Shri Prakash B.Shah, Ahmedabad V. The ACIT, Circle-7, Ahmedabad

ITSSA 2/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3439 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-07-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 02-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVETIA
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NO.02/AHD/2014 BLOCK ASSTT. (BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1996 TO 25.07.2002) SHRI PRAKASH B.SHAH 5, MANSI APARTMENT 1, PRABHAT COLONY NR.VIDYANAGAR SCHOOL USMANPURA AHMEDABAD 380 014. VS. ACIT, CIR.7 AHMEDABAD. ( APPLICANT ) ( RESPONENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N.DIVETIA, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI SUBHASH BAINS, CIT-DR / DATE OF HEARING : 11/10/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17/11/2017 89/ O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST O RDER OF LD.CIT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD PASSED FOR BLOCK PERIOD STARTING FROM 1.4 .1996 AND ENDING ON 25.7.2002. 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NO T IN CONSONANCE WITH RULE 8 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES , 1963. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE REVISED GROUNDS AND AGAIN THESE ARE ALSO D ESCRIPTIVE AND ARGUMENTATIVE IN NATURE. IN BRIEF, GRIEVANCE OF T HE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.4. 00 LAKHS IN AN EX PARTE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 250 OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961. IT(SS)A NO.2 /AHD/2014 2 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF KHURA NA GROUP ON 25.7.2002. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE BUSINESS PREMISE S OF MSK PROJECT (INDIA) LTD. A DOCUMENT PARTICULARLY AN AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI P RAKASH B. SHAH ON A STAMP PAPER OF RS.20/- WAS FOUND AND SEIZED. THE AO OF S EARCHED PERSON HAS RECORDED SATISFACTION AND TRANSMITTED DOCUMENT TO T HE AO OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THIS AFFIDAVIT, THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN RS.2.00 LAKHS TO RASHMIKA KHURANA. THE AO HAS ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT HE DID NOT SUBMIT ANY DETAILS. HE ONLY FILED A RETURN UND ER LETTER DATED 24.10.2007 CONTENDING THEREIN THAT HE HAD NOT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME DURING THE BLOCK PERIOD. THE AO ON ANALYSIS OF BANK STATEMENT ARRIV ED AT A CONCLUSION THAT A SUM OF RS.4 LAKHS I.E. RS.2.00 LAKHS ON 30.10.1999 AND RS.2 LACS ON 2.11.1999 DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT. OUT OF THIS, GIFTS WERE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN HI S BANK ACCOUNT OUT OF WHICH GIFTS WERE GIVEN. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD.AO MADE ADDI TION OF RS.4 LAKHS. DISSATISFIED WITH ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE CAR RIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BUT DID NO T APPEAR AND DID NOT FILE ANY SUBMISSIONS. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. DISSATISFIED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), TH E ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BEARING IT(SS)A.NO.71/AHD/2008. THIS APPEAL WAS ALLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 29.5.2009 AND THE TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) FOR RE-ADJUDICAT ION. 5. A BARE PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WOULD INDIC ATE THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVEN 15 OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE. EVERY TIME ON THE SAME EXCUSES ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT BY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT OF T HE ASSESSEE. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS REPRODUCED REASONS ASSIGNED IN THESE APPLICATIONS, AND THEREAFTER REFUSED TO ADJOURNMENT. ACCORDING TO TH E LD.CIT(A) IN A SPAN OF IT(SS)A NO.2 /AHD/2014 3 MORE THAN 2 YEARS 15 TIMES APPEAL WAS LISTED FOR HEARING, BUT NO ONE HAS COME PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS WITH THE AVAILABLE MATERIAL, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DECIDED APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MER IT AND CONFIRMED ADDITION. 6. BEFORE US, SHRI S.N. DIVETIA, LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE EXHIBITING SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK. HE ADMITTED THAT THERE IS NO CASE WITH THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT. H OWEVER, HE CONTENDED THAT AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON HAS NOT RECORDED SATISFAC TION, AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. WE HAVE CONFRONTED SHRI DIVETIA TO SHOW BASIS FOR RAISING THIS ARGUMENT. WE HAVE P ERUSED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) IN THE FIRST ROUN D AS WELL AS IN THE SECOND ROUND, THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER RAISED THIS ARGUMENT. HE HAS NOT ARGUED ANY OF THIS ISSUE BEFORE THE AO. EVEN BEFORE US ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY GROUND OF APPEAL TO THIS EFFECT. HAD THE ASSESSEE FILED ANY APPLICATION UNDER RTI ACT AND SOUGHT DETAILS FROM THE AO CONTAINING S ATISFACTION NOTE, WE COULD APPRECIATE THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE. IT IS JUST AN ARGUMENT IN THE AIR, MORE SO, WHEN IRRESPONSIBLE PE RSON LIKE THE ASSESSEE, WHO HAS BEEN GIVEN SECOND OPPORTUNITY BY THE TRIBUNAL F OR SUBMITTING HIS CASE BEFORE THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BUT FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY DETAILS. WE DO NOT HAVE ANY SYMPATHY FOR CARRYING OUT A ROVING ENQUIRY. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL. IT IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 17TH NOVEMBER, 201 7 AT AHMEDABAD. S D / - (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S D / - (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 17/11/2017