Mohammed Gyasuddin, Kolkata V. ACIT, Cir.-30, Kolkata

ITA 570/KOL/2020

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Mohammed Gyasuddin against the revisionary orders passed by the PCIT under section 263 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. The PCIT had observed that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to verify substantial cash deposits in the assessee's bank accounts, which were the basis for reopening the assessment under section 147. The Tribunal found that the AO did not discuss or examine these deposits in the reassessment order, leading to the conclusion that the original assessments were erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Despite multiple opportunities, the assessee did not appear to contest the revisionary orders, leading the Tribunal to decide the appeals on merit after hearing the Departmental Representative.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 122978 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 12-11-2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order; Assessment record
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 570 & 571/KOL/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Mohammed Gyasuddin 3, Dent Mission Road, Kolkata- 700023. PAN: AFVPG 2465 H Vs. ACIT, Circle-30, Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 14.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 16.06.2023 O R D E R PER SONJOY SARMA, JM: The captioned appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of ld. CIT(A) – 10, Kolkata dated 11.03.2020 and 12.03.2020 in respect of assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. 2. Both these are heard and disposed together as common issue is involved. We shall first discuss the facts of ITA No. 570/Kol/2020. 3. The only issue raised by the assessee in the memorandum of appeal is against the invalid exercise of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and consequently passing order u/s 263 of the Act thereby setting aside the assessment framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 29.12.2018 on the ground that the same is erroneous in so far as prejudicial in the interest of revenue. ITA Nos.570 & 571/KOL/2020 Mohammed Gyasuddin A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 2 4. Facts in brief are that the case of the assessee filed his return of income on 17.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs.14,31,732/- which was revised on 10.02.2012 disclosing total income of Rs. 14,90,811/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1). The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 dated 23.03.2018 on the ground that the income of the assessee escaped assessment due to huge cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee. Finally, the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 was framed on 29.12.2018. The PCIT upon examination of the assessment records observed that the AO has failed to verify the huge deposits of cash into the banks of the assessee which was the reason recorded u/s 148(2) of the Act for reopening the assessment. Therefore, the said non- examination on the part of the AO as rendered by the assessment framed as erroneous in so far as the prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, the PCIT issued notice u/s 263 of the Act on 15.01.2020 giving show cause as to why the impugned assessment framed should not be cancelled and revised on the ground of being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The assessee responded to the show cause notice and finally the PCIT after considering the submission of the assessee revised the assessment order vide revisionary order framed u/s 263 of the Act dated 11.03.2020. 5. At the time of hearing when the case was called for hearing neither the assessee nor his authorized representative was present to attend the hearing. Despite the fact that the assessee has been given a number of opportunities however in most of the ITA Nos.570 & 571/KOL/2020 Mohammed Gyasuddin A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 3 occasions, the case remains unrepresented. We also note that in between the counsel of the assessee, Mr. Sunil Surana who was attending this matter withdrew his power of attorney on 30.03.2023. When Mr. Surana appeared before the bench and submitted that he has no instruction from the client to argue this case and therefore, he is withdrawing power of attorney. Accordingly, the same was filed before the bench and the case was adjourned to 14.06.2023. We observe that again the assessee did not appear today and therefore, we consider and deem it fit to decide the appeals on merit after hearing the ld. DR. 6. We have perused the revisionary order passed u/s 263 and also the order which has been revised by the PCIT u/s 263 of the Act and observe that the only issue for which the assessment was revised or non-examination of cash deposits into banks. We have examined and perused the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act and found that assessment was reopened for the very purpose of examination of cash deposits. The ld. AO has not discussed the issue in the assessment order nor did we come across evidences in the file which proved that the AO has examined the issue and has taken a possible view on the basis of the evidences/records filed by the assessee. Under the circumstances, in absence of any material to the contrary, we uphold the order passed u/s 263 of the Act by PCIT which appears to be reasonable and correct. 7. Since the issue in ITA No. 571/Kol/2020 similar to one as decided by us in ITA No. 570/Kol/2020, therefore, our finding in ITA Nos.570 & 571/KOL/2020 Mohammed Gyasuddin A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 4 ITA No. 570/Kol/2020 would mutatis and mutandis apply to this appeal as well. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16.06.2023 Sd/- Sd/- [Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (SONJOY SARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Kolkata, Dated:16.06.2023 Biswajit Copy to: 1. The Appellant: Mohammed Gyasuddin. 2. The Respondent: ACIT, Circle-30, Kolkata. 3. The CIT, 4. The CIT (A) 5. The DR //True Copy// [ By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata