VIJAY KUMAR & COMPANY V. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

ITA/568/2018

AI Insights

The case involves Vijay Kumar & Company, the appellant, contesting the findings of the Assessing Officer and subsequent appellate authorities regarding an amount of \\u20b915,55,095. This amount was brought to tax under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it was unexplained by the appellant. The amount was reportedly used for stamp duties and court fees related to a property dispute. The appellant argued that they were not given adequate opportunity to explain the source of the funds, citing issues with the transfer of their case jurisdiction and inadequate notice. However, the ITAT and CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, finding the appellant's explanations and evidence insufficient.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 766610 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY JAIN; AKSHAY MAKHIJA; KIRTI AWASTHI; SNEH SUMAN
• Assessee Lawyers: P R CHOPRA
• Keywords: Assessment; Court fees; Income Tax; Stamp Duty; Transfer of Case
• Section: 148; 69C; 127

Judgement Text

"$~61 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 568/2018 & CM APPL. 19893/2018 VIJAY KUMAR & COMPANY ..... Appellant Through: Mr. P.R. Chopra, Advocate. versus INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. Akshay Makhija, CGSC with Ms. Kirti Awasthi and Ms. Sneh Suman, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA O R D E R % 14.05.2018 The appellant-assessee questions the concurrent findings of facts rendered by the Assessing Officer (hereafter ‘AO’) and the lower Appellate Authorities on the amount of `15,55,095/- brought to tax under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’). The facts are that the amount in question was detected by the AO, who issued notice under Section 148 of the Act calling upon the assessee to account for the said amount, which was apparent from the record. The amount was paid as stamp duties/court fees deposited in the Court in respect of the property which was the subject matter of a ITA 568/2018 Page 1 of 5 dispute. The AO granted opportunity to the assessee to explain the source of the said amount. Its failure to do so resulted in the addition of that amount. The CIT(A) as well as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) affirmed the AO’s view. Learned counsel submitted that the assessee was not afforded adequate opportunity to explain the source and that this has resulted in miscarriage of justice. It was argued that the assessee was told that the assessments could be transferred under Section 127 of the Act repeatedly and this led to its inability or omission to disclose the real sources, which were always available. The CIT(A), inter alia, in the course of its order observed as follows:- “5.4 This office received another application dated 24.1.2013 stating therein that a request has been made on 12.8.2011 to DGIT(Inv) Jaipur for transfer of their case to New Delhi as all the activities are carried at New Delhi. Further considering their request the DGIT(Inv), Jaipur has directed the CIT(C), Jaipur for transferring their cases to New Delhi after completion of time barring assessment and that the CIT(C) has passed the order for transferring the case vide order dated 8.1.2013. It is further stated that the assessee has filed an application before the DGIT(Inv) on 15.1.2013 for transfer of their appeals and that vide letter dated 22.1.2013 the assessee has been informed that such request may be made before the concerned CIT as this office has no role to intervene in the matter of judicial nature. It was accordingly request that the appeal may be transferred to CIT(A), New Delhi. In response to such ITA 568/2018 Page 2 of 5 letter vide this office letter dated 4.2.2013 the appellant was informed that the CIT(A), Central, Jaipur was having valid jurisdiction to adjudicate the said appeal. It was also informed to the assessee that more than enough opportunities have been provided to the assessee and that the appellant was not interested to file any written submission or to defend the contentions raised in the ground of appeal. The appellant was also informed the undersigned is not competent to transfer such appeal from this office and any such transfer order is to be passed by a competent authority. It was also informed that the jurisdiction of their assessment cases has also been transferred w.e.f. 1.4.2013 and that transferring of assessment cases may not automatically lead to transfer of pending appeals from this office to Delhi. Accordingly the appellant was given final opportunity to hearing and the case was fixed for hearing on 21.2.2012. Such notice was sent through speed post at the address given in the appeal memo i.e. form no. 35. Earlier notices have also been sent on the same address. However the said envelope containing letter dated 4.2.3013 received back undeserved with the postal remark that “प्राप्कर्ाा बार-बार जाने पर नह ीं मिलर्ा.” However on 21.2.2013 again a letter twas received from the appellant's side intimating that a writ petition has been filed by the appellant before the Hon. Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur against non- transferring such appeals to Delhi and that the decision of the Hon. Court is expected soon. However on verification it was known that in this case/ appeal there is no direction of the Han. Rajasthan High Court.” ITA 568/2018 Page 3 of 5 The ITAT’s conclusions on this aspect are also similar and the same reads as follows:- “7. We have heard the rival submissions and have gone through the entire material available on record and the case laws cited before us. It is not in dispute that the impugned affidavit of the partners was prepared on the very date of assessment order, i.e., 07.12.2011. The assessee did not produce any evidence on record to support that the amount was received from the relatives except this affidavit of the partners of the firm. Even the affidavit of the partners of assessee firm is silent on the names and addresses of the relatives from whom the impugned amount was said to have been received by the assessee. Which relative gave how much money to the assessee is also not spelt out in the said affidavit nor are there any such details available on record. No evidence from the side of alleged relatives is brought on record. No confirmations from the alleged relatives are placed on record by the assessee to justify the averments made in the affidavit. There is also no material on record to place credence on the contention of the assesee that after receipt of stamp duty back as per court’s order, the amounts so received were returned back to the alleged relatives. The impugned amount is stated by the assessee to have been received in cash and returned in cash. Therefore, the versions of the assessee were not open for verification. Hence, the contentions of the assesee cannot be given favour to for want of credible evidence and only on the basis of an affidavit of partners not supported by any evidence documentary or circumstantial. In these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the case laws relied by the assessee are found distinguishable on facts and the ld. Authorities below have rightly ITA 568/2018 Page 4 of 5 treated the affidavit as self serving evidence. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is found bereft of merit and is liable to fail.” In view of these concurrent findings and the further circumstances that no legal issue arises, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal under Section 260-A of the Act. The appeal is therefore dismissed along with pending application. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J A. K. CHAWLA, J MAY 14, 2018 nn ITA 568/2018 Page 5 of 5 "