Gunjeev Saluja, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 820/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0770 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 year(s) 6 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148; 80C; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 820/Del/2014 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) Gunjeev Saluja C/o. Vipin Jain & Associates, C.A., Flat No.915, 9 th Floor, Indraprakash Building, 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 110 001 PAN No. AQDPS 4351 B Vs. ITO Ward – 24(1) New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by --None-- Revenue by Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 18.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 31.08.2022 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXVIII, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the material on record are as under :- 2 3. Assessee is an individual who had originally filed the return of income for A.Y. 2007-08 on 27.08.2007 declaring total income of Rs.16,81,260/-. AO has noted that notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 25.03.2011 on the basis of information received from ACIT that assessee was proprietor of Durga Traders which had made transactions to the extent of Rs.5.22 crores and assessee had not declared income from the aforesaid transactions in the return of income for A.Y. 2007-08. Thereafter, assessment was framed u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 22.12.2011 and the total income was determined at Rs.95,14,340/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide order dated 12.12.2013 in Appeal No.385/2013-14 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Assessee is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds: 1. “That the Assessing Officer erred in assessing the income of the appellant at Rs. 95,14,335, after making addition aggregating Rs.78,33,075, on wholly illegal frivolous and untenable grounds. It is prayed that Rs. 78,33,075 added to the income be directed to be deleted. 2. That proceedings u/s 147/148, and the assessment order passed consequent thereto is illegal, bad in law, and liable to be quashed for reasons that: The assessment is made on mere surmise and conjecture, there being no independent application of mind and no reasons for The Assessing Officer to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment so as to grant jurisdiction to initiate proceedings u/s 147 of The Act. 3 The AO did not pass a speaking order disposing assessee's objections to the reasons recorded for initiating proceedings u/s 147/148 of The Act, a mandatory requirement which the Assessing Officer is required to meet but which he failed to do so. Assessment is illegal and against law being completed on grounds other than those communicated to the assessee based on which proceedings u/s 147 were initiated and notice u/s 148 of The Act was issued. 3. There is no basis for The AO to determine the income of "Durga Traders’ a unit of "Gunjeev Saluja & Others" AOP, at Rs. 78,33,075, applying a rate of 15% of the receipts/sales. The AO has further erred in law in taxing the income from "Durga Traders" twice, in the hands of the AOP and in the hands of the assessee, without reasons and/or on illegal and frivolous grounds, untenable in law. 4. The Authorities below erred in ignoring the submissions made against denial by Sh. Harish Girotra Notary Advocate of having attested the AOP document, which goes to the very foundation of the creation and genuiness of "Gunjeev Saluja & Others" AOP. That no recognition can be given to the denial obtained behind assessee's back without affording any opportunity to the assessee, despite request, to cross examine the Notary, rendering the orders biased, against rules of natural justice, illegal and bad in law. 5. That the Assessing Officer has erred in law in not allowing deduction claimed u/s 80C at Rs. 1,00,000 being the LIC premium paid. 6. The assessee craves leave to be permitted to amend, modify, delete, withdraw all or any of the grounds above, and/or to add any fresh ground, on or before and/or during the appeal proceedings.” 5. The case file reveals that the appeal was filed by the assessee in the year 2014 and thereafter appeal was listed for the first time in 2016 and thereafter on various occasions but the 4 same was adjourned at the request of the assessee. The case file further reveals that the notice for hearing was issued through RPAD but the same was returned undelivered by postal authorities with the remarks that “no such person”. The case file further reveals that Ananya Kapoor, from the chambers of Mr. Salil Kapoor vide letter dated 29.12.2020 had withdrawn the Power of Attorney. 6. Preferring an appeal does not mean merely formally filing an appeal but also taking all the steps to effectively pursue the appeal. Further when an appeal is filed by the assessee before the Tribunal, it is expected that assessee shall put forth documentary evidences to support his claim. The fact that the assessee has not appeared before the Tribunal despite various opportunities granted to the assessee shows the negligent approach of the assessee and further shows that he is not serious in pursuing the appeal filed by him. In the absence of any co-operation from the side of the assessee in helping to decide the appeal, we don’t find any reason to keep the matter pending before us more so, when the appeal is pending for more than 7 years. Considering the aforesaid facts, we have no option except to dispose of the appeal on merits, after hearing the Ld. D.R. and considering the material on record. 7. We find that AO after considering the detailed facts of the case has noted that assessee had received Rs.5,22,20,500/- being sales but assessee had not offered to tax income from such sales. 5 AO after noting the facts, considered 15% of the total receipts as income of the assessee and thus made addition of Rs. 78,33,075/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and taking into consideration the material on record and for the reasons given in the order has upheld the order made by AO. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now before us. 8. Before us, Learned DR took us to the order of AO and CIT(A) and supported the order of lower authorities. He further submitted that on identical facts in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2006-07, the Tribunal vide order dated 10.06.2022 in ITA No.4271/Del/2016 had dismissed the appeal of the assessee. He placed the copy of the order of Tribunal on record. He therefore submitted that the appeal of the assessee be dismissed. 9. We have heard the Learned DR and perused the material available on record. We find that AO and CIT(A) for the detailed reason stated in his order have held the profit of 15% of the total sale receipts to be the income and made its addition. Before us, assessee has not placed any material on record to point out any fallacy in the findings of CIT(A). We further find that the Co- ordinate Bench on identical facts, in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2006-07 vide order dated 10.06.2022 (supra) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In such a situation, we find no reason to 6 interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus the Grounds of assessee are dismissed. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31.08.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Date:- 31.08.2022 PY* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI