Smt. Suman Kohli, Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 6294/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2817 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 05-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BANITA DEVI
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT GOEL
• Keywords: Onus to prove; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: SMC - FRIDAY , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IN ITA NO. 6294 /DEL/201 5 AY: 200 5 - 06 SMT. SUMAN KOHLI W/O LATE SH. JAIPAL KUMAR KOHLI R/O E - 16/8, KRISHNA NAGAR DELHI 110 051 PAN: AJJPK 6123 A VS . ITO, WARD 64(4) NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SH. AMIT GOEL, C.A. DEPARTMENT BY MS.BANITA DEVI, ADDL.CIT DATE OF HEARING 2 3 RD JUNE, 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 3 RD JUNE, 2017 ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) XXV III , NEW DELHI DATED 11.02.2014 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 200 5 - 06 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. BECAUSE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME FAX (APPEALS), FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS THE JOINT HOLDER OF THE BANK ACCOUNT NO. 106011/100036449 IN THE NAME OF JAIPAL KUMAR KOHLI (HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE), IN THE AXIS BANK. 2. BECAUSE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS ) 2 FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ABOVE MENTIONED BANK ACCOUNT WAS OPENED BY JAIPAL KUMAR KOHLI (HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE) AND THE SAME WAS OPERATED ONLY BY HIM . IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE NEVER OPERATED THE ABOVE SAID BANK ACCOUNT BEFORE THE DEATH O F JAIPAL KUMAR KOHLI (HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE). 3. BECAUSE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME FAX (APPEALS) ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE REAL PERSON W HO OPENED THE ABOVE SAID BANK ACCOUNT WAS THE KARTA OF HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY. 4. BECAUSE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) COMMITTED ERROR IN ACCEDING TO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS. 9,70,000/ - IN THE TOTA L INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERING THAT THERE WAS PEAK INVESTMENT OF RS. 9,70,000/ - IN THE BANK ACCOUNT NO. 16601 01 0C 036449 IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06, WHEREAS, THE ABOVE BANK ACCOUNT WAS IN THE NAME OF JAIPAL KUMAR KOHLI (HUSBAND OF THEASSESSEE), OPENED AND OPERATED BY HIM. 5. BECAUSE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS) COMMITTED ERROR IN SHIFTING TH E BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT NO.6010100036449 IN THE NAME OF JAIPAL CUMAR KOHALI (HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE). 6. BECAUSE, THE ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS TOTA L INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT JUSTIFIED, PA RTICULARLY WHEN T H E INVESTMENT WAS MADE BY JAIPAL KUMAR KOHLI (HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE). PRAYER IN THE PREMISE, IT IS MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYED TH AT THIS HON BLE TRIBUNAL MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.2.2015 3 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS ) AND BE FURTHER PLEASED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF THE INCOME ASSESSED RS. 12,10,000/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 , AND MAY FURTHER BE PLEASED TO PASS ANY SUCH ORDER(S)/DIRECTION(S) AS THIS HON BLE TRIBUNAL MAY DEEM FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, THEREFORE, NO NEED T O REPEAT THE SAME, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL ON 27.11.2015 WHICH IS BARRED BY LIMITATION BY 594 DAYS AND THE OFFICE HAS ISSUED DEFECT NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE MENTIONING THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BARRED BY 594 DAYS AND REQUESTED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY , IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME THE ASSESSEE FILED APPLICATION DT. 27.11.2015 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, THE CONTENTS OF WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER. 1. I AM IN RECEIPT OF CAPTIONED APPEAL ORDER. AS PER THE ORDER THE APPEAL FILED BY ME HAS BEEN DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 2. IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE, IT IS MOST HUMBLY SUBMITTE D THAT I HAVE BEEN VERY UNWELL AND MENTALLY DISTURBED DUE TO MISS HAPPENINGS WITH ME. MY HUSBAND EXPIRED ON 21.8.2008 . THEREAFTER, MY ONLY SON WAS ALSO EXPIRED ON 27.9.2011 . I HAVE 4 ALSO BEEN GOING THROUGH SERIOUS FINANCIAL HARDSHIPS. MY HEALTH IS ALS O DETERIORATING. DUE TO THESE REASONS, I COULD NOT PURSUE THE CAPTIONED APPEAL MATTER. 3. SINCE THE NON - APPEARANCE BEFORE THE BENCH ON THE DATE OF HEARING WAS DUE TO ABOVE REASONS, YOUR HONOUR IS REQUESTED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO RECALL THE CAPTION ED ORDER SO AS TO ENABLE ME TO REPRESENT MY CASE ON MERITS. PRAYED ACCORDINGLY, THANKING YOU, YOURS FAITHFULLY, SD/ - (SUMAN KOHLI) APPELLANT 4. LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND REQUESTED THAT THE DELAY IN DISPUTE MAY BE CON DONED AND THE APPEAL MAY BE DECIDED ON MERITS. 5. LD.D.R. STRONGLY OPPOSED THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 594 DAYS AND STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED IN LIMIN E ON ACCOUNT OF LIMITATION. 5 5. I HAVE HEARD THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE LD.D.R. AND THOROUGHLY GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN DIS PUTE. I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED ANY PLAUSIBLE REASONS FOR CONDONING THE DELAY OF 594 DAYS. EVEN OTHERWISE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTIONS RAISED IN THE APPLICATION FOR CON DONATION OF HUGE DELAY OF 594 DAYS AND HAS ALSO NOT EXPLAINED THE HUGE DELAY . THEREFORE, I AM UNABLE TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 594 DAYS AND DISMISS THE PRESENT APPEAL BEING TIME BARRED. 6. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEE S APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 2 3 RD JUNE, 2017. SD/ - ( H.S. SIDHU ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 23 RD JUNE, 2017 * MANGA 6 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR, ITAT - TRUE COPY - BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI BENCHES NEW DELHI