDER THAT RU LE. THE LEARNED CIT A CONSIDERED THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN ENOUGH OPPORTUNITIES, HOWEVER, AT EACH AND EVERY TIME THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COOPERATE AND TRIED TO SCUTTLE THE ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BY SEEKING ADJOURNMENTS. THE REAFTER, HE PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERIT AND DISMISSED THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE AS NO INFORMATION AS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAW WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT A ASSES SEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE US. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED ON 11 /04/2019 NON E APPEARED ON THAT DATE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, NO ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. FURTHER DATE WAS INTIMATED TO THE ASSESSEE BY REGISTERED POST FI XING DATE OF HEARING ON 3/6/2019. ON THAT DATE, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, ON THAT DATE NOTICE WAS DIRECTED TO BE I SSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY REGISTERED POST FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 21/8/ 2019. ON THAT DATE ALSO NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, IT WAS APPARENT THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT WILLING TO COOPERATE BEFORE US ALS O. THEREFORE, THE ISSUES ARE DECIDED ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE AS PER INFORM ATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 9. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. SHE REFERRED TO THE COND UCT OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT A. SHE ALSO DEFENDED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT A IN NOT ADMITTING THE A DDITIONAL EVIDENCES STATING THAT SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WERE NOT PRODUCED BE FORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE OF SUFFICIENT CAUSE AND THEREFOR E THE CIT A WAS JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE SAME. EVEN OTHERWISE HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN LEARNED CIT A ASKED FOR REMAND REPORT OF AO, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SHE FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT IN THE PROCEEDINGS PAGE | 8 BEFORE THE CIT A THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WERE NO T ENOUGH AND SUFFICIENT TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUES AND THEREFORE THOSE WERE NO T THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BUT A STRATEGY OF THE ASSESSEE TO THWART THE ASSESS MENT AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. EVEN OTHERWISE, SHE SUBMITTED THAT FO R THE CLAIM OF THE DEPRECIATION THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE ESTABLISHED O WNERSHIP, USE, COST OF THE ASSETS WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBMIT. MERELY SUBMITTING A CHART WILL NOT SHOW ELIGIBILITY FOR CLAIM. WITH RESPECT TO THE UNSECURED LOAN THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE SUBMITTED THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDERS AS WELL AS THE GENUINENESS OF THE PAYMENT O F LOAN WHICH ASSESSEE HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO DO SO. WITH RESPECT TO THE ALLOWABILITY OF EXPENDITURE, SHE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD HAV E PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS WELL AS THE VOUCHERS AND BILLS FOR T HE EXPENDITURE TO SHOW THAT THEY HAVE BEEN WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS. THIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSEE. MERELY PRODUCING THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET DOES NOT SUFFICE FOR THE ALLO WANCE OF THE EXPENDITURE. SHE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E THAT IT HAS A TURNOVER OF RS 9,20,00,000 WHEREAS THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE OF RS 20,23,00,000. THIS I TSELF SUGGEST THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ET CETERA ARE NOT RELIABLE. SHE FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH PURSUANT TO WHICH THE COMPLETE DETAILS WER E AVAILABLE ABOUT THE TAX EVASION BY ASSESSEE. SHE FURTHER REFERRED TO T HE FACTS OF THE CASE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF I NVESTIGATION ON THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH ITSELF SHOWS THAT HOW THE CO MPANY WAS BEING RUN/ BUSINESS CONDUCTED BY THE DIRECTORS. IN VIEW OF TH IS SHE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED A SSESSING OFFICER OR THE LEARNED CIT A IN CONFIRMING THE ABOVE ADDITION. 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION A ND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WITH RESPECT TO THE FIRST G ROUND OF APPEAL IN DETAIL ABOUT THE NON-AVAILABILITY OF THE OPPORTUNITY BEFOR E THE LEARNED CIT A, BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER, IT IS APPAREN T THAT ACCORDING TO THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE, DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY WA S IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY FROM 18/7/2012 TO 15/10/2012. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS STARTED FROM 22/10/2013 AND ENDED ON 18 /3/2013 (AS MENTIONED IN COLUMN NUMBER 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R ABOUT THE DATE OF PAGE | 9 HEARINGS). THEREFORE IT IS APPARENT THAT ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDING WERE AFTER RELEASE OF THE DIRECTORS FROM THE JUDICIAL CUSTODY. THEREFORE, THIS EXPLANATION DOES NOT SERVE ANY PURPOSE FOR NON-SUBM ISSION OF DETAILS OR FOR APPEARING BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. ABSENCE OF THE STAFF COULD NOT BE A VALID REASON FOR A COMPANY WHO HAS SUCH A LARGE OPERATIONS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, WITH RESPECT TO MENTAL AGONY/DEPRESSION OF THE DIRECTORS NO EVIDENCES WERE PRODUCED. NO EV IDENCES WERE PRODUCED THAT THERE ARE LARGE NUMBER OF CASES INVOLVED ON TH E GROUP. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO UPSET THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND IN FACT WE AGREE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIE NT OPPORTUNITY TO FURNISH THE EVIDENCE BUT ASSESSEE HAS DELIBERATELY NOT SUBM ITTED THE SAME. 11. FURTHER WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SU BMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LEARNED CIT A ASKED FOR THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFF ICER, DESPITE OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN BY HIM, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE APPOINTED DATE. EVEN BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT A THERE WAS NO REASON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE THAT WHY IT DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER EVEN IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS. EVEN CIT (A) HAS AT SO MANY PLACED ABOUT THE APPROACH OF THE ASSESSEE ABOUT REPRESENTATION BEFOR E HIM. THESE WORDS SPEAK LOUD ABOUT THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE SHOW ING ABSOLUTE NON- COOPERATION. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMI TY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT A IN REJECTION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVID ENCES. 12. WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS APPARENT THAT THEY WERE NOT ENOUGH TO ALLOW THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE DEPRECIATION ON THE ASSETS, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW THE OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSET, THE USE OF THE ASS ET AND ACTUAL COST OF THE ASSETS. FOR THIS ASSESSEE ONLY PRODUCE THE VARIOUS STATEMENTS. THOSE STATEMENTS WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. WITH RESPECT TO THE UNSECURED LOAN, NO CONFIRMATION TO S HOW THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS /UNSECURED LENDE RS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WAS FILED. FOR THE JUSTIFICATION O F THE ALLOWABILITY OF THE EXPENDITURE ONLY THE BALANCE SHEET AND THE LEDGER C OPIES OF EXPENDITURE FOR SHOWN. MERELY BY FILING THE BALANCE SHEET AND THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE, IT DOES NOT SHOW THAT WHETHER THE EXPE NDITURE HAS BEEN WHOLLY PAGE | 10 AND EXCLUSIVELY INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BU SINESS ARE NOT. IN VIEW OF THIS THE LEARNED CIT A DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AO. LOOKING TO THE C ONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE AND NON-COOPERATIVE ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT IS APPARENT THAT THERE IS MORE THAN WHAT MEETS THE EYE, IN THE PRESENT CASE. EVEN BEFORE US, IN SPIT E OF FILING AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT A, ISSUING TWO NOTIC ES BY REGISTERED POST RESULTING IN TO NONAPPEARANCE BY THE ASSESSEE, NOT EVEN SUBMITTING ALONG WITH THE APPEAL, AT LEAST PAPER BOOKS FILED BEFOR E THE LEARNED CIT A BEFORE US, ABSENCE OF ANY AFFIDAVIT BY THE DIRECTORS TO SH OW THAT THE LETTERS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH ARE AL LEGED TO HAVE NOT BEEN ADMITTED BY THE AO OR THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES DESE RVES TO BE ADMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT A, THUS, IT IS APPARENT THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT CARE TO REPRESENT ITS CASE. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN HOLDING THAT SUFFICIENT AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS GRANTED TO THE AS SESSEE. THUS THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BY T HE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN ASSESSING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS IN THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION. THUS, GROUND NUMBER 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ARE DISMISSED. 13. GROUND NUMBER 6 OF THE APPEAL IS AGAINST THE IGNORI NG THE TOTAL LOSS OF INR 136435972 DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDES ITS RETURN OF INCOME WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME ASSESSED. THE LEARNED A SSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A NIL RETURN OF I NCOME. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTH ORITIES OR BEFORE ASKED AND THEREFORE SUCH LOSS CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO THE AS SESSEE. THUS, GROUND NUMBER 6 IS DISMISSED. 14. GROUND NUMBER 7 IS WITH RESPECT TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON THE ASSETS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT A ASSESSEE DI D NOT SUBMIT THE DETAILS ABOUT THE OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSETS, USER OF THE ASSE TS AND THE ACTUAL COST INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ACQUIRE THOSE ASSETS. IN ABSENCE OF THESE BASIC DETAILS, THE CLAIM OF THE DEPRECIATION WAS RIGHTLY REJECTED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NUMBER 7 IS DISMIS SED. 15. GROUND NUMBER 8 IS WITH RESPECT TO THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF INR 1 78062138/ ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN RECEIVED. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAGE | 11 PRODUCED ANY DETAILS WITH RESPECT TO THE IDENTITY O F LENDERS, THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION . THUS ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE INITIAL ONUS CAST UPON IT U/S 6 8 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN CONFIRMING THE ABOVE ADDITION. GROUND NUMBER 8 IS DISMISSED. 16. GROUND NUMBER 9 IS WITH RESPECT TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE OF INR 2 02387561/ CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT A. BEF ORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT ANY DETAILS ABO UT THE EXPENDITURE EXCEPT SUBMITTING THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS THAT TOO IN R EMAND PROCEEDINGS AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, WITHOUT SUBSTANTIATING THE SAM E WITH THE VOUCHERS AND BILLS AND THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE, THUS, NO INFIR MITY CAN BE FOUND WITH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN DISALLOWING THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE. FURTHER THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAS ENTER ED INTO A TURNOVER OF INR 9.2 CRORES, WHICH COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT W ITHOUT INCURRING ANY EXPENDITURE, IS DEVOID OF MERIT BECAUSE FOR THE PUR POSE OF TURNOVER OF 9,20,00,000 THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED THE EXPENDITU RE OF 20.23 CRORES AND ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITU RE OF A SINGLE RUPEE. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NUMBER 9 IS DISMISSED. 17. GROUND NUMBER 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 AND 15 OF THE APPE AL ARE GENERAL IN NATURE CHALLENGING THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME, DETERMINING THE TAX LIABILITY AND INTEREST THEREON. AS THE ADDITIONS H AVE BEEN SUSTAINED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ALL THE ABOVE ISSUE IS CONSEQ UENTIAL IN NATURE. THEREFORE ALL THESE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. 18. ACCORDINGLY, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19/11/2019. -S SD SD/- SD/- (KULDIP SINGH) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 19/11/2019 A K KEOT COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT PAGE |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