Gunjeev Saluja, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4271/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8750 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 10 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 02-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUPAMA SINGLA
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4271/Del/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 G.S. Saluja, C/o Vipin Jain & Associates, CAs, Flat No. 915, 9 th Floor, Indraprakash Building, 21 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 1100 01 Vs. ITO, Ward 23(1), New Delhi. PAN :AQDPS4351B (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 27.06.2016 of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals)-34, New Delhi for the assessment year 2006-07. Appellant by N o n e Respondent by Ms. Anupama Singla, Sr. DR Date of hearing 02.06.2022 Date of pronouncement 10.06.2022 2 ITA No.4271/Del./2016 2. When the appeal was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of assessee to represent the same. Perusal of record reveals, on several occasions earlier, though, appeal came up for hearing, however, the Bench could not proceed with the hearing mostly due to non-appearance by the assessee. Since, the appeal is pending for more than eight years and there is no response from assessee’s side despite issuance of several notices of hearing and uploading of the proceedings in the official website, it has to be presumed that assessee is not interested in pursuing the present appeal. 3. Considering the non-cooperative attitude of assessee in the matter of disposal of the appeal, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and based on material available on record. 4. Grounds raised by the assessee are as under: 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer has erred in determining the income of the appellant at Rs.99,68,150, as against return filed declaring income of Rs.3,80,000, after making addition of Rs.95,88,150 to the income declared, on wholly illegal and frivolous grounds, untenable in law. It is prayed that Rs.95,88,150 added to the income be directed to be deleted. 2. That the proceedings carried out u/s. 147/148 and the assessment order dated 07.03.2013 framed thereto are inconsistent with the provisions of the statute, are thus illegal and bad in law, and liable to be quashed for reasons that: (a) There is no independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer and no reasons to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, so as to grant jurisdiction to the 3 ITA No.4271/Del./2016 Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s. 147, and to issue notice u/s. 148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. (b) The Assessing Officer has completed the assessment on grounds other than those communicated to the assessee based on which proceedings u/s 147 were initiated and notice u/s 148 of the act was issued, which is illegal and is against law. (c) There is no speaking order passed over ruling the objections filed by the assessee before the assessment order dated 23.12.2011 was framed, a mandatory requirement which the Assessing Officer has failed to meet. (d) The assessment is made on mere surmise and conjecture, there being no proper application of mind to appreciate and properly understand the facts explained correctly and truly by the assessee, and there being nothing to support the illegal and correct conclusion drawn in the assessment order and addition made to the income declared. 3. There is no basis to determine the income of “Durga Traders” a unit of “Gunjeev Saluja & Others” AOP, at Rs.95,88,150 by applying a rate of 15% on receipts/sales alleged at Rs.6,39,21,000, and in taxing the income from “Durga Traders” already taxed in the hands of the assessee, on wholly illegal and frivolous grounds, untenable in law. 4. The appellant craves leave to be permitted to amend, modify, delete, withdraw all or any of the grounds above, and/or to add any fresh ground, on or before and /or during the appeal proceedings.” 5. As could be seen from the grounds raised, assessee has challenged the validity of the proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Act as well as addition of undisclosed profit amounting to Rs.95,88,150 6. Briefly, the facts are, assessee is a resident individual. For the year under dispute, assessee filed his return of income on 09.10.2006, declaring income of Rs.3,80,000. Subsequently, based on information received from internal source 4 ITA No.4271/Del./2016 that assessee has not shown income of his proprietary concern of M/s. Durga Traders, Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under Section 147 of the Act. 7. In course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain why the undisclosed profit from a proprietary business should not be added to the income of the assessee. After considering submissions of assessee and having not found merit in them, Assessing Officer proceeded to estimate the profit @ 15% on the sales turnover and added back an amount of Rs.95,88,150 to income of the assessee. Aforesaid addition made by the Assessing Officer was also sustained by learned Commissioner (Appeals). 8. We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the material on record. 9. It is evident, based upon certain adverse and incriminating material found during survey operation, Assessing Officer noticed that assessee has not disclosed profit from his proprietary business. Accordingly, he estimated profit at 15% on the alleged sales affected by the assessee and had added back to the income. It is observed, neither before Assessing Officer nor learned Commissioner (Appeals), assessee could furnish any cogent evidence to demonstrate income declared for the year under consideration was correct. There is no change in the factual position even before us. Since, assessee has failed to controvert the factual finding of the departmental authorities by furnishing any 5 ITA No.4271/Del./2016 evidence, we find no valid reason to interfere with the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10 th June, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 10 th June, 2022. Mohan Lal Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi