INNOVIONS CONSULTING PVT. LTD., NOIDA V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , NOIDA

ITA 846/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0852 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Search and seizure
• Section: 132; 153C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.846/Del/2018 [Assessment Year : 2012-13] Innovions Consulting Pvt.Ltd., C/o-Arun Kentan & Associates, 101, CSC, DDA Market, Pushpanjali, New Delhi-110092. PAN-AABCI8381G vs DCIT, Central Circle, Noida. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by None Respondent by Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement 03.08.2022 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : This appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur dated 28.11.2017. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the Id. CIT(A) had erred in not adjudicating the ground of appeal bearing no.1, 2 & 3 (relating to assumption of jurisdiction by the Id. AO to initiate proceedings u/s 153A), particularly when during the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee had made detailed submissions and vehemently argued apropos these grounds of appeal, by stating that "Ground no. 1,2 & 3 are general in nature. Therefore, these are not being adjudicated separately and treated as dismissed". 2. That the Id. CIT(A) had grossly erred in stating that "It is observed from the submissions of the id. AR that on merit no argument has been advanced, on the other hand AO has discussed elaborately in assessment order, the incriminating document and came to conclusion that the appellant has received cash of Rs.34,00,000/-", Page | 2 while ignoring the para no. 11 to 24 of the written submissions dated 11.11.2017, through which the assessee had challenged the addition of Rs.34,00,000/- made by the Id. AO while stating that "From the seized paper against the Innovions an amount of Rs. 34,00,000/- has been written as received PDC which clearly confirms that assessee received Rs. 34,00,000/- in cash from the customers and which has not been disclosed in the books of account." 3. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the addition of Rs. 34,00,000/- made by the Id. AO in the hands of the assessee (who was not the builder/ developers, but was simply a real estate agent), under the wrong impression that "PDC of Rs. 34,00,000/- represents the cash component received by Innovions", ought to had been deleted by the Id. CIT(A). 4. That the Id. CIT(A)'s remark "In the result, for statistical purpose, these appeals are dismissed", is misleading, in as much as the Id CIT(A) had not restored the matter on the file of the Id. AO for fresh examination and for passing of fresh assessment order.” 2. At the time of hearing, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. It is seen from the records that the notice sent through speed post is returned back unserved with remark “returned” by the Postal Authority. The assessee has not provided any new address to the Registry. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee and being disposed off on the basis of material available on record. FACTS OF THE CASE 3. Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was conducted on 09.10.2013 on the premises of assessee comprising Shubhkamna Buildtech Pvt.Ltd. Group of Page | 3 cases. During the course of search & seizure operation, certain information/documents were found thereafter, a notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued to the assessee. In response thereto, The assessee stated that it had e-filed return of income on 30.09.2012 and also filed a copy of the same in the office of Assessing Officer (“AO”) on 16.10.2015 declaring return income of Rs1,38,93,640/- in pursuance of the notice u/s 153C of the Act. In response to the statutory notice, Ld. Counsel for the assessee attended the proceedings. The AO observed that during the course of search and seizure operation in the case of M/s. Rudra Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., various information and documents were found. In these documents at page 49 of LP-4, there were details about the assessee. It was further found that amount of Rs.34,00,000/- represented the cash component received by the assessee. The assessee was called for to explain how this transaction has been recorded in the books of accounts. In response to this, the assessee filed a written reply which was not found satisfactory to the AO. Thereby, he proceeded to make addition of the same amount as undisclosed income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved against this, the assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal and sustained the addition. 5. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal. 6. The only effective ground in this appeal is regarding sustaining the addition of Rs.34,00,000/-. Page | 4 7. Ld. Sr. DR strongly relied on the orders of the authorities below. He submitted that the assessee has not brought on record any material to controvert the finding of the authorities below. He contended that the addition has been made purely on the basis of incriminating material. 8. We have heard the contention of Ld. Sr.DR and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. In this case, the AO made addition on the basis of incriminating document gathered during the search operations. Before the AO, the assessee denied to have received cash from M/s Rudra Buildwell Pvt.Ltd. an amount of Rs.34,00,000/-. However, the contention of the assessee was not accepted by the AO and he made addition observing that from the seized papers, it was noticed against Innovions Consulting Pvt. Ltd. [the assessee], an amount of Rs.34,00,000/- was written as received PDC which clearly confirmed that the assessee had received Rs.34,00,000/- cash from the customer and same was not recorded in the books of accounts. This observation of the AO is not rebutted by the assessee. No contrary material is placed before us. It is incumbent upon the assessee to explain the contents of the document pertaining to it. No such endeavour has been made. The assessee has been grossly negligent in not attending the proceedings before this Tribunal. In our considered view merely filing of appeal is not sufficient, the assessee should be vigilant about prosecution of such appeal. The assessee should have at least filed the relevant evidence in support of its claim that no such amount was received. We, therefore, in the absence of any rebuttal by the assessee, do not Page | 5 see any reason to disturb the finding of authorities below. Hence, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 03 rd August, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (KUL BHARAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER * Amit Kumar * Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI