VARUN KUMAR JAIN ,NABHA V. ITO, WARD, NABHA

ITA 770/CHANDI/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 139 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7658 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-08-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 07-12-2023

Judgement Text

" \n आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़ \nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \nCHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘SMC’, CHANDIGARH \n \nBEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT & \nSHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER \n \nआयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 770/CHD/2023 \n Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2017-18 \n \nVarun Kumar Jain, \nProp. Varun Jewellers, \nNear Kesho Ram Halwai, \nAapo Application Street, \nNabha \n \nVs. \n बनाम \n \nThe ITO, \nWard, \nNabha \nèथायी लेखा सं./PAN No: AFUPJ3948R \nअपीलाथȸ/ APPELLANT \n \nĤ×यथȸ/ \nREPSONDENT \n \n( PHYSICAL HERING ) \n \n \n \n \n \nǓनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Assessee by : Shri N. K. Sahi, Advocate \nराजèव कȧ ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Dharam Vir , JCIT, Sr. DR \n \nसुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing \n \n: \n06.08.2024 \nउदघोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement \n: \n30.10.2024 \n \n \nआदेश/Order \n \nPer Krinwant Sahay, A.M.: \n \nThe appeal in this case has been filed by the Assessee against \nthe order dated 20.11.2023 of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax \n(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. \n \n2. \nGrounds of appeal taken by the Assessee are as under: - \n\n770-Chd-2023 – \nVarun Kumar Jain, Nabha \n \n \n2 \n \n \n \n \n1. \nThat the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) \nhas confirmed the assessment made by the Ld. \nIncome Tax Officer u/s 144 of Income Tax Act, 196I \non the ground that the return of income was filed by \nthe appellant beyond the period stipulated in the \nnotice u/s 142(1) dated 08.03.2018 whereas the \nreturn was filed within the time extended through \nadjournments. \n \n2. \nThe learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) \nhas erred in confirming the addition of cash deposits \nof Rs. 12,34,000/- under section 69A of the Income \nTax Act, 1961 whereas the cash deposits are sale \nproceeds of business run by the appellant. \n \n3. \nThe learned Income Tax Officer is not justified in \ncharging total income of Rs.2,98,080/- declared by \nthe appellant in his return of income to tax under \nsection 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961on the \nground that Income Tax Return was not filed within \nthe stipulated period. \n \n4. \nDuring the first appellate proceedings, the appellant \nraised an additional ground of appeal regarding non-\nissuance of statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Income \nTax Act, 1961 by the Income Tax Officer before \nfinalizing the assessment proceedings, however, \nneither the ITO offered any comments during remand \nproceedings nor the Ld. CIT (A) adjudicated upon the \nissue. \n \n5. \nThe appellant craves leave to add or amend any \nground of appeal before it is finally heard. \n \n\n770-Chd-2023 – \nVarun Kumar Jain, Nabha \n \n \n3 \n \n \n \n \n3. \nBrief facts of the case, as per the CIT(A) are that as that the \nAssessee is an individual and he did not file his return of income for \nthe A.Y. 2017-18 despite making cash deposits in his bank account \nduring the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer issued notices \nu/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') requesting \nthe Assessee to file return of income but he Assessee did not file any \nreturn of income in response to notices issued by the Assessing \nOfficer. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer \nprovided many opportunities to the Assessee to explain the nature and \nsource of deposits made during the demonization period, however, the \nAssessee did not gave any satisfactory explanation during the \nassessment \nproceedings. \nTherefore, \nthe \nA.O. \ncompleted \nthe \nassessment u/s 144 of the Act making an addition of Rs. 12,34,000/- \nas unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and Rs. 2,98,080/- was \nfurther added as per computation of income filed by the Assessee. \n \n4. \nDuring the proceedings before the Tribunal, the Counsel of the \nAssessee has filed as written submissions wherein, it has been \nmentioned that the Assessee is a small trader running his business in \nthe name and style of M/s Varun Jewellery. He did not file his return \n\n770-Chd-2023 – \nVarun Kumar Jain, Nabha \n \n \n4 \n \n \n \nof income voluntarily within time specified u/s 139(1) of the Income \nTax Act. The A.O. issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 8.2.2018 \nasking the Assessee to file his return. Another notice was issued on \n12.3.2018 asking the Assessee to file his Income tax return on or \nbefore 31.3.2018 but the Assessee did not file return in response to \nsuch notices and when the assessment proceeding were going on after \nthe lapse of more than half year on 23.09.2019, the Assessee filed its \nreturn of income. \n \n5. \nAt the very outset, the ld. DR pointed out that the return filed \nby the Assessee on 23.9.2019 was barred by limitation because for \nF.Y. 2016-17, the last date of filing of the return was on 31.3.2018 but \ndespite notices issued by the Assessing Officer, the Assessee did not \nfile any income tax return before that date. Therefore, the written \nsubmissions filed by the Assessee on 23.9.2019 may not be taken for \nthese proceedings. The Counsel of the Assessee accepted that the \nwritten submission was not filed in time despite notices received from \nthe A.O., therefore, the return filed on 23.89.2019 was an invalid \nreturn. \n \n\n770-Chd-2023 – \nVarun Kumar Jain, Nabha \n \n \n5 \n \n \n \n6. \nWe have considered the findings given by the Assessing Officer in \nthe assessment order and by the ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order and \nwe have also considered the written submissions as well as the \narguments of the Counsel of the Assessee during the proceeding before \nus. We have heard the arguments of the ld. DR also. We find that as \nalready discussed above, since the return filed by the Assessee was an \ninvalid return, therefore, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed \non this Ground. \n \n7. \nWe are not giving findings on other grounds of appeal as the \nvery basis of the appeal, the return of income was a invalid one \nAccordingly, the Assessee’s appeal is dismissed. \n \n8. \nIn the result, the appeal is dismissed. \nOrder pronounced on 30.10.2024. \n \n \n \n \nSd/- \n \n \n \n \n \nSd/- \n ( A. D. JAIN ) \n \n \n \n ( KRINWANT SAHAY) \n \nVice President \n \n \n \n \nAccountant Member \n“आर.क\nे.” \n \nआदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the order forwarded to : \n1. अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant \n2. Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent \n3. आयकर आयुÈत/ CIT \n\n770-Chd-2023 – \nVarun Kumar Jain, Nabha \n \n \n6 \n \n \n \n4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय आͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, \nCHANDIGARH \n5. गाड[ फाईल/ Guard File \nआदेशानुसार/ By order, \nसहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n"