Smt. Hansaben Bharatbhai Jariwala, Surat V. The Income tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Surat

ITA 861/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 86120514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L KUREEL
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

` IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH BEFORE: SRI D.K TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER HANSABEN BHARTBHAI JARIWALA, PROP. OF RIDDHI FABRICS, B-195, MIRANAGAR, UDHNA, SURAT (APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD 2(1), SURAT (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: SRI P.L.KUREEL, SR.D.R. ASSESSEE BY: NONE DATE OF HEARING : 17-02-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26-02-20 14 / ORDER PER : D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- BOTH THESE APPEALS BELONG TO SAME ASSESSEE AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. ITA NOS. 861 & 862/AHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 I.T.A NOS 861&862 /AHD/2011 A.Y. 2001-02 PAGE NO HANSABEN BHARATBHAI JARIWALA VS. ITO 2 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE DESPITE THE FACT THAT NOTICE FOR TODAYS HEARING WAS SERVED UPON HIM WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT PLACED ON RECORD. SO WE P ROCEEDED TO DECIDE THESE APPEALS AFTER HEARING LD. DR. 3. ITA NO. 861/AHD/2011 IS AGAINST QUANTUM ADDITION BEING CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 6 TH JANUARY, 2011 AND ITA NO. 862/AHD/2011 IS AGAINST PENALTY IMPOSED BY AO UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) ON SUCH ADDITION, WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT( A) VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 19-01-2011. FIRST WE WILL TAKE UP ITA NO. 861/AHD/2011 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL:- 11. THAI THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SURAT GROSSLY ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT APPR ECIATION THE FACTS OF ADJOURNMENT. 2. THE APPELLANT IS IN VERY BAD FINANCIAL CRISIS AND THREE CRIMINAL CASES FOR CHEQUE RETURNED HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE BY THE PARTIES AND NO BUSINESS SINCE LAST 10 YEARS. 3. THERE WAS NO PERSON TO APPEAR BEFORE CIT (APPE ALS) BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID FEES TO LEGAL COUNSELOR AND C ASE WAS EXPARTE BY THE CIT (APPEALS) THOUGH THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSE E PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE HIM AND INFORMED ALL THE FACTS TO T HE CIT (APPEALS). 4. THE LEARNED INCOME TAX OFFICER GROSSLY ERRED I N REJECTING THE CONTRA ACCOUNT, BANK STATEMENTS, AFFIDAVITS, ETC. A FTER OBSERVING ALL THESE PAPERS. I.T.A NOS 861&862 /AHD/2011 A.Y. 2001-02 PAGE NO HANSABEN BHARATBHAI JARIWALA VS. ITO 3 5. THE LEARNED INCOME TAX OFFICER GROSSLY ERRED IN STATING THAT YOUR INCOME TAX CASE IS NOW VERY STRONG AND THESE PAPERS YOU SUBMIT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SURAT. 6. THE LEARNED INCOME TAX OFFICER GROSSLY ERRED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF ALL DEPOSITORS WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONS IDERATION THE CONTRA A/C., PAN NO, AFFIDAVITS, ETC. 7. THE LEARNED INCOME TAX OFFICER GROSSLY ERRED I N MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.10 , 24,020/- U/S, 68 OF THE ACT. INSTEAD OF MAKING ADDITION U/S.68 OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE OF DEPOSITO RS. 8. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.10, 24,020 MADE U/S.68 OF THE ACT. MAY PLEASE BE DELETED IN TOTO. 5. THIS IS SECOND INNING OF LITIGATION BY THE ASSES SEE BEFORE US. 6. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING ASSESSEE PROCEEDINGS AO FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN LOANS/DEPOSITS FROM 23 PERS ONS OF VARIOUS AMOUNTS TOTALING TO RS. 10,18,560/-. TO VERIFY THE CREDITW ORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS ASSESSEE WAS GI VEN SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES. CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM THAT CREDITORS WERE HAVING SOURCE OF ADVA NCING THESE ADVANCES TO HIM. AO HOWEVER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANA TION/DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM T HAT SUM OF RS. 10,18,560/- WAS RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE FROM THESE CREDITORS AND T HEREFORE HE ADDED THIS AMOUNT TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. INTEREST PAI D BY THE ASSESSEE TO THESE PERSONS AMOUNTING TO RS. 54,60/- WAS ALSO DISALLOWE D AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL I.T.A NOS 861&862 /AHD/2011 A.Y. 2001-02 PAGE NO HANSABEN BHARATBHAI JARIWALA VS. ITO 4 INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE THE REFORE WORKED OUT TO RS. 10,24,020/-. 7. ASSESSEE CARRIED THIS MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) W HO AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY PASSING AN EX-PARTE ORDER AS ASSESSEE DID NOT AVAIL THE OPP ORTUNITIES PROVIDED BY THE LD. CIT(A). WHEN THE MATTER WENT TO HONBLE ITAT, THE MATTER WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) WITH A DIRE CTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING PROPER OP PORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE. IN ACCORDANCE OF THESE DIRECTIONS OF THE HONBLE ITAT, LD. CIT(A) AGAIN GAVE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSE SSEE TO PRESENT HIS CASE BEFORE HIM, BUT WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE NEITHER APPEA RED PERSONALLY BEFORE LD. CIT(A) NOR THROUGH HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. THEREFORE HE WAS LEFT WITH NO ALTERNATE BUT TO PASS AN EX-PARTE ORDER AGA IN ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, AND WHILE DOING SO HE AGREED W ITH THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE THEN LD. CIT(A) IN THE FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATIO N. 8. SINCE BEFORE US ALSO ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO APPE AR DESPITE THE FACT THAT NOTICE FOR TODAYS HEARING WAS DULY SERVED UPON HER , IT APPEARS THAT SHE DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO SUPPORT THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY H ER BEFORE US, AND THEREFORE WE FEEL NO NEED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORD ER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. 9. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. I.T.A NOS 861&862 /AHD/2011 A.Y. 2001-02 PAGE NO HANSABEN BHARATBHAI JARIWALA VS. ITO 5 NOW COMING TO ITA NO. 862/AHD/2011 10. THIS APPEAL RELATES TO CONFIRMING OF THE PENALT Y LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT OF RS. 3,60,000/- ON THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 10,24,020/- U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. 11. FACTS IN THIS CASE ARE SIMILAR TO ITA NO. 861/A HD/2011. AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS LEVIED PENALTY OF RS. 3, 60,000/- ON THE ADDITION MADE BY HIM U/S. 68 OF THE ACT OF RS. 10,24,020/-. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE DID NOT AVAIL THE OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN BY HIM TO PRESENT HER CASE BEFORE HIM AND THEREFORE BY PASSING AN EX-PARTE ORDER, THIS PENALTY WAS CONFIRMED. WHEN THE MATTER REACHED HONBLE ITAT, THE MATTER WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT (A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AS IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS MATTER WAS RESTORED BACK TO HIS FILE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE MATTER WAS AGAIN FIXED FOR HEARIN G. LD. CIT(A) GAVE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE BUT ASSESSEE CHOSE NOT TO APPEAR BEFORE HIM. HE WAS LEFT WITH NO OPTION BUT TO CONFIRM THE PENALTY LEVIED BY AO. 12. SINCE BEFORE US ALSO ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO APP EAR DESPITE THE FACT THAT NOTICE FOR TODAYS HEARING WAS DULY SERVED UPON HER , IT APPEARS THAT SHE DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO SUPPORT THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY H ER BEFORE US, AND THEREFORE WE FEEL NO NEED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORD ER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. 13. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL IS ALSO DISMISSED. I.T.A NOS 861&862 /AHD/2011 A.Y. 2001-02 PAGE NO HANSABEN BHARATBHAI JARIWALA VS. ITO 6 14. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- (T.R. MEENA) ( D.K. TYAGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 26/02/2014 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,