Super Novell Fire Protection Appliances Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai V. Income Tax Officer, Wd-1, , Vapi

ITA 54/SRT/2021

AI Insights

The case involves Super Novell Protection Appliances Private Limited, which did not file income tax returns for the Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) reopened the case under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after discovering unreported cash deposits and interest income. The assessee did not respond to notices, leading to ex parte assessments and additions to income. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld these additions, which were then challenged in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, affirming the lower authorities' decisions due to the assessee's lack of participation and failure to provide necessary documentation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 301601 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 year(s) 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 05-12-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Rule of consistency; Corroborative evidences; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1); 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH (SMC), SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 53 & 54/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) (Virtual hearing) Super Novell Protection Appliances Private Limited, Flat No. 13, Ground Floor, Shree Ramnath CHS Ltd., Sayani Road, Opp New Siddhivinayak Metro St., Before Ravindra Natya Mandir, Opp.- Tapasyadevi Bldg., Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. PAN No. AAHCS 1521 L Vs. I.T.O., Ward-1, Vapi. Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Appellant represented by None Respondent represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 06/12/2022 Date of pronouncement 06/12/2022 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (in short, the NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short, the ld. CIT(A) dated 15/03/2021 and 10/03/2021 for the Assessment years (AY) 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. In both these appeals, the assessee has raised certain common grounds of appeal, facts in both these years are almost similar, therefore, both these appeals were clubbed, heard together and are being ITA No.53 & 54/Srt/2021 Super Novell Fire Protection Appliances P Ltd. Vs ITO 2 decided by this consolidated order to avoid the conflicting decision. For appreciation of facts, the appeal for the A.Y. 2011-12 is treated as a “lead case”. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in law the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in deciding the appeal, without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard and without considering the submissions filed online. 2. That on facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on considering the submissions filed and on merit. 3. That on facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of interest of Rs. 1,43,069/- accrued from deposit with Punjab National Bank. 4. That on facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming an addition of Rs. 5,10,000/- deposited in Bank as unexplained investment u/s 69A. 5. Your appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) be set aside for fresh consideration. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that no return of income was filed by assessee for the A.Y. 2011-12. The case of assessee was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) after taking necessary approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad. The case of assessee was reopened on the basis of information that the assessee made a cash deposit of Rs. 5.10 lacs in Punjab National Bank. Since no return of income was filed by assessee, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the income of assessee to the extent of cash deposit has escaped assessment. Notice under Section 148 dated 28/03/2018 was issued and served upon the assessee. The Assessing Officer recorded that the assessee failed to file return of income in response to notice under Section 148 or to respond to ITA No.53 & 54/Srt/2021 Super Novell Fire Protection Appliances P Ltd. Vs ITO 3 any other notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act. In absence of any response or reply, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act and made addition of entire cash deposit of Rs. 5.10 lacs by invoking provisions of Section 69A of the Act. The assessee has also received interest of Rs. 1,43,069/- from Punjab National Bank. The assessee failed to file return of income and it was not ascertainable, if such interest income was offered for taxation or not, the Assessing officer also added such interest income of Rs. 1,43,069/- to the income of assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the reopening as well as addition in the assessment order, the assesse filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC upheld the addition by taking a view that no details or submission were furnished by the assessee about the source of income of such cash deposit in bank. The Punjab National Bank deducted TDS on interest of Rs. 1,43,069/-. The assessee has not given any explanation if such income was offered for tax. In absence of any explanation, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC confirmed the addition as well as validity of reopening. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 4. None appeared on behalf of assessee despite service of notice. Shri Mukund Bakshi, Chartered Accountant from Vadodara filed his authority letter and obtained adjournment on more than three occasions. Thereafter, none appeared on 26/10/2022 and again on 06/12/2022, therefore, we left no ITA No.53 & 54/Srt/2021 Super Novell Fire Protection Appliances P Ltd. Vs ITO 4 option except to decide the appeal on the basis of material placed on record and hearing the submission of learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr.DR) for the Revenue. The ld. Sr.DR for the revenue submits that the assessee failed to furnish explanation or source about the cash deposit or whether interest income was offered to tax by the assessee, either before the Assessing Officer or before the First Appellate Authority. The assessee has not filed even a single document to substantiate the grounds of appeal. The assessee failed to furnish any supporting evidence to substantiate various grounds of appeal, therefore, the appeal of assessee may be dismissed. 5. I have considered the submission of ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue and perused the material available on record carefully. Grounds No. 1 and 2 relates to not allowing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. I find that the assessee failed to show or substantiate about the alleged denial of reasonable opportunity. I failed to appreciate that despite giving more than reasonable opportunity and fixing the appeal for more than eight times, the assessee is casual in making appearance. Not a single document is filed to substantiate such grounds of appeal or to disclose reasonable cause as to how the sufficient opportunity was not granted or any submission was filed before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Thus, in absence of any submission written or oral, I do not find any merit in the grounds of appeal raised by assessee and dismiss the same. In the result, grounds No. 1 and 2 of the appeal are dismissed. ITA No.53 & 54/Srt/2021 Super Novell Fire Protection Appliances P Ltd. Vs ITO 5 6. Ground No. 3 of the appeal relates to addition of interest income and ground no. 4 relates to addition of cash deposit in the bank account. I find that the assessee neither before the Assessing officer nor before the First Appellate Authority or before the Tribunal has filed even a single document to substantiate the source of cash deposit or whether interest earned from Punjab National Bank was offered to tax. In absence of any documentary evidence or any submission oral or writing, I do not find any reason to deviate from the orders of the lower authorities which I affirm. Accordingly, grounds No. 3 and 4 of the appeal are dismissed. 7. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 8. Now I take appeal for the A.Y. 2012-13 being ITA No. 54/Srt/2021 wherein the assessee has raised one common ground of appeal, which relates to addition of interest income, as raised in appeal for AY 2011-12, except variation of addition. Considering the fact that I have dismissed similar ground of the appeal of assessee for A.Y. 2011-12, therefore, considering the principle of consistency, the ground related to addition of interest income is upheld with similar observation as in appeal of ITA No. 54/Srt/2021 for the A.Y. 2012-13. So far as other ground of appeal, which relates to time period for passing assessment under section 153(2) of the Act. The ld Sr DR for the revenue submits that the assessing officer passed the assessment order within the time period allowed for passing the assessment order at relevant time. ITA No.53 & 54/Srt/2021 Super Novell Fire Protection Appliances P Ltd. Vs ITO 6 Further no such objection or ground of appeal was raised by assessee before ld CIT(A). The ground of appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. I have considered the submissions of the ld Sr DR for the revenue and perused the orders of the lower authorities. In find that the assessment was re-opened on 27.03.2018. The assessment order was passed on 27.08.2019, thus, the assessment order was passed well in time period prescribed under the Act, i.e. nine months from the end of financial year when notice under section 148 was served. Therefore, I do not find any merit on this ground as well, which I dismissed. In the result, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed. 10. In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are dismissed Order pronounced in the open court on 6th December, 2022. Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat, Dated: 06/12/2022 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR 6. Guard File By order Sr.Private Secretary, ITAT, Surat