Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0603 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
17-01-2011
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted
A
Next Hearing Date
17-01-2011
Assessment Year
2005-2006
Appeal Filed On
24-12-2009
Judgement Text
ITA NO. 4851/DEL/2009 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 4851/DEL/2009 A.Y. : 2005-06 MR. ANWAR JALIL AHMED KHAN, C/O MANU MONGA, ADVOCATE, 133, LAWYERS CHAMBER-I, DELHI HIGH COURT, SHER SHAH ROAD, NEW DELHI 110 003 (PAN/GIR NO. : ALAPK8832F) VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - 22(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) ASSEESSEE BY : SH. P.N. MONGA AND SH. MANU MONGA, ADVOCATES DEPARTMENT BY : MRS. ANUSHA KHURANA, SR. D.R. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 27/10/ 2009 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED PERTAINS TO JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED PERTAINS TO A DDITION OF ` 39.60 LACS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT. 3. IN THIS CASE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 144 OF THE IT ACT. ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER NOTED THAT SEVERAL TIMES NOTICES WERE ISSUED, SOMETIMES ASSESSEE WAS PRESENTED BY SH. D.V . MEHANDRU, CA ITA NO. 4851/DEL/2009 2 AND SOMETIMES NOBODY ATTENDED. ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT IN VIEW OF NON-COMPLIANCE BY THE ASSESSEE, HE HAD NO O PTION BUT TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT EXPARTE, AS PER THE PROVISIO N OF SECTION 144 READ WITH RULE 143(3) OF THE IT ACT. ASSESSING OFF ICER NOTED THAT AS PER THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM ITS DATA, THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR HAD DEPOSITED CASH OF ` 39.60 LAKHS IN HIS BANK ACC OUNT WITH BANK OF BARODA. NO SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN DECLARED BY THE A SSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. SINCE THE ASSESSEE NOT OFFERED ANY EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE OF SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSIT IN T HE BANK ACCOUNT, ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEES INCOME U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT. 4. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). BEFORE THE LD . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FIRSTLY AGITATED AGAINST T HE SERVICE OF NOTICE AND OTHER MATTERS PERTAINING TO JURISDICTION. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HELD THAT ASSESSEES STAND THA T THE NOTICE WAS NOT ISSUED AND SERVED WITHIN THE STATUTORY TIME LIMI T AND THAT IT WAS ADDRESSED INCORRECTLY IS MISCONCEIVED. 4.1 ON MERITS IT WAS CONTENDED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SO LD ONE OF HIS HOUSE PROPERTIES AT DODHPUR, ALIGARGH FOR A CONSID ERATION OF ` 33,50,000/- WHICH AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN S/B A/C AT BANK OF BARODA, ITA NO. 4851/DEL/2009 3 ALIGARH BRANCH. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT A SUM OF ` 4,60,000/- WAS WITHDRAWN FORM HIS S/B ACCOUNT AT ING VYASYA BA NK, NOIDA AND WAS DEPOSITED IN BANK OF BARODA, ALIGARH BRANCH. THIS WAS ASSESSEES EXPLANATION REGARDING THE DEPOSITS ` 33. 60 LACS IN BANK OF BARODA, ALIGARH WHICH WERE REINVESTED IN PROPERTY. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ELABORATELY CONSIDERED THE I SSUE AND HELD THAT ASSESSEES EXPLANATION REGARDING DEPOSITS IN CASH W ERE NOT CONVINCING. HE PROCEEDED TO DISMISS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. 5. AGAINST THIS ORDER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEF ORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS IN ABROAD AND HENCE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED AT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R LEVEL. HE CLAIMED THAT IF AN OPPORTUNITY IS GIVEN TO THE ASSES SEE NOW TO EXPLAIN HIS CASE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER , ASSESSEE WI LL BE HIGHLY OBLIGED AND IT WILL BE IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 6.1 LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT HAVE ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION TO THIS PROPOSITION. 6.2 WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AGREED THAT HE SHALL NOT PRESS THE ISSUE REGARDING THE SERVICE OF NOTICE AND JURISDICTION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THIS TIME. HE WILL ONLY ITA NO. 4851/DEL/2009 4 AGITATE THE MERITS OF THE CASE. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE REMIT THIS ISSUE ON MERITS TO THE FILES OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE ON MERITS AFRESH. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17/01/2011 UP ON CONCLUSION OF HEARING. SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/- -- - SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/- -- - [R.P. TOLANI] [R.P. TOLANI] [R.P. TOLANI] [R.P. TOLANI] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE 17/01/2011 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES
