Amit Vibhor Gandhi HUF, Kanpur V. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Kanpur

ITA 475/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 47523714 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 31-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 08-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.475/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2000-2001 AMIT VIBHOR GANDHI HUF, 2/13, KRISHNA NAGAR, KANPUR. PAN:AAEHA3277M VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.476/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2000-2001 AMIT GANDHI HUF, 2/13, KRISHNA NAGAR, KANPUR. PAN:AAAHA9993C VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1(1), KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY TWO DIFFERENT ASSE SSEES I.E. AMIT VIBHORE GANDHI HUF AND AMIT GANDHI HUF FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. 2000-2001, WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO SEPA RATE ORDERS OF CIT(A)- I, KANPUR BOTH DATED 30/04/2015. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN I.T.A. NO.475/LKW/2015 ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S)-I, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, D. R. DATE OF HEARING 06/10/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 0 /11 /2015 2 LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BEING ESTIMATION OF THE INCOM E FROM TRADING BUSINESS. 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-I, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILE D TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DURING THE COURSE O F APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WHEREAS THE TRUTH WAS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT HAS PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 3. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-I, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN NOT DECIDING THE LEGAL ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLA TE PROCEEDINGS. 4. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-I, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR NOT ENTERTAINING THE ADDITION AL EVIDENCES FOR NON PRODUCTION OF WHICH DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ESPECIALLY WHEN REASONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO HER. 5. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-I, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT (A) PROPER ACCOUNT S FOR THE PERIOD ARE NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT ; (B) DETAILS OF SALES AND PURCHASES WERE FURNISHED TO LD . AO IS NOT TENABLE; (C) ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNI SH NATURE OF TRANSACTION AND PRODUCTS TRANSACTED DURIN G THE YEAR AND (D) IN NOT ALLOWING PROPER RELIEF TO T HE ASSESSEE. 6. THAT THE NOTICE U/S 148 ISSUED IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE PROPER GROUNDS AND ACCORDINGLY ALL SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS ARE BAD IN LAW. 7. THAT THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSI NG OFFICER AS WELL AS BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS)-II, KANPUR MAY KINDLY BE CONSIDERED A S PART OF THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3 8. BECAUSE ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE APPEAL AS WELL AS ASSESSMENT ORDER IS BAD IN LA W AS WELL AS ON FACTS. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN I.T.A. NO.476/LKW/2015 ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S)-I, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BEING ESTIMATION OF THE INCOM E FROM TRADING BUSINESS. 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-I, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILE D TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DURING THE COURSE O F APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WHEREAS THE TRUTH WAS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, AUTHORI ZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT HAS PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 3. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-I, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN NOT DECIDING THE LEGAL ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE O APPELLAT E PROCEEDINGS. 4. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-I, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR NOT ENTERTAINING THE ADDITION AL EVIDENCES FOR NON PRODUCTION OF WHICH DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ESPECIALLY WHEN REASONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO HER. 5. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-I, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT (A) PROPER ACCOUNT S FOR THE PERIOD ARE NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT ; (B) DETAILS OF SALES AND PURCHASES WERE FURNISHED TO LD . AO IS NOT TENABLE; (C) ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNI SH NATURE OF TRANSACTION AND PRODUCTS TRANSACTED DURIN G THE YEAR AND (D) IN NOT ALLOWING PROPER RELIEF TO T HE ASSESSEE. 6. THAT THE NOTICE U/S 148 ISSUED IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE PROPER GROUNDS AND ACCORDINGLY ALL SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS ARE BAD IN LAW. 4 7. THAT THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSI NG OFFICER AS WELL AS BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS)-II, KANPUR MAY KINDLY BE CONSIDERED A S PART OF THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 8. BECAUSE ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE APPEAL AS WELL AS ASSESSMENT ORDER IS BAD IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS. 4. BOTH THESE APPEALS WERE EARLIER FIXED FOR HEARIN G ON 20 TH AUGUST, 2015 AND ON THIS DATE, AN APPLICATION WAS MADE BY B OTH THE ASSESSEES FOR ADJOURNMENT AND ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEES, TH E HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 6 TH OCTOBER, 2015 AND THE DATE OF HEARING WAS ANNOUNCE D IN THE OPEN COURT. ON THE NEXT DATE I.E. ON 06/10/201 5, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEES AND THERE IS NO REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT AND THEREFORE, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THESE APPEALS OF TH E ASSESSEES EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEES. 5. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER S OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD A ND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT IN B OTH THE APPEALS, ONE OF THE ISSUES RAISED IS REGARDING VALIDITY OF REOPENIN G. ON THIS ASPECT, THE DECISION OF CIT(A) IS ON THIS BASIS THAT THE MATERI AL ON RECORD SHOWS THAT THE CASE WAS REOPENED ON INFORMATION OF BOGUS GIFT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEES DURING THE PRESENT YEAR AND THE NOTICE U/ S 148 WAS ISSUED IN TIME AND DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN BOTH THESE C ASES ON THIS ISSUE I.E. REGARDING VALIDITY OF REOPENING. 5 7. REGARDING THE ISSUES ON MERIT ALSO, IN BOTH THE CASES, WE FIND THAT CIT(A) HAS DECIDED ALL THESE ISSUES AFTER CONSIDERI NG ALL THE ASPECTS OF THE MATTER AND WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A) ON ANY OF THESE ISSUES IN BOTH THESE CASES AND THEREFORE, WE FIND N O REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDERS OF CIT(A) IN BOTH THE CASES. 8. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R DATED:20/11/2015 *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., LUCKNOW ASSTT . REGISTRAR