Shri.C.A.Kumar , Bangalore V. Income Tax Officer Ward-5(2)(5), Bangalore

ITA 94/BANG/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5009 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 14-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: TSHERING ONGDA; DILIP JUNIOR STANDING
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 94 / BANG/201 9 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 10 SHRI C.A. KUMAR, NO. 366, 12 TH MAIN, HANUMANTHA NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 050. PAN: AGUPK2061K VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5 (2) (5), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI TSHERING ONGDA, JCIT (DR) & SHRI DILIP, JUNIOR STANDING COUNSEL DATE OF HEARING : 14 .0 5 .201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.05.2019 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A)-10, BANGALORE DATED 10.09.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER. 1. THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT IS NOT A SPEAKING ORDER AND ITIS ONLY A ONE SIDED ONE AND ALSO FALSE, FRIVOLOUS, VEXATIOUSAND ALSO MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. 2. THE ABOVE SAID ORDER IS ONLY TO HARASSING THE APPELLANT ANDTO EXPLOIT SOMETHING FROM THE APPELLANT AND DUE TO HIS ILLEGAL ACTS OF THE RESPONDENT; THE APPELLANT IS SUFFERING FROM MENTAL AGONY AND PHYSICAL TORTURE FROM THE LASTSEVERAL YEARS. 3. THE CONCERNED OFFICIALS HAS COLLUDED EACH OTHER WITH MALAFIDE INTENTION AND DIRECTLY ASKED THE BRIBE AMOUNT OFRS. 30,000/= BY ONE MR. A.D. BASAVARAJU, INCOME-TAX OFFICER AND RS. 50, 000/= BY ANOTHER ONE MR. MOHAMMEDASLAM PASHA, INCOME-TAX OFFICER, FAILURE TO THEIR MYCOMMITMENT, THEY HAVE ISSUED THE ABOVE SAID IMPUGNEDORDER IN ORDER TO LOWER THE PRESTIGE IN THE EYES OF PUBLIC. 4. IN THIS BEHALF I HAVE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THECOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) 10, BANGALORE ANDHE HAS DEMANDED BY WAY OF WHISPERING 10% OF THE TOTALAMOUNT OF RS.10, 02, 790/= TO CLOSE THE FILE. ITA NO.94/BANG/2019 PAGE 2 OF 5 5. THE CONCERNED OFFICIALS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER WITHOUTSEEING THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THEMEVEN THOUGH THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY PASSED THE IMPUGNEDORDER DATED 10-09-2018, CAUSES IRREPARABLE INJURY ANDHARDSHIP TO THE APPELLANT HEREIN. 6. DUE TO THE ABOVE SAID IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THERESPONDENT AND SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT BY NOT ALLOWINGTHE APPEAL, THE APPELLANT IS SUFFERING FROM MENTAL AGONYAND PHYSICAL TORTURE AND ALSO CAUSE MIS-UNDERSTANDINGBETWEEN THE SON AND ALSO WITH WIFE FROM LAST SEVERALWEEKS. IT CREATES A RIPPLE IN THE FAMILY CIRCLE RESULT OF WHICHBICKERING STARTED AMONG THE FAMILY MEMBERS. 7. THE ABOVE SAID OFFICIALS ARE ALL COLLUDED WITH EACH OTHER AND WITH MALAFIDE INTENTION TO ISSUE THE ABOVE SAID ORDERAGAINST THE APPELLANT. 8. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT IS FABRICATED FAR FROMTRUTH NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND BLINDLY PASSED THEIMPUGNED ORDER, ONLY- WITH THE SOLE PURPOSE TO COLLECTMONEY FROM THE APPELLANT AT ANY COST. 9. THE PROPERTY WHICH HAS BEEN SOLD ON 10-08-2009 FOR RS.29,00,000/= WHICH IS A FINANCIAL YEAR BUT IN THE ORDER SHEETDATED 28/12/2016 ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD5(2)(5), BANGALORE SHOWN AS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, BUTACTUALLY THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2010-11. THE SAID ORDERITSELF IS NOT CORRECT AND WRONG IN NATURE.THEREBY, THE SAIDORDER ITSELF IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AS PER LAW. THE ORDER ITSELFIS A VOID DOCUMENT. THE PROCEEDINGS ITSELF IS ONLY A FUTILEEXERCISE BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-10, BANGALORE. HE HAS ALSO COMMITTED A FRAUD IN CONDUCTINGTHE PROCEEDINGS THOUGH THE APPELLANT BROUGHT THIS MATTERBEFORE HIM. HE HAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. THE SOLEPURPOSE THAT HE WANTS TO COLLECT THE BRIBE AMOUNT FROM THEAPPELLANT. 10. THE PROPERTY WHICH HAS BEENPURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT FOR RS. 24,00,000/= ON 06-08-2011 IS WELL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF 2 YEARS OF TIME. THIS IS WELLWITHIN THE PERIOD OF STIPULATED TIME AS PER INCOME- TAXRULES. THE MATTER BROUGHT BEFORE THE SAID INCOME-TAXOFFICER AND ALSO BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX BUTBOTH OF THEM FAILED TO TAKE THIS MATTER INTO ACCOUNT. THEIRMAIN INTENTION IS TO COLLECT MONEY FROM THE APPELLANT. 11. THE APPELLANT HAS SOLD THE PROPERTYFOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.29.00 LAKHS ON 10-08-2009 AND HEHAS PURCHASED A PROPERTY FOR RS.24.00 LAKHS ON 06-05-2011.THE BALANCE LEFT OVER IS ONLY RS.5.00 LAKHS. THEN HOW THEAPPELLANT CAN CONSTRUCT A HOUSE FOR JUST MEAGER SUM OF RS.5 LAKHS.BOTH SHOULD HAVE MINIMUM SENSE TO UNDERSTANDTHIS PROBLEM. THIS HAS BEEN CLEARLY EXPLAINED TO THEAPPELLATE AUTHORITY AND SIMPLY HE HAS ACCEPTED BY WAY OFLIP SYMPATHY AND ALSO SHOWING HIS SMILING FACE TO THEAPPELLANT. THIS IS NOTHING PLAYING DRAMA BY ITA NO.94/BANG/2019 PAGE 3 OF 5 THESE TWOOFFICIALS IN FRONT OF THE APPELLANT IN THEIR OFFICIAL CHAMBER.THEIR MAIN TARGET IS TO COLLECT MONEY FROM THE APPELLANT BYHOOK OR CROOK. WITHOUT CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTORS, HE HASFURTHER PASSED THE ONE MORE IMPUGNED ORDER TO PUT THEAPPELLANT INTO THIS AWKWARD POSITION. 12. THE APPELLANT, AT THIS AGE, HE COULDNOT GET ANY LOAN FROM ANY CORNER TO CONSTRUCT A HOUSE. THISFACT, THE APPELLATE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF BOTH INCOME-TAX OFFICER AND ALSO TO THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THEIR MAININTENTION IS THAT THEY WANT TO GRAB THE MONEY AS MUCH ASPOSSIBLE. 13. THE RESPONDENT HAS TO EXPLAIN HOWHE HAS ARRIVED/CALCULATED THE TAX AMOUNT OF RS. 4,34,490/= AGAINST THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF JUST RS. 5,00,000/=LEFT OVER AFTER PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FOR A SUM OF RS.24.00LAKHS. THIS IS ITSELF, A WRONG ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ENTIREASSESSMENT ORDER IS TO BE SET ASIDE FROM THE SAIDPROCEEDINGS. 14. FURTHER THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT ASPER THE ANNEXURE IN THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER THE WORKINGSHEET OF THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IS NOT CORRECT. THEFIGURES ARRIVED IS FAR FROM TRUTH. IF ANYBODY LOOKS INTO THISANNEXURE AND CAREFULLY ANALYSES, THE ASSESSMENT ORDERITSELF IS ONLY A FARCE DOCUMENT WITH ONLY INTENTION TOBLACKMAIL THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF IS ONLYA VOID DOCUMENT DUE TO WRONG CALCULATIONS. 15. THE APPELLANT EVEN TODAY STAYING IN ARENTED HOUSE AND HE HAS TO CONTINUE HIS LIFE FOR MANY MOREYEARS AND HOW HE CAN ABLE TO MANAGE THIS HUGE TAX BURDEN. ANNEXURE WORKING SHEET OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN SALE PROCEEDS RECEIVED RS. 29, 00, 000/= LESSINDEX COST OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY NOTE A) PREVAILING MARKET RATE- DURING THE YEAR 90-91 @ RS. 259 PER SQ FT B) TOTAL DIMENSION OF THE PLOT 18.28 X 12.19 MTRS. C) WHICH IS CONVERTED INTO THE 2400 SQ FT D) IT IS THEREFORE 2400 X 259 E) INDEX COST PRICE = 6,21,600 X 711 182 RS. 24, 28, 338/= RS.4,71, 662/= F) LESSSALE COMMISSION RS. 50, 000/= RS,4, 21, 000/= G) LESSTHE COST OF THE PLOT PURCHASED- RS.4, 30, 000/= APART FROM THIS, THE SAID PLOT WAS PURCHASED FOR ACONSIDERATION ITA NO.94/BANG/2019 PAGE 4 OF 5 OF RS. 4,00,000/= AND OTHER EXPENSES ABOUT RS.30,000/= SUCH AS REGISTRATION CHARGES AND OTHER MISLENIOUSEXPENSES. THE TOTAL COST COMES TO AROUND RS. 4,30,000/=. IF YOUTAKE ALL THESE INTO ACCOUNT, THE MATTER OF PAYMENT OF INCOME-TAXWILL NOT ARISE. THE ABOVE WORKING SHEET OF THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ISCLEARLY INDICATES FALSE AND CONCOCTED DATA WAS SHOWN IN THE SAIDASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28-12-2016 WHICH SHOULD BE SET ASIDE INTHE PROCEEDINGS IMMEDIATELY SO THAT IT MAY LEAD TO FAR REACHINGLEGAL CONSEQUENCES BEFORE THE EYE OF LAW. THE APPELLANT ALREADY REACHES 65 YEARS OF AGE. HE HAS GOTLOT OF HEALTH PROBLEMS DUE TO OLD AGE AND THERE ARE HUGE MEDICALEXPANSES WHICH HE HAS TO BEAR DURING HIS REST OF HIS LIFE. THIS IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE ITO TO PAY RS. 10,02,790/= IS SURPRISING TO THE APPLICANT. 3. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING FOR THE FIRST TIME ON 06.02.2019 AND ON THIS DATE, SOME MR. S.R. RAO APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT AND ON HIS ORAL REQUEST, THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 05.03.2019. ON 05.03.2019, THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION AND THEREFORE, THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 02.04.2019 AND NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD ON THE ADDRESS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO. 36. THE NOTICE HAS COME BACK UNSERVED WITH THE REMARKS NO SUCH PERSON IN THIS ADDRESS. ON 02.04.2019 ALSO, THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION AND THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 14.05.2019 AND NOTICE OF HEARING WAS AGAIN SENT TO ASSESSEE BY RPAD ON THE SAME ADDRESS. THIS NOTICE HAS ALSO COME BACK UNSERVED WITH THE SAME REMARKS BY THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY OTHER ADDRESS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND HENCE, IT IS SEEN THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO. 36, THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT SERVE THE NOTICE ON THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, I FEEL IT PROPER TO DECIDE THIS APPEAL EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. I FEEL THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL AND THEREFORE, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. AS REPORTED IN 38 ITD 320 (DEL), I DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNADMITTED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 16 TH MAY, 2019. /MS/ ITA NO.94/BANG/2019 PAGE 5 OF 5 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.