M/s. Jay Enterprise, RAJKOT-GUJARAT V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 595/RJT/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4300 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 8 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 15-03-2018
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: USHA N SHROTE
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMEBR ./ I.T.A. NO. 595/RJT/2012 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) M/S. JAY ENTERPRISE, MINA GALI, SONI BAZAR, MANDVI CHOWK, RAJKOT / VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- IV, RAJKOT ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AACFJ6355K ( APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : NONE (ADJ. LETTER DECLINED) / RESPONDENT BY : SMT. USHA N. SHROTE, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 18/07/2018 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03/08/2018 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-IV, RAJKOT (CIT(A) IN SHORT), DATED 15.10.2012 ARISING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 16.12.2011 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) UND ER S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) CO NCERNING AY 2006- 07. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE REA DS AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 595/RJT/12 [M/S. JAY ENTERPISE VS. CIT(A)] A.Y. 2006-07 - 2 - 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-IV, RAJKOT HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS UNWARRANT ED, UNJUSTIFIED AND BAD IN LAW. THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN DEPRIVED OF OPPORTUNITY OF C ROSS EXAMINING THE CREDITORS/LENDERS. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -IV, RAJKOT HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PA SSING ORDER U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144 OF THE I.T. ACT IS UNWARRANTED, UNJUSTIFIED AND BAD IN LAW. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-IV, RAJKOT HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.25,15,000/- MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ALLEGED GROUND OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 O F THE I.T. ACT IS UNWARRANTED, UNJUSTIFIED AND BAD IN LAW. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -IV, RAJKOT HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN CH ARGING OF INTEREST U/S. 234A, 234B, 234C AND 234D OF THE I.T. ACT IS UNWARRANTED, UNJUSTIFIED AND BAD IN LAW. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -IV, RAJKOT HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN IN ITIATING PENAL PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT IS UNWARRANTED, UNJUSTIFI ED AND BAD IN LAW. 3. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, NONE APP EARED. AN ADJOURNMENT LETTER DATED 17.07.2018 WAS HOWEVER FIL ED SEEKING TIME FOR PREPARATION OF PAPER BOOK. IT IS SEEN FROM THE CASE RECORDS THAT THE MATTER WAS FIRST LISTED ON 11.03.2013 AND THEREAFTE R THE MATTER WAS LISTED FOR HEARING ON FOUR OCCASIONS EARLIER TO THI S HEARING. THE ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN SOUGHT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESS EE ON ONE PRETEXT OR THE OTHER. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL IN THE MONTH OF OCTOBER, 2012 WHEREAS THE MATTER HAS BEEN DRAGGED U P TO JULY 2018. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY INCLINATION TO ENSUR E HEARING OF THE MATTER ON THE LISTED DATED. THE PAPER BOOK HAS ALS O NOT BEEN FILED. IT IS ALSO SEEN FROM THE RECORD THAT EVEN BEFORE THE A O, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH STATUTORY NOTICES AND CONSEQU ENTLY, THE AO WAS CONSTRAINT TO PASS THE BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT. I N THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASONABLE CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO ENTERTAIN FURTHER REQUEST OF ADJOURNMEN T. WE ARE APPALLED BY THE HAPLESS AND NEGLIGENT ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESS EE. THE ALARMING SHOW OF NON-CHALANCE AND FLIPPANT ATTITUDE OF THE A SSESSEE FORCES US TO ITA NO. 595/RJT/12 [M/S. JAY ENTERPISE VS. CIT(A)] A.Y. 2006-07 - 3 - CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN NOT INTERESTED IN PRO SECUTING ITS APPEAL. THEREFORE, WE LEFT WITH NO OPTION BUT TO DECLINE TH E ADJOURNMENT. ACCORDINGLY, WE PROCEED FOR EX PARTE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 4. THE LEARNED DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED UPON THE O RDERS OF THE AO AND CIT(A). 5. AS NOTED ABOVE, SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL TO SUPPORT ITS CASE W ITHOUT ANY AVAIL. ON MERITS, THE ISSUE INVOLVES ADDITION ON ACCOUNT O F UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS AMOUNTING TO RS.25,15,000/-. IN THE ABSENC E OF ANY REBUTTAL TO THE ORDER OF THE AO AND CIT(A), WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO INTERFERE THEREWITH. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED ON MULTIPLE GROUNDS AS NOTED ABOVE. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (PRADIP KUMA R KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 03/08/2018 TRUE COPY S. K. SINHA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITA T, RAJKOT THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 03/08/2018