Shri Vinod M. Sherlekar., Bengaluru V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Magaluru., Mangaluru

ITSSA 1/PAN/2017

AI Insights

The case involves Vinod M. Sherlekar, an individual engaged in various business ventures including real estate, who appealed against the assessment order issued by the Assessing Officer under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment followed a search and seizure operation conducted on his premises, which led to the discovery of documents that were part of the seizure. Despite being given multiple opportunities to present his books of accounts and other documents, the assessee failed to comply, leading to a best judgment assessment. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the assessment order and the appellate order, dismissing the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 136853 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: WT(D)
• Next Hearing Date: 05-09-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 19-02-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Search and seizure
• Section: 132; 144; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH :: PANAJI BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Through virtual hearing) IT(SS)A No.01/PAN/2017 (A.Y. 2014-15) Vinod M. Sherlekar, D.No. 4-1-103, Veenu Constructions, Ballalbagh, M.G. Road, Mangaluru. PAN: AHMPS 4701 M vs ACIT, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru. Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Smt. Ashwini Hosmani, Sr.DR Date of hearing : 06/09/2023 Date of pronouncement : 20/09/2023 O R D E R Per PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Panaji, dated 21.11.2016 for A.Y.2014-15 as per the grounds of appeal on record. 2. That, on perusal of the grounds of appeal as evident the assessee is aggrieved with the assessment order being framed u/sec. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') by the Assessing Officer (AO). The ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee as per the reasoning appearing in his order. 3. At the time of hearing, none appeared for the assessee. The submissions of the ld.DR were recorded, the materials/documents on IT(SS) A No.01/PAN/2017 Vinod M Sherlekar 2 record were considered and the case was heard on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual carrying on business of real estate and is proprietor of M/s. Veenu Constructions, M/s. Veenu Hotel International and M/s. U.R. Shenoy apart from being the Managing Director of M/s. Veenu Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. and partner in M/s. Frontline Automobiles. A search and seizure operation u/sec. 132 of the Act was conducted in the business premises of the assessee on 04/09/2013. During the course of search, certain documents were found and the same were made part of the search and seizure. The case was centralized to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) and notice was issued u/sec. 143(3) dated 11/03/2014 calling upon the assessee to file his return of income for the A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2014-15. Subsequently, statutory notices were issued and the assessee was called upon to furnish certain informations, which at the initial stage, assessee had furnished. Thereafter, as the assessment proceedings proceeded in spite of several reminders, the assessee has submitted neither the books of accounts nor any supporting documents. Accordingly, notice for completion of scrutiny u/sec. 144 of the Act was issued on the assessee on 07/03/2016 for which there was no response. The assessee was given ample opportunity to provide evidences and produce the books of accounts, however, neither the assessee nor his authorized representative had produced the books of accounts nor the documentary evidences as called for before the AO. Accordingly, the IT(SS) A No.01/PAN/2017 Vinod M Sherlekar 3 assessment was completed resorting to the best judgment assessment u/sec. 144 of the Act considering the documents available on record. Even before this Tribunal also, the assessee has failed to comply with the hearing notice. On perusal of the record, it is precise and clear that assessee had taken casual approach and has not considered the ongoing legal process under the Act and has fully neglected all the opportunities given to him to comply with the notices before the AO. Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances, we do not find any infirmity with the assessment order passed u/sec. 143(3) r.w.s. 144 of the Act. Hence, these grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 5. We have also perused the order of the ld. CIT(A) and we do not find any infirmity in the said order. The ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated on all the issues and have given specific findings. It is well pronounced and speaking order and therefore the findings of the ld. CIT(A) are upheld. The grounds raised against the order of ld. CIT(A) are dismissed. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court on 20 th September, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 20 th September, 2023 IT(SS) A No.01/PAN/2017 Vinod M Sherlekar 4 vr/- Copy to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 5. The DR, ITAT, Panaji Bench, Panaji. 6. Guard File. By Order // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary ITAT, Pune.