Rajiv Bansal, Kanpur V. DCIT-I, Kanpur

ITA 95/LKW/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 9523714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 23-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 1993-1994
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.95/LKW/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:1993 - 94 SHRI RAJEEV BANSAL, 52/33, NAYAGANJ, KANPUR. PAN:AAOPB9254B VS. DY.C.I.T. - 1, KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI SWARAN SINGH, C.A. RESPONDENT BY SHRI ALOK MITRA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 23/07/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 8 /07/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT (A) - II, KANPUR DATED 31/01/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993 - 94. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD. C.I.T.(A) - II, KANPUR HAVE FAILED TO CONFRONT THE SO CALLED RETURN RECEIPT REGISTER REFERRED TO AND MENTIONED IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH ON PAGE 4 OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. C.I.T.(A) - II, KANPUR, AND IN PARA 6 OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. A.O. U/S 154 DATED 27.09.2010, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH INFERENCE HAD BEEN DRAWN, THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT FILE THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON 18.08.1993, VIDE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT NO.001302 THEREFORE, THE CONCLUSION DRAWN THAT THE INTEREST CHARGED U/S 234 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1 IS CORRECT, IS WHOLLY UNWARRANTED, INSUPPORTABLE IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 2. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 245D/154/251 DATED 27.09.2010 AS WELL AS LD. C.I.T.(A) - II, 2 KANPUR DATED 31.01.2011, ARE BASED ON PRESUMP TION THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT FILE RETURN OF INCOME ON 18.08.1993, BUT BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE FAILED TO: A) SHOW WHICH RETURN OF INCOME WAS RECEIVED ON 18.08.1993 AGAINST ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT NO.001302, AND B) CONFRONT ANY MATERIAL, RE CORD OR EVIDENCE TO DISPROVE THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT. 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. C.I.T.(A) - II, KANPUR IS BAD IN LAW, CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND THEREFORE DESERVES TO BE ANNULLED. 4. THAT ANY OTHER RELIEF OR REL IEFS AS YOUR HONOUR MAY DEEM FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, BE GRANTED. 3. LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE SAME CONTENTIONS, WHICH WERE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A). IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE BENCH THAT WHETHER THE A SSESSEE IS IN A POSITION TO BRING ON RECORD ORIGINAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR FILING RETURN OF INCOME BUT IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ORIGINAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR FILING RETURN OF INCOME IS LOST . HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT PHOTOCOPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IS AVAILABLE AS ANNEXURE - 1 AND PHOTOCOPY OF FIR FILED WITH THE POLICE ON 05/03/2010 IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON RECORD AS PER WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS COMMUNICATED TO THE POLICE REGARDING LOSS OF BAG CONTAINING CENTRAL EXCISE, SALES TAX AND INC OME TAX FILES. HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ORIGINAL IS LOST BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE EXAMINED FROM THE RECORDS OF THE REVENUE. 4. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT A CLEAR FINDING IS GIVEN BY CIT(A) IN PARA 5 OF HIS OR DER THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SEARCHED THE RETURN RECEIPT REGISTER AND THERE WAS NO RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993 - 94 IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE FILED ON 18/08/1993 VIDE RECEIPT NO. 001302. THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PLACE ORIGINAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN WAS FILED ON 18/08/1993. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SEARCHED THE RETURN RE CEIPT REGISTER AND IT WAS REPORTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE WAS NO RETURN OF INCOME IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE FILED ON 18/08/1993 VIDE RECEIPT NO.001302. THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE SEARCHED THE RECORD AS PER LAW AND PRODUCED THE EVIDENCE ON RECO RD TO POINT OUT ANY DEFECT OR MISTAKE IN THIS FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A) BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DONE SO. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO BRING ANY ACCEPTABLE EVIDE NCE ON RECORD. HENCE, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 8 /07/2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR