Shri Brij Gopal Chauhan, Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 856/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5818 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 142(1); 143(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI K. NARSIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO. 856/DEL/2016 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12] ORDER PER K. NARSIMHA CHARY, J.M. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER DATED 3.12.2015 IN APPEAL NO . 26/14-15 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 19, NEW DELHI (FOR SHORT LEARNED CIT(A)), SHRI BRIJ GOPAL CHAUH AN (THE ASSESSEE) FILED THIS APPEAL. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AND INDIVIDUAL AND SAID TO HAVE BEEN EAKINGOUT HIS LIVELIHOOD BEING A PETTY SHOPKEEPER. RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 WAS FI LED ON 10.8.2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 9,31,530/-. NOTICE UN DER SECTIONS 143(2) AND 142(1) WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE.ASSESSEE ENG AGED AND SHRI BRIJ GOPAL CHAUHAN, C-261A, MAIN MARKET, KONDLI, DELHI-96 PAN-AHFPC5855M VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-36(4), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY MS. ASHIMA NEB , SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 09 . 09 .2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30.09.2019 2 CHANGED HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES, BUT FINALLY CAME FORWARD WITH THE PLEA THAT NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(3) WAS SE RVED. LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER,BASING ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE S ECTION 292B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT)REJECTED THE OBJECTIO N RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND PROCEEDED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 3. LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED THAT THE ASSE SSEE DID NOT COOPERATE WITH THE DEPARTMENT IN DETERMINING THE CO RRECT TAX LIABILITY, THEREBY LEVYING NO OPTION TO HIM BUT TO COMPLETE TH E ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 4. LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED BEFORE HIM IN THE STATEMENT THAT NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE MAINTAINED. ON SALES OF RS. 12,36,48,258/-,THE ASSE SSING OFFICER RECORDED THAT AN ADDITION OF RS. 50 LACS HAD TO BE MADE THROUGH THE SALES ON THE BASIS OF THE DETERMINATION OF INCOME D ONE FOR THE EARLIER YEAR. SO ALSO, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A DDITION TO THE TUNE OF RS. 14,50,000/- TOWARDS LABOUR CHARGES DISCOUNT, CAR INSURANCE ETC., BASING ON THE ESTIMATE FOR THE EARLIER YEAR. 5. FURTHER, LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT A COPY OF PURCHASE DEED DATED 14.1.2010 REGISTERED AT THE OFFICE OF TH E SUB REGISTRAR, GHAZIABAD SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED A RESID ENTIAL PLOT AT PRAGATI VIHAR VILLAGE AND ON THAT ACCOUNT, LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 54,78,380/- TOWARDS UNDISCL OSED INVESTMENT. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ADDITION ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). LEARNED CIT(A) ON A CONSIDERATION OF MATERIAL BEFORE HIM,TOOK A VIEW THAT IN THE EARLIER YEAR 5% OF THE 3 TURNOVER WAS TAKEN AS THE PROFIT, AND IF SUCH ESTIM ATE IS APPLIED, THE PROFIT OF THE SHARES COMES TO RS.61,82,410/-. LEARN ED CIT(A) TOOK COGNIZANCE OF THE FACT THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING O FFICER ESTIMATED THE PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY AT RS. 50 LAC WHICH IS LESS THAN THE 5% OF THE TURNOVER FOR THIS YEAR. LEARNED CIT(A), THEREFORE, DECLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS. 50 LACS. 7. HOWEVER, SINCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE REJECT ED AND THE ESTIMATION WAS MADE ON ADHOC BASIS, LEARNED CIT(A) THOUGH IT FIT NOT TO SUSTAIN ANY DISALLOWANCE BASING ON BOOKS AND,THE REFORE, HE DIRECTED THE DELETION OF RS. 14.5 LACS. 8. LASTLY, IN RESPECT OF THE UNDECLARED INVESTMENT TO THE TUNE OF RS. 58,78,380/-, IT WAS THE OPINION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT IF AT ALL AN ADDITION HAS TO BE MADE, IT HAD TO BE MADE IN THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 BUT NOT 2011-12 IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT TH E SALE DEED DATED 14.1.2010. ON THIS SCORE, LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED TH E ADDITION OF RS. 54,78,380/-. THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 50 LACS. HE CHALLENGED THE LEGALITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS STATING THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS NOT RECEIVED. 9. THERE IS NO REPRESENTATION FOR THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE MATTER IS CALLED. WE, THEREFORE,PROCEEDED WITH THE MATTER BY HEARING THE LEARNED DR. LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS A VERY REASONED AND A REASONABLE ORDER AND NEED NOT TO BE INTERFERED WITH. 10. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD. INSOFAR AS EST IMATE OF PROFIT IS RS. 50 LACS IS CONCERNED, BOTH THE AUTHORITIES R EFERRED TO THE 4 ESTIMATION MADE IN THE EARLIER YEAR AT 5% OF THE TU RNOVER. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN MAINTA INING ANY BOOKS. NO BASIS IS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SAY THAT T HE ESTIMATED 5% WAS UNREASONABLE. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ESTIMATE OF 5% ON THE TURNOVER OF RS. 12,36,46,258/- COMES TO RS. 61, 82,412/-.IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER LIMITED THE ESTIMATE OF PROFIT TO RS. 50 LACS,LEARNED CIT(A) RIGHTLY ACCEPT ED THE SAME AND RIGHTLY DECLARED TO INTERFERE WITH THE SAME. 11. LEARNED CIT(A) IS ALSO JUSTIFIED IN DELETING TH E ADDITIONS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 14.5 LACS BASING ON THE BOOKS AFTER REJ ECTION OF THE BOOKS. WE ALSO DO NOT FIND ANYTHING ILLEGAL IRREGULAR IN T HE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) HOLDING THAT EVEN IF THE PURCHASE DEED DATED 14.1.2010 IS TRUE AND ADDITIONS HAVE TO BE MADE ON THIS SCORE, THE SA ME RELATED TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 BUT NOT TO 2011-12. 12. WITH THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE FIND THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS QUITE REASONED AND REASONABLE ONE AND DOES NOT INVI TE ANY INTERFERENCE BY THIS TRIBUNAL. WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOL D THE SAME AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2019. SD/- SD/- (G.S. PANNU) (K. NARSIMHA CHARY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30 TH SEP,2019 SH 5 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT BY ORDER ASS ISTANT REGISTRAR DRAFT DICTATED 30.09.2019 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR .09.2019 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS ORDER SIGNED AND PRONOUNCED ON .09.2019 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK .09.2019 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. DATE OF UPLOADING ON THE WEBSITE 15.10.2019