Santanu Kumar Satpathy, Angul V. ITO, Ward-1, Dhenkanal

ITA 434/CTK/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3879 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 05-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K PRADHAN
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK SMC BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.434 /CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 2011 SANTANU KUMAR SATPATHY, AT/PO: NUAPADA, CHHENDIPADA, ANGUL VS. ITO, DHENKANAL. PAN/GIR NO. ATOPS 6582 J (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI D.K.PRADHAN , DR DATE OF HEARING : 05 /04 / 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05 /04 / 2017 O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 2, BHUBANESWAR , DATED 23.8.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 2011 . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE BELOW FORUM SUFFER THE VICE OF ILLEGALITY AND ARBITRARINESS. 2. THAT THE DETERMINATION OF INCOME MADE BY THE LOWER FORUM APPLYING SECTION 144 OF THE I.T.ACT IS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY. THE DETERMINATION MADE IS ARBITRARY AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE NATURE OF GOODS DEALT HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AND IGNORING THE AUDIT CERTIFICATE. 2 ITA NO.434/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 2011 3. THAT THE TERMINATION MADE B Y THE LEARNED BELOW FORUM FOR RS.9028/ - AND RS.5257/ - IS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY. 4. THAT THE TERMINATION OF INCOME ON CREDIT NOTE ON 77.709/ - IS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY. 3. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 21.3.2017,WHEN THE LD AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI D.PATI SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT . T HE BENCH GRANTED ADJOURNMENT TO THE ASSESSEE AND NEXT DATE OF HEARING WAS FIXED ON 5.4.2017 AND THE PARTIES WERE INFORMED IN THE COURT AND THE DATE OF HEARING WAS NOTED BY THE LD AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. TO DAY, WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND NEITHER ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED. EARLIER ALSO, THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 30.1.2017 BUT LD A.R. SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT AND THE HEARING WAS FIXED ON 21.3.2017. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE APPEAL WAS HEARD EXPARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE AND DISPOSED OF CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD D.R. AND THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECOR D. 4. I HAVE HEARD LD DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 26.3.2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,59,700/ - . THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE OF HEARING AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ORDER U/S.144 OF THE ACT ON 22.3.2013 AT AN INCOME OF RS.6,47,320/ - . 3 ITA NO.434/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 2011 5. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE T HE CIT(A). 6. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE FIRST ISSUE INVOLVED WAS WITH REGARD TO ESTIMATING THE INCOME @ 5% OF THE SALE. HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER GAVE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THE ASSESSEE NEVER AVAILED OF THOSE OPPORTU NITIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.52,46,120/ - IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT, ANGUL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBTAINED THE BANK ACCOUNT FROM THE BANK AND NOTICED THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS WERE UTILIZED FOR PAYMENT TO OCL INDIA LIMITED WHICH IS A CEMENT COMPANY. IN ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTS OR EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF DETAIL GROSS RECEIPTS SHOWN IN THE RETURN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE ASSESSEES INCOME @ 5% OF GROSS RECEIPTS AMOUNTING TO RS.5,54,321/ - . 7. THE CIT( A) OBSERVED THAT BEFORE HIM LD A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE NET PROFIT PERCENTAGE APPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS EXCESSIVE. SINCE, HE DID NOT GIVE ANY DETAILS OR DOCUMENTS TO PROVE THAT THE PERCENTAGE APPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS EXCESSIVE, HE CO NFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. THE CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE SECOND ISSUE IN APPEAL WAS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON SECURITY DEPOSITS RECEIVED FROM OCL INDIA LIMITED OF RS.5257/ - . AS NO SU BMISSION 4 ITA NO.434/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 2011 WAS MADE DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 9. BEFORE ME ALSO, THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY POSITIVE MATERIAL TO CONT ROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A ) ON THE ABOVE TWO ISSUES, I FIND NO GOOD REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WHICH IS HEREBY CONFIRMED AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRO NOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05 /04 /2017 .. SD/ - ( N.S SAINI) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER CUTTACK; DATED 05 /04 /2017 B.K.PARIDA, SPS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, CUTTACK 1. THE APPELLANT : SANTANU KUMAR SATPATHY, AT/PO: NUAPADA, CHHENDIPADA, ANGUL 2. THE RESPONDENT : ITO, DHENKANAL. 3. THE CIT(A) - 2, BHUABENSWAR. 4. PR.CIT , - 2, BHUBANESWAR. 5. DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//