S.L. Chandrashekar, Bengaluru V. Assistant comissioner of Income Tax, circle-6(2)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 763/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7694 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 12-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B R RAMESH
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 7 63 /BANG/201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 3 - 1 4 SHRI. S. L. CHANDRASHEKAR, NO.1400, 12 TH B CROSS, 2 ND STAGE, 2 ND PHASE, WOC ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BENGALURU 560 086. PAN : BCGPS 0812 P VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(2)(1), BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI. B. R. RAMESH, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 25 . 0 6 .201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 . 0 7 .201 8 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), INTER ALIA , ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE ACIT CIRCLE-6(2)(1) HAS COMMITED A SERIOUS ERROR WHILE PASSING THE ORDER AND THE SAME IS NOT SUSTAINABLE ON BOTH LAW AND FACTS. 2. THE ACIT HAS MADE SEVERAL ADDITIONS TO THE TOTO INCOME WHICH IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY MATERIAL FACTS AND THE ADDITIONS MADE ARE AT RANDOM AND THERE IS NO REASONING. ITA NO. 763/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 3 3. THE ACIT, WHILE PASSING THE ORDER U/S 144 SHALL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL RELEVANT MATERIAL WHICH THE OFFICER HAS GATHERED AND THEN DETERMINE THE SUM PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A), BENGALURU-6 IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 250 DATED 20-10-2017 HAS, IN PARAGRAPHS 6 POINT 7 HAS ADMITTED THAT, I HAVE SUBMITTED THE RELEVANT RECORDS IN SUPPORT OF THE TRANSACTIONS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS, BUT IN PARAGRAPHS 10 AND 11 HAS STATED THAT 'THE MERE POSSESSION OF DETAILS AND HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY SUCH DETAILS'. THEREFORE IT IS CLEARLY EVIDENT THAT THE CIT (A)- BENGALURU-6 HAS ERRONEOUSLY PROCEEDED TO PASS THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL. 5. FURTHER IN PARAGRAPH 6, POINT 6, THE CIT(A)-BENGALURU-6, HAS STATED THAT TRANSACTIONS ARE SUPPORTED WITH DETAILED INFORMATION AND EXPLAINED FOR. BUT HAS AGAIN NOT CONSIDERED THE SAME AND HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS. 6. FURTHER IN PARAGRAPH 6 POINT 5, HAS STATED THAT INTEREST ON LAND LOAN IS SUPPORTED BY THE LETTER FROM THE BANK FOR WHICH THE RELEVANT DOCUMENT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, BUT WHILE PASSING THE ORDER HAS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT, THE SAME IS DEVOID OF NECESSARY EVIDENCE. 7. FURTHER FOR THE POINTS MENTIONED IN PARAGRAPH 6 POINTS 1,2,3,4,5., I HAVE PRODUCED THE LEDGER COPIES AND SINCE THE TRANSACTIONS ARE MOSTLY IN CASH, WITH SMALL AMOUNTS INDIVIDUAL AMOUNTS, THE DOCUMENTS ARE NEARLY IN THOUSANDS OF VOUCHERS IN NUMBERS, HAVE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE CIT(A)- BENGALURU-6, THE CIT(A)-BENGALURU-6, HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACTS AND MERELY WITHOUT APPLYING PROPER APPLICATION OF MIND, WHICH WAS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN EXERCISED BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL HAS ERRED. 8. VIEWED FROM ANY ANGLE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS TOTALLY CONTRARY TO ALL CANONS OF LAW AND WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLES BY THE HIGHER COURTS . 9. THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS BAD, ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS OTHERWISE OPPOSED TO LAW AND UNJUST. 10. THE APPELLANT RESERVES LIBERTY TO RAISE SUCH OTHER GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF CONSIDERING THE PRESENT APPEAL ON MERITS. 11. LIMITATION: THERE IS NO DELAY IN PREFERRING THE PRESENT APPEAL AND THE SAME IS FILED WITHIN THE DUE DATES. 12. DECLARATION: THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FILED ANY OTHER APPEAL CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. PYAYER: WHEREFORE, IT HUMBLY PRAYED THAT, THIS HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO GRANT RELIEF IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: ITA NO. 763/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 3 2. THIS APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 25.06.2018 BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, DESPITE VALID SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING. WE, THEREFORE, HAD NO OPTION BUT TO HEAR THE APPEAL EX-PARTE AND ACCORDINGLY REVENUE WAS HEARD. 3. WE HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND WE FIND THAT CIT(A) HAD ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE IT IN DETAIL AND SINCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY THEREIN, WE CONFIRM HIS ORDER. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH JULY, 2018. SD/- SD/- BANGALORE. DATED: 13 TH JULY, 2018. /NS/* COPY TO: 1. APPELLANTS 2. RESPONDENT 3. DR (ITAT) 4. CIT 5 . GUARD FILE BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, BANGALORE. (A. K. GARODIA) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER