Shri Ranjitsinh D.Thakor(Tadvi), Baroda V. The ACIT.,Cent.Circle-2, Baroda

ITSSA 81/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8137 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 26-09-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K GUPTA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND A. MOHAN ALAN KAMONY, AM) ITSS NO.81/AHD/2009 A. Y.: 2005-06 RANJITSINH D. THAKOR (TADVI), PROP. RANJIT PETROLEUM, NR. SARAVATI COMPLEX, MANGALPUR, VADODARA VS THE A. C. I. T., CEN. CIR-2, BARODA PA NO. AECPT 7249 C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI S. K. GUPTA, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING: 26-09-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26-09-2011 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-IV , AHMEDABAD DATED 18-03-2009, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, CHAL LENGING THE ADDITION OF RS.8,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH/SURVEY, IT WAS FOUN D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN OVER THE PETROL PUMP ON CONTRACT . IN EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT THE ASSESSEE MADE TERM DEPOSIT OF RS.8 ,00,000/- WITH UMA COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. THE SOURCE OF THE SAME CO ULD NOT BE EXPLAINED, ADDITION WAS ACCORDINGLY MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO, NO DOCU MENTARY ITA NO.81/AHD/2009 RANJITSINH D. THAKOR (TADVI) VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCL E-2, BARODA 2 EVIDENCES WERE FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME. APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS B. N. BHATTACHARGEE AND OTHERS, 118 ITR 461 OBSERVED THAT PREFERRING AN APPEAL, MEANS EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. THE HONBLE M. P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS COMM ISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, 223 ITR 480 DISMISSED THE REFERENCE FIL ED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEFAULT AND FOR NOT TA KING NECESSARY STEPS. CONSIDERING THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE A PPEAL. BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF CIT V S MULTIPLAN INDIA (PVT.) LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND THE ABOVE DECISIO NS, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER LAKSHMIKANT/- ITA NO.81/AHD/2009 RANJITSINH D. THAKOR (TADVI) VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCL E-2, BARODA 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER D Y. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD