Praveen Kumar Pruthi, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 478/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 47820114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 15-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 28-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y S KAKKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Additional evidence; Assessment record; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 148; 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI K.G. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.478/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1999-2000 PRAVEEN KUMAR PRUTHI, VS. ITO, 1546, RANI BAGH, WARD 26(3), SHAKUR BASTI, VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. AACPP8571F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : MS. Y.S. KAKKAR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 22.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22.12.2011 ORDER PER K.G. BANSAL, A.M. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN UP NINE GRO UNDS AS UNDER: - 1. THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MADE BY THE L D. AO U/S 148/143(3) IS BAD IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. AO ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 4,42,500/- IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT ON THE BASIS OF MERE CONJECTURES AND SURMISES, OVER - RULING ALL THE POSSIBLE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFORE H IM. ITA NO. 478/D/05 2 3. THAT THE MANDATORY NOTICE U/S 148 WAS NOT SERVED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 28 2 OF THE I.T. ACT. 4. THAT AT THE TIME OF ISSUING OF NOTICE U/S 148, T HE LD. AO DID NOT HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. HE REOPENED THE CASE ACTING MECHANICALLY ON A DATABASE/REPORT RECEIVED FROM THE JDIT (INV.) ON A CD, AT THE INSTRUCTIONS OF HIS HIGHER AUTHORITIES, WITHOUT APPLYING HIS INDEPENDENT MIND, WITHOUT MAKING ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY AND EVEN WITHOUT REFERRING TO THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE . 5. THAT THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN MAKING THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND OF NEW ALLEGATION OF NON TRANSFER OF SHA RES OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE COMPANY IN WHICH THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, WHEN THE ORIGINAL ALLEGATION FOR WHICH REASONS WERE RECORDED WAS FULLY REFUTED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO. 6. THAT ON FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN NOT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE CONTENTS OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF M/S OJSWI TRADES INVESTMENT & FINANCE LIMITED (INVESTEE COMPANY) EVEN ON SPECIFIC WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN HIDING BEFORE THE ASSESSEE THAT ANY STATEMENT OF THE DIRECTOR OF INVESTEE COMPANY HAS EVER BEEN RECORDED AND THUS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS ITA NO. 478/D/05 3 EXAMINE THAT STATEMENT WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING TH E FACT AND ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFORE HIM TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PERSON WHOSE STATEMENT IS RECORDED IS A HABITUAL LIAR AND HIS STATEMENT SHOUL D NOT BE RELIED UPON. 9. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF THE INVESTOR ASSESS EE ON THE GROUND OF NON TRANSFER OF SHARES IN HIS NAME BY THE INVESTEE COMPANY PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NO CONTROL WHATSOEVER ON THAT COMPANY. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, SUBSTITUT E OR DELETE ALL OR ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD OR IS DISPOSED OFF. 2. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR 30.03.2011. THE LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED THE PAPER BOOK IN THE COURT AND A COPY THEREOF SUPPLIED TO THE LD. SR. DR. THE CASE WAS A DJOURNED TO 27.06.2011. THE BENCH COULD NOT FUNCTION ON THIS D ATE. CONSEQUENTLY, A NOTICE DATED 10.10.2011 WAS ISSUED FIXING THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 22.12.2011. NOBODY APPEA RED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING. FURTHER, NO APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED SEEK ING ADJOURNMENT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEA L. IN SUCH ITA NO. 478/D/05 4 A SITUATION, THE APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED I N VIEW OF THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2. IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V S. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER: IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS MADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ITA NO. 478/D/05 5 REVENUE AS UN-ADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED IN LIMNE. SD/- SD/- (R.P. TOLANI) (K.G. BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 22.12.11 *KAVITA CHOPRA COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR