Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH
Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च�डीगढ़ �यायपीठ च�डीगढ़ �यायपीठ ‘ए’, च�डीगढ़ च�डीगढ़ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण च�डीगढ़ �यायपीठ च�डीगढ़ �यायपीठ च�डीगढ़ च�डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ ITA No. 227/CHD/2020 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Kulwinder Singh, The ITO बनाम S/o Shri Manjit Singh, Ward 2(4), VS # 301-B, Model Town, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. . �थायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: AQCPS3542B अपीलाथ�/Appellant ��यथ�/Respondent िनधा�रती क� ओर से/Assessee by : None राज�व क� ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr.DR तारीख/Date of Hearing : 21.12.2021 उदघोषणा क� तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 07.01.2022 VIRTUAL HEARING आदेश/ORDER आदेश आदेश आदेश PER DIVA SINGH The present appeal has been filed by the assessee wherein the correctness of the order dated 05.12.2019 of CIT(A)-1 Ludhiana pertaining to 2011-12 assessment year is assailed on the following grounds : 1. That the Worthy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Ludhiana has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,59,09,400 on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.
However, at the time of hearing, none was present on behalf of the assessee. The record shows that notice sent to
ITA 227 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 2 of 7
the assessee at the address mentioned in Form No. 36 has
been returned back by the postal authorities with the comment
“Refused”.
A perusal of the record further shows that in the filing of
the present appeal, there is a delay of 297 days pointed out by
the Registry. Application and Affidavit explaining the delay is
available on record. The contents of the Affidavit read as
under:
ITA 227 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 3 of 7
The ld. Sr.DR addressing the factual history submitted
that the assessee has repeatedly failed to address the deposits
of over Rs. 1.60 Crores before any of the tax authorities. It
was highlighted by referring to the record that despite
opportunities no explanation le t alone an acceptable
explanation is forthcoming. Addressing the contents of the
affidavit, it was submitted that this would again show the
casual approach of the assessee. Accordingly, in the face of
these facts, it was her prayer the appeal may be dismissed.
Attention was invited to the two Saving Bank accounts as
ITA 227 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 4 of 7
mentioned in page 3 of the impugned order (No 13901530000949
with HDFC Bank Ludhiana, and another joint S.B. Account No
13901930005155 maintained by the assessee and his wife Smt.
Gagandeep Kaur). The deposit of Rs. 1,59,09,400/- was
required to be explained, opportunities are provided and for
want of any explanation whatsoever, addition was made in the
hands of the assessee. Appeal was filed but explanation was
not offered. Relying heavily upon the assessment order, it was
her submission that more than sufficient opportunity had been
granted to the assessee by the AO and the assessee
consciously chose not to respond to the queries. The AO after
affording many opportunities to the assessee where for lack of
explanation to the counsel Shri Pankaj Periwal only sought
adjournments and made no compliances whatsoever the
addition stood made by an order passed u/s 143(3)/144 of the
Act.
In appeal before the First Appellate Authority again
multiple opportunities, it was submitted, had been given by
the CIT(A). Accordingly, on account of the consistent abuse of
the opportunities, the addition stood confirmed. In these
circumstances, it was her submission that the delay sought to
be condoned may be rejected and on merits also, the appeal of
the assessee deserves to be dismissed for want of any
ITA 227 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 5 of 7
explanation. Heavy reliance was placed upon the consistent
conduct of the assessee before the tax authorities.
We have heard the submissions and perused the material
available on record. In the facts of the present case, the
conduct of the assessee has been addressed by the CIT(A) in
para 2 which reads as under :
“2. It has been noted from the impugned order of assessment that despite various opportunities having been,- given to him by the AO to attend the assessment: proceedings and explain the sources of deposits of cash in his bank account, the appellant played hardball and refused to present himself before the Assessing Officers/he AO, thereafter procured the bank statements, from where it was gathered that the appellant had deposited cash amounting to Rs.l,77,21,900/- during the relevant assessment year in his savings bank account maintained with HDFC Bank, Ludhiana as well as in the joint account maintained along with his wife in the said bank. Since the appellant did not come forward to explain the sources of the aforesaid deposits in the bank account in his individual name as also in the joint name with his wife, the AO very reasonably took the peak of the deposits in the two accounts, which came to Rs.1,59,09,400/-. The said amount was, thus, added back to the returned income under the provisions of Section 69 of the Act raising tax and interest demand of Rs. 66,26,520/-.
Sufficiency of opportunities afforde d and the lack of
compliances notice d had been addressed in para 3 of the
order. It is also extracted hereunder for completeness: “3. However, when the aforesaid appeal was called out for hearing, the appellant, much like his conduct in the assessment proceedings, kept seeking adjournments on some ground or the other. Reference to the appellate record reveals that numerous opportunities were given to the appellant by way of ITNS-37. It has also been noted that various letters of fixation of the case were served on the appellant through the notice server yet, there was no response. In
ITA 227 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 6 of 7 the circumstances, the appeal deserves to be decided ex-parte without any further reference to the appellant.
Considering these facts, the CIT(A) on merits dismissed
the appeal holding as under :
“4. It has been noted that the appellant had deposited cash in the savings bank account maintained in his own name as also in the joint account maintained along with his wife. The AO very reasonably, took the peak of the aforesaid deposits to make the addition to the returned income in the absence of any explanation regarding the sources of such deposits. No further relief can be accorded to the appellant with regard to the aforesaid deposits. Neither can any fault be found with the action of the AO in taking the peak amount of the deposits in the two bank accounts as unexplained investment under the provisions of section 69 of the Act. It is ordered accordingly.”
In the said background the Affidavit sought to explain the
delay before the ITAT unsupported by any evidence cannot be
blindly accepted. The view is further supported by the fact on
record wherein nothing has been pleaded to show why the
assessee failed to appear effectively before the AO. The
constant abuse of the process of law clearly prohibits this
forum to blindly accept the unsupported explanation for delay.
We have given our consideration to the merits of the addition
also and seen that in the proceedings before us, no effort has
been made to address the serious allegation of the CIT(A) who
has held as under :
…the appellant played hardball and refused to present himself before the Assessing Officer …”
ITA 227 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 7 of 7
9.1 Thus, the contents of paras 2 and 3 of the affidavit
ascribing the blame solely to Shri Anil Chawla without evidence
cannot be relied upon. In the facts as they stand for the
reasons given herein above, not only the Condonation of delay
application has no merit but even the appeal of the assessee is
found to be devoid of merit as the facts stand. Said order was
pronounced at the time of virtual hearing via Webex.
Before parting, it is made clear that in the eventuality the
assessee is able to address the reasons for non-representation
before the ITAT etc. and undertakes to support the contents of
the affidavit with evidences and an undertaking that explanation
on the merits of the appeal also is available and ready for filing
as fresh evidences etc. only in such a bonafide prayer on facts
the assessee is granted the liberty to approach the ITAT with a
prayer for recall of this order.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced on 7 th January,2022.
Sd/- Sd/- (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (DIVA SINGH) लेखा सद�य सद�य/ Accountant Member �याियक �याियक सद�य सद�य/ Judicial Member लेखा लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य �याियक �याियक सद�य सद�य “Poonam” आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु� (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar