Mr. Rajendra Kumar Ramtriya, Gwalior V. A.C.I.T., Circle-2, Gwalior

ITA 93/AGR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0714 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 02-07-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KK MISHRA
• Section: 271(1)(c); 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 93/AGRA/ 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 MR. RAJENDRA KUMAR RAMTRIYA, VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX LOHIYA BAZAR, LASHKAR, CIRCLE-2, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, GWALIOR CITY CENTER, GWALIOR . (PAN ABXPR6783M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.K. MISHRA, JR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 02.07.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.07.2013 ORDER PER A.L. GEHLOT,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), GWALIOR DATED 22.01.2013 FOR A.Y. 2007-08. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL PERTAIN TO LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, RS.84,423/- ITA NO.93/AGR/2013 A.Y.2007-08 2 3. THE CASE IS FIXED FOR HEARING AND IS ON BOARD SI NCE 22.05.2013. THE HEARING DATED 25.06.2013 WAS ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT COUNSEL IS OUT OF STATION, THEREFORE, UNABLE TO ATTEND THE HEARING . THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR TODAY I.E. 02.07.2013. THE ASSESSEE AGAIN FILED ADJ OURNMENT APPLICATION STATING THAT THE COUNSEL IS OUT OF STATION. 4. ON IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS, THE ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA IN THE CASE OF SURESH CHANDRA GUPTA VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 92/AGRA/2013, ORDE R EVEN DATED, REJECTED ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION. THE RELEVANT ABSTRACT IS R EPRODUCED AS BELOW:- THIS APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING ON 25.06.2013 AND IT WAS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE HIS COUNSEL HAS GONE OUT OF STATION FOR URGENT WORK, THEREFORE, THE ADJOURNMENT MAY BE GRANTED. ON THE REQUEST OF ASSESSEE, THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 02.07.2013. ON 02.07.2013, APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNM ENT IS FILED BY SHRI V. BAPNA, C.A. ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, IN W HICH IT WAS SIMILARLY MENTIONED THAT HIS COUNSEL HAS GONE OUT O F STATION, WHO IS EXPECTED TO COME BACK AFTER 15.07.2013. NO NAME OF COUNSEL IS MENTIONED IN THE APPLICATION. RECORD REVEALS THAT T HIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH SHRI V. BAPNA, GAJENDRA KUA MR JAIN AND GOPI MANDHAN, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS. THERE IS NO OT HER POWER OF ATTORNEY AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS, THEREFORE, CLE AR THAT SHRI V. BAPNA, C.A. WHO HAS FILED THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION FOR ASSESSEE IS AUTHORIZED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR IN TH E MATTER. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ASSESSEES COUNS EL BEING OUT OF STATION. IT MAY ALSO BE ADDED HERE THAT HE HAS ARGU ED OTHER APPEALS OF DIFFERENT ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF HEARING BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTS OF APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNM ENT ARE INCORRECT, FALSE AND WITHOUT REASONS. THEREFORE, THE REQUEST F OR ADJOURNMENT WAS REJECTED. WE MAY ALSO NOTE THAT SRI V. BAPNA, CA AN D GAJENDRA ITA NO.93/AGR/2013 A.Y.2007-08 3 KUMAR JAIN WERE PRESENT IN THE COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF PRESENT APPEAL, BUT THEY DID NOT ARGUE THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, HEARD EXPARTE. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON TH E ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. SINCE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING ABOVE ORDER OF ITAT, ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED . 6. AFTER HEARING LD. D.R., WE PROCEED TO DECIDE TH E APPEAL ON MERIT. 7. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SURVEY WA S CARRIED OUT UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT ON 29.11.2006. DURING THE ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS, TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.41,41,790/- WAS MADE. IN RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY INCLUDED THE SURRENDERED AMOUNT OF RS.38,90,976/- IN HIS INCOME WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. HOWEVER, THE A.O. MADE ADDITION O F RS.41,41,790/- AND AMOUNT SURRENDERED AND INCLUDED IN THE RETURN OF IN COME WAS RS.38,90,976/-, THEREFORE, DIFFERENCE OF RS.2,50,814/- FOR WHICH TH E ASSESSEE FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME FOR WHICH PENALTY UNDER SECTI ON 271(1)(C) BEING 100% AND THE TAX ON INCOME OF RS.2,50,814/- TO WHICH CALCUL ATION COMES TO RS.84,423/-. 8. THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE A.O. HAS BEEN CONFIRME D BY THE CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT NONE WAS PRESENT ON THE DATE OF HEARING I.E. 22.01.2013 NOR ANY ITA NO.93/AGR/2013 A.Y.2007-08 4 ADJOURNMENT OR REQUEST WAS MADE AND NO WRITTEN SUBM ISSION WAS FILED. BEFORE US ALSO THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EXPLANATION OR REASON WHY THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) COULD NOT BE LEVIED. IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY WAS LEVIED AND CONFIRMED WITHOUT PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING, BUT WE NOTICED THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE MATTER AS HE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND ALSO DID NOT FURNISH ANY EXPLANATION BEFORE THE CIT(A). SAME IS THE POSITION BEFORE US ALSO. SINCE, THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD OR CHANGE IN FACT WHICH WERE BEFORE THE CIT(A), IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT) SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (A.L. GEHLOT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER AMIT/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED CIT CONCERNED/D.R., ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA TRUE COPY