Kokila Devi, Kolkata V. DCIT, C.C.XX, Kolkata

ITSSA 4/KOL/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [NaN] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1983 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2021
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 143(3); 92; 153A; 250; 153C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T(SS) Nos.01 to 07/Kol/2021 (Assessment years: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Kokila Devi Baid...................................................................Appellant Oasis Towers, Flat 2, 10 th Floor, 37, Panditya Road, Kolkata. [PAN: ADFPB6461J] vs. CIT(A)-20, Kolkata....................................................................Respondent Appearances by: None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Deva Kr. Sonoyal, CIT-DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : March 3, 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : March 3, 2022 ORDER Per Bench: The captioned appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the separate orders all dated 18.11.2020 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment orders passed u/s 153A of the Act. 2. No one has put in appearance, despite notice, on behalf of the assessee, therefore, we proceed to decide these appeals on merits after hearing the ld. DR and after going through the record. 3. Since, facts and issues involved are identical in each of the appeals, therefore, these have been heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order. ITA No.07/Kol/2021 for assessment year 2012-13 is taken as lead case. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: I.T(SS) Nos.01 to 07/Kol/2021 Assessment years: 2006-07 to 2012-13 Kokila Devi Baid 2 “1) For that the order passed U/s 250 is bad in law to the extent that the Ld CIT(A) fails to appreciate fact that additions in the assessment proceeding u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 shall be made only on the basis of incriminating documents related with assessee found during the course of Search and Seizure operation initiated by the Income Tax Department. 2) For that the Ld. CIT (A) without satisfying with basis of addition of Rs.20,00,000/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer in the income of the appellant assessee confirm the addition by dismissing appeal. 3) For that the Ld. CTT (A). even if, there was no response from the appellant assessee fails to pursue the records available with the Income Tax Department. 4) For that the Ld. CIT (A) fails to verify facts on well settled law that proceeding u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act. 1961 shall be initiated only after recording satisfaction in the case of a person/entity where search was conducted and incriminating documents of the appellant assessee were seized and/or inventorized and similarly, satisfaction was recorded in the case of appellant assessee. 5) For that it is well settled law that additions in the proceedings initiated u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be based on incriminating documents of the appellant assessee seized and/or inventorized during the course of search and seizure operation initiated by the Income Tax Department. 6) For that other grounds in detail will be argued at the time of hearing.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that a search & seizure action was carried out by the Department on the premises of Baid Group of cases on 24.11.2011. Pursuant to the said search action, six assessment years from the date of search i.e. A.Y 2006-07 to A.Y 2011-12 were subjected to assessments u/s 153A of the Act. As per the provisions of the Act and assessment proceedings in the relevant year i.e. 2012-13 stood abated, therefore, were completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer noticed that there were cash deposits of different amounts in each of the assessment years. For the assessment year under consideration i.e 2012-13, the cash deposits was Rs.12,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer show-caused the assessee to prove the source of the aforesaid deposits and genuineness of the transaction. However, the assessee did not appear. Therefore, the Assessing Officer, in the absence of any assistance from the assessee, framed the ex parte assessments u/s 144 of the Act on the basis of the evidence on record available on file and made the impugned addition u/s 68 of the Act. I.T(SS) Nos.01 to 07/Kol/2021 Assessment years: 2006-07 to 2012-13 Kokila Devi Baid 3 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid additions, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). However, again no one put in appearance on behalf of the assessee before CIT(A) also. The ld. CIT(A), therefore, dismissed the appeal of the assessee observing as under: “iii. Grounds of appeal no. 3 & 4: The appellant has submitted that additions in the assessment proceedings u/s.153A4 can only be made on the basis of seized/impounded documents and not on estimation basis. In this regard I find that some incriminating information appears to have been gathered against the assessee during search proceedings. It is related to unexplained deposits in her Bank Account. The AO had asked the assessee to explain the source of such deposits. However, the assessee failed to provide any explanation along with supporting evidences. Besides, the assessee did not co-operate in the assessment proceedings and did not provide the details to the AO. Under the circumstances, AO was compelled to make additions on estimated basis which is on the basis of a hint of incriminating evidence gathered during the search. Therefore, contentions of the appellant are not acceptable and this ground is dismissed and determination of assessee’s income at Rs.20,00,000/- is confirmed.” Being aggrieved by the above order of the CIT(A), the assessee has come in appeal before us. However, no one has put in appearance before this Tribunal also, despite notice. 6. In this case, the Assessing Officer had found cash deposits during the different assessment years but on being asked to explain the assessee, neither appeared nor produced any explanation or evidences in respect of the source of the aforesaid deposits. The Assessing Officer, therefore, framed the ex parte assessment u/s 144 of the Act considering the material on record and made the impugned additions. Though the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but neither any one appeared nor furnished any evidence or explanation. The ld. CIT(A), therefore, observed that the assessee had failed to explain the source of deposits and further did not cooperate in the assessment proceedings and even did not provide any evidence or details during the appellate proceedings. The ld. CIT(A) accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Since, no one has put in appearance nor any explanation has been furnished before us also, therefore, there is nothing on record which may warrant our interference in the impugned orders of the CIT(A). Even the conduct of the assessee is also non-cooperative since the very beginning as no one has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee in the I.T(SS) Nos.01 to 07/Kol/2021 Assessment years: 2006-07 to 2012-13 Kokila Devi Baid 4 assessment proceedings, during the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A) and even before this Tribunal. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Since the identical grounds have been taken in all the appeals, our findings given above mutatis mutandis will apply in all the appeal, therefore, all the captioned appeals are therefore dismissed. 7. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed. Kolkata, the 3 rd March, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- [Manish Borad] [Sanjay Garg] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 03.03.2022. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Kokila Devi Baid 2. CIT(A)-20, Kolkata 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches