Senior Builders Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 508/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0117 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 30-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 28-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J S MINHAS ACIT
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G , NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.508 /DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SENIOR BUILDERS LTD., VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 8(1), B-109, BASEMENT DEFENCE COLONY, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI-110 024 GIR / PAN:AAACS9820J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J. S. MINHAS, ACIT DATE OF HEARING : 30.06.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.06.2015 ORDER PER D.MANMOHAN, VP: THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DER PASSED BY CIT(A) II, NEW DELHI AND IT PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 06-07. PENALTY LEVIED BY A.O. U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, HAVING BEEN CONFI RMED BY LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US CONTENDING, INTER A LIA, THAT THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 CANNOT LEAD TO ALLEGATION OF FILING INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THUS IT WAS REQUESTED THAT IT IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. 2. THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FROM TIME TO TIME AND WHE N IT WAS LAST CALLED FOR HEARING ON 23.12.2014, NONE APPEARED FOR THE AS SESSEE AND FINALLY THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 30.06.2015 WITH THE DIRECTION TO REGISTRY TO SEND NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT BY REGISTERED POST. THOUGH THE NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ITA NO.504/DEL/2013 2 ASSESSEE WELL IN ADVANCE, INFORMING THAT THE CASE I S FIXED FOR HEARING ON 30.06.2015, NONE APPEARED EVEN ON THIS DATE. WE, T HEREFORE, PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX-PARTE, QUA THE ASSESSEE. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E-COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE REAL ESTATE BUSINESS. A SUM OF RS.27,25,250/- WAS INTRODUCED TOWARD SHARE CAPITAL IN M/S. SENIOR BUILDERS LTD. SINCE T HE GENUINENESS / CREDITWORTHINESS OF SHRI MAHESH GARG WAS NOT PROVED DESPITE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, A.O. PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT WHEREIN HE OBSERVED THAT THE SOURCE OF S HARE APPLICATION MONEY WAS NOT PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE IT HAS TO BE TREATED AS BOGUS TRANSACTION AND ACCORDINGLY, ADDED THE SAME U/S 68 OF THE ACT. LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF A.O. MAINLY ON ACCOUNT OF TH E FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID SELF ASSESSMENT TAX, WHICH IS MANDATOR Y TO ENABLE THE COMMISSIONER TO ADMIT THE APPEAL. EVEN IN THE SECO ND APPEAL, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL AFFIRMED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). THUS, THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS HAVE REACHED FINALITY. 4. IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE MERELY CONTENDED THAT IT HAD FILED CONFIRMATIONS AND ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES, W ITH REGARD TO SHARE APPLICATION MONEY INTRODUCED IN THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y, EXCEPT WITH REGARD TO SHARE APPLICATION MONEY GIVEN BY SHRI MAHESH GAR G WHO CLAIMED TO HAVE INVESTED A SUM OF RS.27,25,250/-. EVEN IN THE PENA LTY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH EITHER PAN NUMBER OR OTH ER DETAILS. THUS IT COULD NOT PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDIT. THEREFORE, A. O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF IN COME WITH A VIEW TO WILLFULLY EVADE TAX AND ACCORDINGLY HE LEVIED PENAL TY OF RS.9,17,319/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. LD. CIT(A) CONCURRED WITH TH E VIEW TAKEN BY A.O. ITA NO.504/DEL/2013 3 WHEREIN HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT ANY DETAIL TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE T RANSACTION. THEREFORE, IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCUR ATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WITH A VIEW TO CONCEAL ITS INCOME. 5. FURTHER AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS IN AP PEAL BEFORE US. EVEN AT THIS STAGE, NO MATERIAL WHATSOEVER WAS PLACED BE FORE US TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN BONA FIDE EXPLANATION. AS R IGHTLY POINTED OUT BY LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE IDENTITY AND CR EDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND EVEN THE GENUINENESS OF SHARE TRANSAC TION COULD NOT BE PROVED; MERE FILING OF EXPLANATION IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO BRI NG THE CASE OUT OF THE AMBIT OF EXPLANATION (1) TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE AFFIRM THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) A ND DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE. 6. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH JUNE, 2015 SD./- SD./- (N. K. SAINI) (D. MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATE: 2015 SP COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI). ITA NO.504/DEL/2013 4 S.NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 30/6 SR. PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 30/6 SR. PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS 30/6/15 SR. PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 30/6 SR. PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK 30/6 SR. PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO HEAD CLERK 9 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO A.R. 10 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER