SUJATA R. MITAL, MUMBAI V. ITO 9(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 589/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3384 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 30-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK BATRA
• Section: 143(3); 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES D, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) ITA NO 589/MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SUJATA R. MITAL 7 & 8-B, 2 ND FLOOR, WEST VIEW NO. 1, S.V. ROAD, SANTACRUZ(WEST), MUMBAI- 400054 PAN:- AHGPM8592G VS. THE ITO 9 ( 3 )( 2 ), MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. VIVEK BATRA DATE OF HEARING: 30/03/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30/03/2016 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDE R DT. 24/11/2015 PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS)-21, MUMBAI FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2009 -10. THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSE E, PERUSAL OF RECORDS REVELAS THAT ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING I.E.,16/03/2016 AD JOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY THE CA SE WAS FIXED FOR TODAY I.E. 30/03/2016. WE ARE THEREFORE, OF THE CONSIDERED VI EW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NO MORE INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE PRESENT APPEAL. ACC ORDINGLY WE ARE DECIDED TO HEAR THE APPEAL EX PARTE . 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE EMANATING FROM THE RECOR D ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10 ON 23/02/2010 2 ITA NO 589/MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 4,37,930/-AFTER S CRUTINY, ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 25/07/2011 U/S 143(3). THE CASE WAS RE -OPENED U/S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) ON 14/10 /2013 BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148. IN RESPONSE THEREOF, THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DT. 20/11/2013., ASKED THE AO TO TREAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 23/02/201 0 AS THE FINAL THE RETURN. THE AO AFTER SEEKING THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES AND EX PLANATIONS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,80,718/- PAID TOWARDS INTEREST ON LOAN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OTHER THAN PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER THE A SSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF R EOPENING AND THE ADDITION AFORESAID MADE BY THE AO. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER HEAR ING THE PARTIES AND DISMISSED BOTH THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE, HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS. THE ASSESSE E HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE REASSE SSMENT BY ITO 9(3)(2) U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE IT ACT DATED 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2014 IN WHICH THE LD. ITO 9(3)(2) HAD ERRED IN REOP ENING AN ASSESSMENT ALREADY COMPLETED U/S 143(3) AND REASSES SING INCOME BASED ON EXISTING INFORMATION WITHOUT UNCOVERING AN Y NEW FACTS. THE ORIGINAL INCOME WAS ALREADY ASSESSED AS SUBMITT ED, BY THE LEARNED ITO ON 25 TH JULY 2011. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION TO THE TOTAL INCOME A SUM OF RS. 1,80,718/- BEING INTEREST PAID TO BANK S. 4. THE LD. DR HEAVENLY RELYING UPON THE ORDER PASSE D BY THE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER DOES NOT SUFFER F ROM ANY LEAGAL INFIRMITY AS 3 ITA NO 589/MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 THE SAME HAS BEEN PASSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SET TLED LAW. HENCE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. DR AND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMI SSED THE FIRST GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE RELYING UPON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SRI KRISHA P. LTD. 221 ITR 538 (SC) IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT MERELY BECAUSE CLAIM IS REFLECTED IN THE ACCOUNTS DOES NO IPSO FACTO CONSTITUTE A FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF FACTS, AN D SHUSHIL KUMAR JALAN VS. ITA 34/GAU/2011 DATED. 03/02/2011 IN WHICH IT IS HELD THAT WHEN ASSESSEE PARTICIPATES IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AFTER REJECT ION OF OBJECTIONS TO REOPENING, IT IS NOT OPEN FOR THE ASSESSEE TO TAKE UP THE ISSUE THEREAFTER. SO FAR AS THE SECOND GROUNDS CONCERNED THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE SECOND GROUNDS OF APPEAL HELD AS UNDER:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE EXPLANATION OF THE AR WHICH IS SAME AS WAS FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FIRSTLY, IN THE CURRENT YEAR M/S. SUMIT BIOSCIENCE PVT. LTD. HAS SHOWN BOOK PROFITS O F RS. 5,76,859/- SECONDLY, IT IS CLEARLY ADMITTED THAT THE LOANS WER E GIVEN TO THE COMPANY FOR ITS PURPOSES OF MEETING WORKING CAPITAL AND NOT FOR APPELLANTS OWN BUSINESS. THERE IS NO BASIS TO CLAI M THE INTEREST PAYMENT AGAINST PROFESSIONAL FEES. THERE IS NO COMP ULSION TO GIVE INTEREST FREE LOANS TO THE COMPANY FOR EARNING PROF ESSIONAL FEES. THUS ON MERITS THERE IS NO BASIS TO NO UPHOLD THE O RDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SETTLED LAW. THE OR DER DIES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY 4 ITA NO 589/MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 LEGAL INFIRMITY TO INTERFERE WITH THE SAME. WE THER EFORE UPHOLD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS BOTH THE GROUNDS OF A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE AS ST. YEAR 2009-10 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30TH MARCH, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( D.KARUNAKARA RAO ) ( RAM LAL NEGI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED:30/03/2016 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. / CIT 5. !' , $ !'% , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. &' ( / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, ) //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI PRAMILA