Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C”
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal
order
: February 08, 2022 Hearing through Video Conferencing ORDER
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 08.11.2012 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Durgapur [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).
No one has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee despite notice and despite telephonic intimation to the Ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Mihir Bandhopadhyay on his Mobile No.9831024445. It is further noted from the record that earlier also, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by this Tribunal for non-prosecution vide order dated 31.01.2018. However, the same was restored vide order dated 09.04.2021. Today again despite notice and despite telephonic intimation, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee/appellant. Therefore, we proceed to decide the present appeal after going through the record and after hearing the Ld. DR. The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: Assessment Year: 2005-06 Suman Kar “1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not cancelling the reopening of the original assessment U/S 147 since the Ld CIT (A) himself remarked that "disclosed sale party Maa Sarbamangala Society for Cultural & Education and Aryabhatta Institute of Engineering and Management are none and same" as the said Society owns the above Institute.
2. The Ld CIT (A) erred in not directly allowing the necessary relief since the Ld. CIT (A) has himself stated that "the deposits considered by the A.O. as sales do not relate to the assessment year under appeal at all going by the dates mentioned".
3. The Ld. CIT (A) also erred in not allowing direct relief particularly when he himself stated that the A.O estimation of the sale figure cannot therefore be called correct. 4 The Learned CIT (A) erred in not cancelling the reopened assessment U/S 147, because, as correctly stated by the Ld. CIT (A), “The A.O is seen to have estimated purchases as well as sales. However his estimation of sales is inaccurate, as discussed above and his estimation of purchases is not seen to depend on any date or facts gathered independently. Rather he has estimated sales & G.P and taken purchases as the residual figure. The estimation by the A.O cannot therefore be called accurate". 5 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not granting relief on an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- which was received by the appellant (only son) from his mother from her savings from postal deposits and her income from salaries. The mother of the appellant was a teacher in Durgapur Steel Plant Primary School under Steel Authority of India Ltd (SAIL) a Government of India undertaking.”
3. Ground Nos.1&4: Vide Ground Nos.1 and 4, the assessee has contested validity of the reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. However, neither written submission nor any argument has been addressed on behalf of the assessee on this issue. Even a perusal of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) reveals that this issue was taken by the assessee vide ground no.1 in appeal before him and the Ld. CIT(A) has noted that the assessee has not brought on record any evidence to show that the Assessing Officer’s action was not legally tenable. In view of this Ground no.1 of the assessee is dismissed.
4. Ground Nos.2&3: Ground nos.2&3 are regarding the deposits/estimation of sales figures for the year under consideration. As per the information obtained by the Assessing Officer from commercial tax authorities, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had shown less sales as compared to the said information. Further, the Assessing Officer had added back certain deposits in the bank account of the assessee treating the same as undisclosed sales proceeds of the assessee. The Assessing Officer applied GP rate on the said deposits. Assessment Year: 2005-06 Suman Kar However, the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that there were issues which the Assessing Officer had not dealt with in his order. He noted that the estimation of sales figures of the Assessing Officer was not correct. However, at the same time, the ld. CIT(A) noted that the Assessing Officer’s requisitions for information were not fully complied with by the assessee. Therefore, he directed the Assessing Officer to undertake the exercises again to arrive at correct sales figures and proceed to calculate the undisclosed business income, if any, accordingly. After going through the records and after hearing the ld. DR, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and the same is upheld.
5. Ground No.5: Vide Ground no.5, the assessee has agitated the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.1,40,000/- on account of the alleged gift received by the assessee from his mother. The ld. CIT(A) has given a categorical findings that the assessee had not submitted any documents to prove that Rs.1,40,000/- has been given by his mother to him. Neither any documents nor any bank statements was furnished, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the findings of the Assessing Officer in this respect. After considering the impugned order and after hearing the ld. DR, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A). In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the assessee and the same is therefore dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Kolkata, the 8th February, 2022.