Md. Imran, Delhi V. ITO, Ward-46(3), New Delhi

ITA 6661/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9246 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 17-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L ANURAGI
• Section: 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.6661/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 MD. IMRAN 2617, BARADARI, SHERAFGAN, BALLIMARAN, DELHI-110006 PAN NO.AANI7990N VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 46 (3), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI S. L. ANURAGI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 01/07/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08/07/2019 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 12.07.2018 OF THE CIT(A)-16, NEW DELHI RELATING TO A. Y. 2009-10. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED. IT WAS SEEN THAT THE NOTI CES ISSUED BY THE REGISTRY TWICE HAVE BEEN RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE REMARKS LEFT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INTI MATED THE CHANGED ADDRESS, IF ANY. I, THEREFORE, PROCEED TO D ECIDE THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR. PAGE | 2 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT ON THE BAS IS OF TAX EVASION PETITION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WI NG THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.12 LACS AND HAS ALSO INCURRED RS.2.33 LACS AS OTHER CH ARGES AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOM E, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED BY RECORDING REASONS AND ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE IT ACT. SINCE THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE U/S. 148 AS WELL AS THE STATUTORY NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 142 (1), THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESS MENT U/S. 144 OF THE IT ACT DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE RS.14,44,000/-. 4. IN APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER OBTAINING A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE REJOINDER OF THE ASSESSEE TO SUCH REMAND REPORT, UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- FINDINGS: - I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESS MENT ORDER, THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND REMAND, REPORT OF THE AO. THE LD. ARS SUBMISSION THAT THE PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES HAS BEEN MADE IN DIFFERE NT YEARS, IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN CASH. I HAVE PERUSED THE SALE DEED SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR, NOWHERE IN THE DEED IT IS MENTIONED THAT PAYMENT HAS BEEN DONE IN DIFFERENT YEARS. THIS FACT IS ALSO EXAMINED BY T HE AO AND THE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT HAS REPRODUCED THE RELEVANT PARA OF THE SALE DEED. THE SAME IS AS FOLLOWS ..FOR A TOTAL SUM OF RS. 12,00,000/- (RS. TWELVE LA CS ONLY) WHICH AMOUNT THE SAID VENDOR ACKNOWLEDGED TO HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE SAID VENDEE IN FULL AND FINAL DISCHARGE AND SETTLEMENT PAGE | 3 PER DETAILS GIVEN BELOW RS. 12,00,000/- RECEIVED BY THE VENDORS FROM THE VENDEE IN CASH FROM TIME TO TIME AS FULL AND FINAL DISCHARGE AND SETTLE MENT AND THE SAID VENDORS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE TO HAVE RECEIVED THE SAME FROM THE VENDEE BEFORE TH E SR. DELHI AT THE TIME OF PRESENTATION OF THIS SALE DEED AS EVIDENT IT IS NOWHERE MENTIONED THAT PAYMENT WAS MADE IN THE EARLIER YEARS PRIOR TO THE YEARS OF TRANSACTIONS. IN REPLY TO THE REMAND R EPORT THE LD. AR HAS SIMPLY REITERATED THE EARLIER SUBMISSION. NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGH T ON RECORD BY THE APPELLANT WHICH CONTROVERT THE FINDING OF THE AO. IT APPEARS THAT T HE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. AR IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND DOES NOT HAVE ANY BASIS. IN VIEW O F THIS I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE AO. THEREFORE, THE AD DITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS. 14,44,000/- IS CONFIRMED. 5. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING FOLLOWING GRO UNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW THE CIT(A) WAS INCORRECT AND UNJUSTIFIED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED BY THE AO U/S 144 RWS 147 IS B AD IN LAW, ILLEGAL, INVALID IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY VALID SERVICE OF NOTI CE U/S 148. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED BY THE AO U/S 144 RWS 147 IS B AD IN LAW, ILLEGAL IN THE ABSENCE OF REASONS RECORDED NEITHER SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE AND NOR GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW ACTION TAKEN U/SL47 IS INVALID, ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE CIT(A) WAS INCORRECT AND UNJUSTIFIED IN TREATING TH E AMOUNT OF RS 14,44,000/- AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT PROPE RLY APPRECIATING THE PAGE | 4 CONTENTS OF SALE DEED WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE VENDE E HAS PAID THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION FROM TIME TO TIME. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE CIT(A) WAS INCORRECT AND UNJUSTIFIED IN REJECTING T HE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE O F THE HOUSE ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES AND CONJECTURES AND WITHOUT FINDI NG THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSE AS INCORRECT OR NOT JUSTIFIED. 7. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE INCORRECT AND UNJUSTIFIED IN COMPLETING AND CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 AS VALID. 6. I HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE ORDERS O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A). I FIND THE LD. C IT(A) HAS GIVEN VALID REASONS WHILE SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 4,44,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORDER PASSED U /S. 144/147. ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND NO MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE CIT(A) TO CO NTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE CIT(A) . UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS UPHELD AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSE D. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08.07.2019. SD/- (R.K PANDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PAGE | 5 *NEHA* DATE:- 08.07.2019 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE OF DICTATION 01.07.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 02.07.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS /PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/ PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WE BSITE OF ITAT 08.07.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. THE DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGIST RAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER