Shri Mahendra Pal, Bareilly V. ACIT, Range-2, Bareilly

ITA 4/LKW/2021

AI Insights

The appeals I.T.A. No. 4/Lkw/2021 and I.T.A. No. 5/Lkw/2021 were filed by Shri Mahendra Pal and Smt. Indu Mehrotra respectively, against the orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2017-18. The appellants challenged the additions made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arguing that the assessments were completed without proper maintenance of books, application of mind, and were based on conjectures and surmises. However, the tribunal dismissed the appeals on procedural grounds, noting that they were filed beyond the statutory time limit and no request for condonation of delay was made.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 113185 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-05-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 18-01-2021
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARISH GIDWANI
• Keywords: Peak credit; Condonation of delay
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

I.T.A. No. 4 & 5/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2017-18 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 4/Lkw/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Mahendra Pal, B/52, Shehdana Colony, Bareilly. PAN:ARTPM9215H Vs. A.C.I.T., Range-2, Bareilly. (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 5/Lkw/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Indu Mehrotra, B/52, Shehdana Colony, Bareilly. PAN:AQAPM2811R Vs. A.C.I.T., Range-2, Bareilly. (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER BENCH: (A) Appeal vide I.T.A. No. 4/Lkw/2021 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 06/05/2020 of learned CIT(A). The grounds of appeal are as under: Appellants by None Respondent by Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing 15/05/2023 Date of pronouncement 15/05/2023 I.T.A. No. 4 & 5/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2017-18 2 “1. Because, the order passed by the Ld. Ao. and confirmed by CIT(A), Bareilly is bad in law and the same deserves to be quashed. 2. Because, on the facts and under the circumstances of the case the addition confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) to the income of the assessee under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is wholly erroneous and illegal, the entire cash deposit do not represent the income of the assessee the best peak credit of such cash deposit in the bank account or an gross profit rate be applied to determine the correct income of the assessee. 3. Because, the Ld. AO. has completed the assessment by making the addition under section 68 of the act also confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) whereas no books of account are maintained by the assessee or required to be maintained hence provisions of section 68 cannot be invoked renders the entire assessment bad in law and be quashed. 4. Because, the Ld. AO has denied the sales or turnover given in the Income Tax Return whereas the assessment has been completed by his own conjectures and surmises opting sales by own presumption renders the entire assessment bad in law and be quashed. 5. Because, the Ld AO has completed the assessment without application of mind also confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), without any independent inquiry ignoring the fact that the amount has been deposited in the loan account no in any other saving bank or current bank account which revels that no inquiry has been made by the AO which is bad in law and the order of assessment deserves to be quashed. 6. Because, the assessment has been completed by the assessing officer having incompetent jurisdiction renders the entire proceedings without jurisdiction and be quashed. I.T.A. No. 4 & 5/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2017-18 3 7. Because, the CIT (A) has passed the order without providing the assessee with a due and proper opportunity of hearing and therefore the order deserves to be set-aside being bad in law.” (A.1) Appeal vide I.T.A. No. 5/Lkw/2021 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 06/05/2020 of learned CIT(A). The grounds of appeal are as under: “1. Because, the order of assessment passed by Ld. AO and confirmed by Id. CIT(A) is bad in law and be quashed. 2. Because, the Ld. AO has completed the assessment also confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) by the addition to the returned income under section 69Ajvliereas the provisions of section not applicable since no books of account has been maintained also not required to maintained renders the entire assessment bad in law and be quashed. 3. Because, the Ld. AO as well as CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts in the finding as to cash in hand mere cash in hand do not restrict that there is no need to withdraw cash from the bank, renders the order of assessment bad in law and be quashed. 4. Because, it is the settled principal of law that mere cash deposits in the bank account do not represent the income of the assessee the Ld. AO also fails to arrive at the correct income by applying the appropriate gross profit rate renders the entire assessment bad in law and be quashed. 5. Because, the Ld. AO has denied the opening cash stating the return has been revised whereas no return of income has been revised revels that no inquiry was made by the Ld. AO to arrive at the correct income renders the entire assessment bad in law and demand be deleted. 6. Because, the CIT (A) has passed the order without providing the assessee with a due and proper opportunity of hearing and therefore the order deserves to be set-aside being bad in law.” I.T.A. No. 4 & 5/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2017-18 4 (A.2) Perusal of the record shows that the appeals have been filed by the assessee beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 253(3) of the IT Act and both the appeals are time barred by 126 days. Perusal of the records also shows that the assessees have not filed any application requesting for condonation of delay. (A.2.1) In view of the foregoing, we hold that these appeals of the assessees are barred by limitation. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed in limine for being barred by limitation. However, the assessee(s) will be at liberty to approach Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT" for short) for restoration of the appeal(s); along with application(s) for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal(s). If such request(s) is/are received in ITAT from the assessee(s), the same will be considered in the light of applicable law and relevant facts and circumstances. (B) In the result, both appeals are dismissed. (Order pronounced in the open court on 15/05/2023) Sd/. Sd/. (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated:15/05/2023 *Singh Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., Assistant Registrar