Mr. Imran Khan C/o- Pankaj Prince And Associates, S-2, Shreeji Chambers 6B, Purohit Ji Ka Bagh, Gopinath Marg, Near SBI, M.I. Road, Jaipur, Jaipur V. ITO Ward-3(3), Jaipur, Ward-3(3), Jaipur

ITA 621/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6436 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MONISHA CHOUDHARYADDL CIT DHK
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Valuation report
• Section: 56(2)(vii)(b)

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES B, JAIPUR JH LANHI XLKA ] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA -@ ITA NO. 621/JP/2019 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 MR. IMRAN KHAN, C/O- PANKAJ PRINCE & ASSOCIATES, S-2, SHREEJI CHAMBERS, 6B, PUROHIT JI KA BAGH, GOPINATH MARG, NEAR SBI, M.I. ROAD, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. I.T.O. WARD 3(3), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA -@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AZTPK 3286 E VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : NONE (AJD. APPLICATION REJECTED) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY: SMT. MONISHA CHOUDHARY(ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 04/03/2021 MN?KKS 'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16/04/2021 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), ALWAR DATED 26/02/2019 FOR THE A.Y. 2014-15, WHEREIN FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN: 1. THAT THE ITO, WARD 3(3), JAIPUR HAD ERRED IN ASSUMING THE ROLE OF AO WITHOUT VALID TRANSFER ORDER U/S 127. 2. THAT THE LD. AO HAD ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 7,97,015/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. ASSESSEE HAD DULY SUBMITTED THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER BUT ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE SAME NOR REFERRED THE CASE TO VALUATION OFFICER, WHICH IS BAD IN LAW. ITA 621/JP/2019_ MR. IMRAN KHAN VS ITO 2 2. THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL WAS CONCLUDED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE IN VIEW OF THE PREVAILING SITUATION OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC. 3. AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT AFTER GOING THROUGH THE CONTENTS CONTAINED IN THE SAID APPLICATION, WE FOUND NO REASON FOR ADJOURNING THE PRESENT APPEAL AND ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD FILED BEFORE THE BENCH, WE FOUND THAT ON EARLIER SEVERAL OCCASIONS, THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN SEEKING ADJOURNMENTS WITHOUT ANY SPECIFIC REASONS, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE PREVIOUS CONDUCT, WE DISMISS THE PRESENT APPLICATION FOR SEEKING ADJOURNMENT AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE FIX THE MATTER FOR 24/03/2021 FOR ARGUMENTS. HOWEVER, EVEN TODAY I.E. ON 24/03/2021, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS REPRESENTATIVE JOINED THE PROCEEDINGS, THEREFORE, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WE PROCEED THE ASSESSEE EX PARTE. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD DR, WHO JOINED THE PROCEEDINGS IS READY WITH THE ARGUMENTS, THEREFORE, WE HAVE DECIDED TO PROCEED WITH THE HEARING OF THE PRESENT CASE EX PARTE. 5. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE IS BASICALLY AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 7,97,015/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE IN PARA 5.3 OF HIS ORDER AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED BELOW: ITA 621/JP/2019_ MR. IMRAN KHAN VS ITO 3 5.3 I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT. THE A.O. HAS RIGHTLY CALCULATED THE PURCHASE AMOUNT OF THE PROPERTY AS PER THE VALUATION OF THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY AS PER PROVISION OF SECTION 56(2)(VII)(B) OF THE ACT AS APPLICABLE W.E.F. A.Y. 2014-15. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS. 7,97,015/- IS SUSTAINED AND THE APPELLANTS GROUND OF APPEAL ON THE ISSUE IS DISMISSED. WE OBSERVE FROM PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD HELD IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE A.O. HAS RIGHTLY CALCULATED THE PURCHASE AMOUNT OF THE PROPERTY AS PER THE VALUATION OF THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY AS PER PROVISION OF SECTION 56(2)(VII)(B) OF THE ACT AS APPLICABLE W.E.F. A.Y. 2014-15. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE OR DEVIATE FROM THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 6. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH APRIL, 2021. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO LANHI XLKA (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 16/04/2021 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- MR. IMRAN KHAN, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE I.T.O., WARD 3(3), JAIPUR. ITA 621/JP/2019_ MR. IMRAN KHAN VS ITO 4 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 621/JP/2019) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR