(Smt) Kamla Devi Gupta, Kanpur V. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

ITA 75/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 7523714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 69; 6

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.75/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006 - 07 SMT. KAMLA DEVI GUPTA, 49, GOVT. INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, KANPUR. PAN:ABZPG1268J VS. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - VI, KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI ALOK MITRA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 10/04/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 0 8 /05/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT (A) - I, KANPUR DATED 29/11/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 2007. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. BECAUSE THE 'CIT(A)' HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT, JEWELLERY WORTH RS.2,29,854/ - (OUT OF JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON 29.12.2005) REPRESENTED UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT AND IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE 'APPELLANT'. 2. BECAUSE ON A DUE CONSIDERATION OF OVERALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, MATERIAL AND INFORMATION PLACED ON RECORD, NO PART OF THE JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH COULD BE HELD TO BE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 6 9 OF THE ACT, SO AS TO CALL FOR SUSTENANCE OF ANY ADDITION ON THAT SCORE. 3. BECAUSE THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS LAW AND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE INSPITE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE AND HENCE, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EX - PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 4. FIRST OF ALL , WE FIND THAT DEFECT NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE REGISTRY BY POINTING OUT THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TIME BARRED BY 8 DAYS AND THERE IS NO CONDON ATION APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. INSPITE OF THIS, THERE IS NO CONDONATION APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TILL DATE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, WE DO NOT ADMIT THIS APPEAL AND DISMISS THE SAME AS UNADMITTED BEC AUSE OF DELAY IN FILING . 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 0 8 /05/2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR