Shri Hitendra K. Shah, Baroda V. The ACIT., Cent.Circle-2, Baroda

ITSSA 182/AHD/2006

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7763 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 09-02-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 10-07-2006
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: J P SHAH SRAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD AHMEDABAD C BENCH BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT (AZ) AND SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NO.182/AHD/2006 BLOCK PERIOD FROM: 1/4/96 TO 11/3/03 SHRI HITENDRA K SHAH, 8 TH FLOOR,NEPTUNE TOWERS, PRODUCTIVITY ROAD, BARODA PAN NO.AAGPS0962G / V/S . ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, BARODA / APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /APPELLANT BY SHRI J.P. SHAH, SR-AR /RESPONDENT BY SHRI S.K. GUPTA, CIT-DR / DATE OF HEARING 09-02-2012 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17-02/2012 !' !' !' !' / // / ORDER PER B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARISES FROM THE ORDER O F LD. COMMISSIONER OF INC-TAX (APPEALS)-IV, AHMEDABAD DAT ED 31-03-2006 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD FROM 01-04-1996 TO 11-03-2003 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN HOLDING THE APPEAL TO BE INFRUCTUOUS AND IN THE PROCESS NOT DEALING WITH THE APPEAL. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING AD DITION OF RS.2,75,497 ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN HOUSEH OLD ARTICLES / EQUIPMENTS. IT(SS)A NO.182/AHD/2006 B.P 1/4/96 TO 11/3/03 SH HITENDRA K SHAH V. ACIT CC-2 BRD PAGE 2 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING AD DITION OF RS.8,70,000 AS UNEXPLAINED CASH. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING AD DITION OF RS.4,49,637 ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN FDR 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING AD DITION OF RS.536,200 ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN IMMOVA BLE PROPERTY. 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING AD DITION OF RS.7,15,000 ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN SOUTHE RN ASPHALT, MANGALAORE. 7. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING AD DITION OF RS.4,48,836 ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN LIC PR EMIUM. 8. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING AD DITION OF RS.8,40,000 ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN KHAYAT I CERAMICS AND N K MOMAYA. 9. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING AD DITION OF RS.3,67,625 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY. 10. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S. 158BFA(1) OF THE ACT. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL VIDE PAR A-3 OF HER ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY HEREIN BELOW:- 3. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THIS ORDE R HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF TIKI TAR INDUSTRIES, BAR ODA. HENCE, ALL THESE MATTERS WOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF TI KI TAR INDUSTRIES. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, THIS APPEAL BECOM ES INFRUCTUOUS HENCE, DISMISSED. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER VIDE PARA-11 HIMSELF HAS ASSESSED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT NIL. TH E RELEVANT PARA-11 OF AO'S ORDER IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- IT(SS)A NO.182/AHD/2006 B.P 1/4/96 TO 11/3/03 SH HITENDRA K SHAH V. ACIT CC-2 BRD PAGE 3 11. HOWEVER, AS THE ENTIRE UNDISCLOSED INCOME HAS BEEN OFFERED IN THE HANDS OF M/S. TIKI TAR INDUSTRIES, BARODA ON INCOME/SOURCE BASIS AND AS THE ASSESSEE IS PARTNER IN THE SAID FI RM AND INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.40,,02,995 HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX ATION IN THE BLOCK RETURN BY M/S. TIKI TAR INDUSTRIES, THE UNDIS CLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD IS TAKEN AS NIL A S ENTIRE AMOUNT HAS BEEN TAXED AT SOURCE BASIS. THEREFORE, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTS OF THE CA SE, THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND NO APPEAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS MENTIONED HEREINABO VE IN PARA-3 OF HER ORDER HAS RIGHTLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). THUS, ALL THE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE DISMISSED AS TREATING THE SAME AS INFRUC TUOUS. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. # !' $!%& 17/ 0 2 /2012 * + , - THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 17/02/ 2012 . SD/- SD/- ( G.C.GUPTA ) ( B.P. JAIN ) (VICE PRESIDENT) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) $!%&- 17/02/2012 /!! - DKP* !' !' !' !' 001 001 001 001 21 21 21 21 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. %%05 6 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 6- / CIT (A) 5. 19, 0005, 05, /!! / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ,<= ># / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ !' , /TRUE COPY/ ?// %@ 05, /!! -