SUMAN KISHORE,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI MANISH AGARWALITO Ward-34(4), room No. 319, Block-D, VikasBhawan, I. P. Estate, New Delhi Vs. Suman Kishore C-6/467, Yamuna Vihar New Delhi PAN: AAJPK1919R Appellant
PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: Tax (Appeal)-XXVII, New Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A) ’ for short) dated 24/11/2011 pertaining to Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The grounds of Appeal are as under:- ITA No. 842/Del/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09) (Revenue)
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.
CIT (A) has erred in restricting the disallowances to the extent of Rs.
2,00,21,615/-, thereby allowing relief of Rs.
1,95,30,897/-.
The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego the ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.
ITA No. 1434/Del/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09) (Assessee)
“1. Because, the respondent has acted in arbitrary manner and has simply reassessed the income of the appellant and more specifically did not consider the objection of the appellant as to the assessment done by the assessing officer (AO) оп the grounds observance of the law and the of procedures substantiate the assessment under IT Act. non-to 2. Because, the respondent/OFF has not followed the procedure laid down in the Income Tax Act to justify the calculated income apart from taking necessary note of arbitrary assessment of the AO.
Because, the respondent/ has passed unreasoned order without specifying as to how they come to the conclusion of the substance of the order or again has not considered the grounds mentioned memorandum of appeal to it in The grounds the not considered by the Deputy commissioner are as follows; Because, believe the assessing officer/AO the notwithstanding theft the At fact the that they did not premises police officials have thoroughly investigated the matter and has opined for the theft took place at the office of R.S. Perfumers i. e. the concern of the appellant.
E. Because, the CIT has not given any order on the ground of the appellant nor it considered in its order that the appellant has filed one suit for declaring him as insolvent wherein, he has filed an affidavit that his total assets after adjusting the debt and credit is less than Rs.500/- and this itself evidence that the appellant has got no income and the same is pending in appeal over a legal issue.
bestjudgement to comply the J. Because, the off has not observed/considered the ground of the appellant that the best judgement assessment presupposes that the assessing officer has all the relevant documents to decide and compute the total income and also to consider the losses if any, but even a part guess work which has been allowed under the provision the same should not be arbitrary and in the particular circumstances of the present case the assessing officer has failed to cite in his judgement as to what record he relied upon notwithstanding the fact that the appellant presented his case of not having any material documents with him.
5. Because, the 7 in its order while deciding the appeal before it did not consider that the appellant has regularly filing the returns since last several years and has liabilities therein. all disclosed his income and 6. Because, the appellant if not given an opportunity to state his case, it will be miscarriage of justice and shall set-forth a wrong precedent.
Because, if the order dated 24.11.2010 is not set aside or remanded back for fresh adjudication shall cause irreparable loss and injury to the appellant both on personal and official positions.
Because, the appellant has no other means left than to approach adjudication. ThisHon'ble forum for proper adjudication.”
None appeared for the Assessee. The order sheet reveals that on most of the occasions, no representation made on behalf of the Assessee. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we deem it fit to decide the appeal on hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative and on verifying the material on record.
Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessee filed return of income at Rs. 4,47,488/-. The case of the Assessee was picked up for scrutiny through CASS and statutory notices were issued. The Assessee participated in the assessment proceedings, however, no books of accounts or any supporting documents were filed during the course of assessment proceedings. It was the case of the Assessee before the A.O. ITO Vs. Suman Kishore that the books of account and other records have been lost due to theft in the business premises of the Assessee. To substantiate the same, the Assessee produced the FIR filed with Juri ictional Police Station, however, the said claim of the Assessee has not been believed by the A.O., accordingly, proceeded to estimate the income of the Assessee on best judgment basis and made addition of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- vide assessment order dated 30/12/2010. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 30/12/2010, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 24/11/2011, restricted the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 2,00,21,615/- by granting relief of Rs. 1,95,30,897/-. Aggrieved by the said deletion of the addition, the Department has preferred the Appeal and as against sustaining the addition, the Assessee preferred the present Appeal.
The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) committed grave error in deleting the partial addition made by the A.O. out of total addition of Rs. 4 crore, without assigning any reason and by relying on the findings and conclusion of the A.O. 6. We have heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record. The Ld. CIT(A) while restricting the disallowance held as under:-
“Determination of income by the AO being arbitrary
With regard to the appellant's contention that the estimation of income by the A.O. has been made without any basis and without any material on record, the same is however found to be correct. As already reproduced above, the A.O. has not stated on what basis, he has estimated the income of the appellant at Rs. 4.00 Crores. After considering the facts of the case and the material available on record, the income of the appellant is computed as under:
(i) The appellant has not filed any evidence in support of claim of deduction under Chapter-VIA of the Act amounting to Rs. 14,39,503/-. The same is therefore disallowed and added to the income of the appellant.
(ii) In the bank account of the appellant with PNB, Circle
Office, North Delhi, RajindraBhawan, 4th Floor, Rajindra
Place, New Delhi, A/c No. 012200210606658 there are cash deposits of Rs. 1,87,62,000/-. No evidence has been filed by the appellant to explain the source of these cash deposits. A copy of the bank account was called for by the A.O. u/s 133(6) of the Act and the same was confronted to the appellant during the course of assessment No proceedings. (No explanation was filed by the appellant regarding source of these cash deposits. The appellant may have lost his books of accounts but no efforts whatsoever have been made by him for explaining the source of cash deposits in his bank account. In the copy of the petition before the Insolvency Judge filed with appeal documents, it is seen that the appellant has mentioned details of various bank accounts at Annexure-1, Personal loan account Annexure-II, Car Loan a/c Annex. III, PNB,
ChandniChowk Annex.-V. Balance Sheet of pervious 2
years Annex.-VI and details of liabilities at Annex.-VIII.
The appellant had attached only Annex-IV and Annex.-VIII
ITO Vs. Suman Kishore with the petition. Thus, even though the appellant had balance Annexures with him as stated in the petition dated 02.09.2009 which is after the date of theft, no such documents were filed by the appellant either at the time of assessment proceedings or at the time of appellate proceedings, which clearly reflects the non corporative attitude of the appellant. As no effort has been made by the appellant to explain the source of cash deposits, the same are treated as the appellant's income from unexplained sources u/s 68 of the Act.
(iii) Keeping in view the discussion made above the disallowance/additions are confirmed to the extent of Rs.
2,00,21,615/- (14,39,503/- on account of disallowance of deduction under Chapter-VIA and Rs. 1,87,42,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in the appellant's bank account with Punjab National Bank).
In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed.”
It is seen from the above, the Ld. CIT(A) while granting the relief of Rs. 1,95,30,897/- has not assigned any reason. Further it is the specific contention of the Assessee in his grounds of appeal that the Ld. Date:- 23.04.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S*