SHRI SHASHWAT AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. THE DCIT, CC-I, KANPUR

(A.2) It may be added, however, that the sum and substance of aforesaid written submissions were already included in oral submissions of learned Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing in these appeals; which are being factored in this order, and are being dealt with.

(A.2.1) The assessees are assisted by a learned and highly experienced advocate, having legal experience of several decades. Therefore, the act of sending written submissions by post, after the appeals were finally heard; contrary to established conventions of judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings; is an aberration. Although, no adverse view is being taken in respect of this aberration; we express our extreme disappointment with conduct of the assessees, considering that the assessees are assisted by a learned and highly experienced advocate having legal experience of several decades. to 283, 336 to 349,415 to 421 and 4 422 to 428/Lkw/2000 (B) The core factual issue in dispute in this batch of appeals is that, according to the assessees, the books of account which were impounded by the Income Tax Department and which are yet to be returned back to the assessees; according to the assessees even photocopies of the impounded books of account were not provided to the assessees despite requests being made in this regard. However, according to the Departmental Representative for Revenue, the assessees were provided with copies of the impounded books of account. The question whether assessees were provided with copies of impounded books of account is a crucial fact in this batch of appeals. In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, a letter dated 19/05/2025 was filed by learned Counsel for the assessees, stating that impounded books, which were impounded during assessment proceedings, have neither been released back to the assessee nor has any certified copy of the same been provided to the assessees till date. Subsequently, a letter dated 04/06/2025 was filed by the learned Departmental Representative stating that copies of documents impounded and seized at the time of survey/search were provided to the assessees. At the time of hearing on 05/06/2025, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that copies of all books of account and documents seized/impounded by Income Tax Department were provided to the assessees, as and when request was made from the assessees. He vehemently submitted that the assessees had failed to prove that copies were not provided in the aftermath of request made by them to concerned authorities in Income Tax Department. At the time of hearing on 05/06/2025, learned Counsel for the assessees sought for further time to file objections to aforesaid letter dated 04/06/2025. The Bench to 283, 336 to 349,415 to 421 and 5 422 to 428/Lkw/2000 declined this request on the ground that the stand of the assessees that books impounded during assessment proceedings were neither returned back to the assessees nor certified copies thereof were provided to assessees had been asserted by the learned Counsel for the assessees, through oral statement made by him at bar at the time of hearing, and the same would receive due consideration. Moreover, the disposal of these appeals is already delayed considerably, due to numerous adjournments; mostly due to adjournments sought from the side of the assessees or because the Bench did not function. As a result, the directory guidelines of timeframe mentioned in section 254(2A) of the I.T. Act is already crossed. Any further delay was to be avoided; especially as the concerns of the assessees were being taken into consideration. Further it was brought to our attention that issue regarding levy of penalty in to 283/Lkw/2020 had been already considered and decided in group appeals in the case of Bansal Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Nikki Global Finance Ltd. and Big Brokers House Stock Ltd. However, we find no merit in this contention. The question whether copies of books of account were provided by Income Tax Department to the assessees is a question of fact. It is well settled that on a question of fact, the rule of precedence has no application. It is quite possible that in one or some cases, copies may have been not provided whereas in the remaining cases, copies may have been provided. Further, in the cases before us, in the present batch of appeals, there is a distinguishable fact in the sense that aforesaid letter dated 04/06/2025 has been filed from the side of Revenue. Further, the learned Departmental Representative made vehement submissions at the time of hearing; as discussed earlier in this order. Thus, facts in the present batch of appeals before us, are to 283, 336 to 349,415 to 421 and 6 422 to 428/Lkw/2000 clearly distinguishable. Considering the core factual dispute, it is necessary to verify the facts correctly through reference and perusal of original records of the Income Tax Department. The original records including impounded books of account are with the Assessing Officer based at Kanpur; and the learned CIT(A) having jurisdiction over these assessees is also based in Kanpur, as intimated by representatives of both sides, at the time of hearing. There are many facts to be considered, including whether the assessees made a request for providing (certified) copies of books impounded during assessment proceedings? Did the assessees fulfill due procedure in this regard ? Did the assessees get copies of the books of account which were impounded during assessment proceedings, which, however were not certified ? Did the facts and circumstances present a situation at all, so as to be reasonable cause for failure within the meaning of section 273B of the Act ? Were the assessees permitted to take copies of impounded books of account, if and when a request made by the assessees and after fulfillment of the due procedure by the assessee (such as, payment of copying fees).