Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “SMC”: DELHI
Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI
ORDER This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-XXII, New Delhi, Dated 17.11.2011, for the A.Y. 2002-2003.
Briefly the facts of the case are that original return of income was filed on 31.01.2002 at Rs.7,89,733/- which was accepted under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Subsequently, an information was received from DIT (Inv.), New Delhi that assessee’s Account with Indian Bank was credited with cheque of Rs.4 lakhs on 20.06.2001
2 ITA.No.443/Del./2012 Shri Sanjay Gupta, Delhi. issued by Shri Jagdish Prashad. Inquiries made by the Investigation Wing Directorate revealed that Shri Jagdish Prashad had given an accommodation entry to the assessee in lieu of cash received by him after charging commission from the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was revealed that assessee has received accommodation entry of Rs.4 lakhs and Rs.3 lakhs from Shri Jagdish Prashad and Shri Manoj Kumar during accounting year 2001-2002. Therefore, this amount of Rs.7 lakhs along with commission of Rs.35,000/- paid for taking accommodation entry was added as unexplained income. A.O. also rejected the books of account of the assessee related to his civil contract business and Rs.50,000/- was added on account of low net profit in the contract business. A.O. also disallowed 1/7th expenses out of car maintenance, car depreciation and telephone expenses and Rs.54,304/- was also added to the income of the assessee. The A.O. passed the assessment order under section 143(3)/147 of the I.T. Act, 1961, Dated 20.12.2007.
3 ITA.No.443/Del./2012 Shri Sanjay Gupta, Delhi. 3. The assessee challenged the aforesaid three additions along with reopening of the assessment before the Ld. CIT(A).
The written submissions of the assessee is reproduced in the appellate order. The assessee with regard to reopening of the assessment submitted that assessee has already disclosed all material facts with the return of income filed originally which have been accepted under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The A.O. has not collected any evidence against the assessee, but, initiated re-assessment proceedings. The re-assessment order have been passed merely upon suspicion and without any supporting documents and evidences. The Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the contention of assessee and noted that A.O. recorded reasons for reopening of the assessment after information received from DIT (Inv.) that assessee’s Bank account has been credited with cheques issued by Shri Jagdish Prashad who has provided accommodation entry to the assessee. Further the return is processed under section 143(1) only, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
4 ITA.No.443/Del./2012 Shri Sanjay Gupta, Delhi. Court in the case of ACIT vs., Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC). The assessee as regards addition on merit contended that these were business receipts, but, in the absence of any evidence, assessee could not prove the same. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that assessee submitted that he is filing return of income under section 44AE and was not maintaining books of account. The assessee was asked to file evidence that truck freight was chargeable from these two persons, but, even no confirmation have been filed and even none of the persons were produced before the A.O. The assessee was asked to file details / information regarding destination from where goods were transported for Shri Jagdish Prashad and Shri Manoj Kumar and what goods were transported, copies of the freight bills prepared for the purpose of transportation of goods, Truck No. which were engaged for transportation of goods for Shri Jagdish Prashad and Shri Manoj Kumar. But, none of the details have been submitted by assessee. The Learned CIT(A), therefore, confirmed the addition of Rs.7
5 ITA.No.443/Del./2012 Shri Sanjay Gupta, Delhi. lakhs on account of accommodation entry received by assessee and Commission of Rs.35,000/-.
4.1. The Ld. CIT(A) as regards addition of Rs.50,000/- on account of low profit noted that there is low net profit declared in the assessment year under appeal and that no proper bills/vouchers have been produced for inspection of the authorities below. Only self-made vouchers have been produced without having any details. Therefore, addition of Rs.50,000/- was also confirmed. Similarly, assessee did not produce any details of Car maintenance expenses etc., and no log book have been maintained. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed this addition as well.
The assessee in the present appeal has challenged the reopening of the assessment under section 148 of the I.T. Act, addition of Rs.7 lakhs on account of accommodation entry, addition of Rs.35,000/- on account of Commission paid, addition of Rs.50,000/- on account of low net profit and addition of 1/7th out of Car maintenance and telephone expenses etc.
6 ITA.No.443/Del./2012 Shri Sanjay Gupta, Delhi.
This appeal is filed in the year 2012. Order sheets reveals that assessee did not appear before the Bench initially and thereafter, adjournment have been sought by the assessee many times. Assessee did not appear and only sought adjournments many times and appeal was adjourned. Ultimately, in the absence of assessee, appeal of assessee were dismissed for default vide Order Dated 13.11.2017. The assessee, however, moved M.A. which was allowed and appeal was re-fixed for hearing on merits on 24.07.2019. On 24.07.2019 appeal was adjourned to 11.11.2019. On 11.11.2019 again assessee has moved an application for adjournment stating therein that father of the assessee is ill. This was no ground for adjournment. Since it is a old appeal and it was not a reasonable ground for adjournment, therefore, request for adjournment was rejected. However, in the interest of justice, last opportunity to the assessee was granted, the appeal was adjourned to 13.11.2019. On 13.11.2019 also the assessee did not file any paper book or any documentary evidences on record.
7 ITA.No.443/Del./2012 Shri Sanjay Gupta, Delhi. Learned Counsel for the Assessee merely made oral request for adjournment which was declined.
I have heard the Learned Representative of both the parties. Learned Counsel for the Assessee did not contradict anything on any of the grounds of appeal. The Ld. D.R. contended that assessee did not produce any evidence before the authorities below on any of the grounds. The Ld. D.R. submitted that assessee had been seeking adjournments without any reasons and even did not care to file any documentary evidences even before the Tribunal in support of the grounds of appeal.
8. I have considered the submissions of the Ld. D.R. and perused the findings of the authorities below. The A.O. on all the aforesaid additions has specifically given an opportunity to assessee to explain the issues. However, the assessee did not file any documentary evidences to explain the credit entries of Rs.7 lakhs in the account. The assessee claimed that these are outstanding freights, but, no details have been submitted. On the other hand, the Department collected the evidence that these were accommodation
8 ITA.No.443/Del./2012 Shri Sanjay Gupta, Delhi. entries. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence on record, the authorities below correctly made the addition of Rs.7 lakhs. Similarly, other additions were made because assessee failed to explain any of the issues. Though the appeal was filed in the year 2012, the Counsel for Assessee did not file any paper book or filed any documentary evidences to contradict the finding of fact recorded by the authorities below. The assessee had been seeking adjournments only and even on the last date of hearing the Counsel for Assessee sought adjournment on improper ground which was rejected on 11.11.2019. Despite that no efforts have been made by Learned Counsel for the Assessee to rebut the finding of fact recorded by the authorities below. In the absence of any cooperation from the side of assessee and in the absence of any evidence on record on any of the grounds of appeal, I do not see any reason to take a different view which has already taken by the authorities below. Appeal of assessee has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
In the result, appeal of Assessee dismissed.
9 ITA.No.443/Del./2012 Shri Sanjay Gupta, Delhi. Order pronounced in the open Court.