SMT RAVINDER KAUR CHADHA,MORADABAD vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 681/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 September 2017AY 2008-096 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals as the assessee's representative could not argue the case due to the assessee's non-appearance and inability to travel. The Tribunal found no option but to dismiss the appeals.

What were the facts?

A search operation was conducted on the Ponty Chadha Group, leading to the sealing of the assessee's locker. Subsequently, notices under Section 153A were issued for multiple assessment years. The assessee's appeals before the CIT(A) were dismissed for non-appearance.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of assessments made under Section 153A in the absence of a direct search on the assessee and the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals for non-appearance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153A,Section 132,Section 127,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI N.K. SAINI & SHRI KULDIP SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
For Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT DR
Hearing: 28.09.2017

PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

1.

Since common question of law and facts is involved in all the aforesaid appeals filed by the assessee against composite order dated 19.11.2015 passed by the ld. CIT (A)-30, New Delhi, the same are being disposed off by way of consolidated order to avoid repetition of discussion.

2.

Appellant, Smt. Ravinder Kaur Chadha (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’), by filing the aforesaid appeals sought to set aside the composite impugned order dated 19.11.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi, for the Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2011-12 by raising identical grounds inter alia that :-

“1. The learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of Assessing officer of completing the assessment u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when there was no search action upon the assessee.

2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that there was no search warrant in the name of the assessee and accordingly there was no satisfaction recorded for the conduct of the search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 upon the assessee and the assessment was not to be completed u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in his case.

3. The learned CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that the Panchnama was only drawn in the name of the assessee owing to a key of a locker found in the joint name of the assessee and his wife. No addition whatsoever was made in the hands of the assessee on the basis of contents 'of locker, in any year, since no valuables or incriminating documents were found therein.

4. The Learned CIT(A) has further erred in declining to adjudicate assessee's ground contending the unjustified transfer of the case u/s 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without affording any opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

5. The Learned CIT(A) erred in the facts and circumstances of the case, as also in law in not considering the clear cut finding of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Civil Miscellaneous CVP No (Tax) 451 of 2012 that the case of the assessee falls u/s 153C and not u/s 153A. So, the CIT (A)'s upholding of assessment u/s 153A in the case of the assessee was clearly wrong from the legal point of view.”

3.

Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand in all the aforesaid appeals are : search and seizure operation was carried out on 01.02.2012 in case of Ponty Chadha Group at various places including House No.455, Civil Lines, Moradabad (UP). Thereafter, locker no.392 maintained with State Bank of India, Moradabad by the assessee was sealed and was opened on 22.03.2012 by drawing a panchnama on 22.03.2012 itself. Consequently, notice u/s 153A of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued requiring the assessee to file return for AYs 2006-07 to 2011-12 within 20 days.

Assessee filed return of income for AY 2006-07 on 03.03.2004 declaring total income of Rs.5,43,040/- and agriculture income of Rs.2,24,629/-; for AY 2007-08 on 03.03.2004 declaring total income of Rs.4,69,360/- and agriculture income of Rs.56,746/-; for AY 2008-09 on 03.03.2004 declaring total income of Rs.2,72,310/- and agriculture income of Rs.1,75,445/-; for AY 2009-10 on 03.03.2004 declaring total income of Rs.2,44,030/-; for AY 2010- 11 on 03.03.2004 declaring total income of Rs.3,74,510/-; and for AY 2011-12 on 03.03.2004 declaring total income of Rs.7,28,100/.

Then notice was issued u/s 142 (1) of the Act along with questionnaire and in response thereto, assessee filed details and was further called upon to file remaining details by 12.03.2014.

Finding the explanation filed by the assessee note tenable, AO assessed the income for AY 2006-07 at Rs.5,43,040/- and agriculture income at Rs.2,24,629/- (for rate purpose); for AY 2007-08 at Rs.4,69,360/- and agriculture income at Rs.56,746/- (for rate purpose); for AY 2008-09 at Rs.2,72,310/- and agriculture income at Rs.1,75,445/- (for rate purpose); for AY 2009-10 at Rs.2,44,030/-; for AY 2010-11 at Rs.3,74,510/-; and for AY 2011- 12 at Rs.7,28,100/.

4.

Assessee carried the matter by way of filing appeals before the ld. CIT (A) who has dismissed all the appeals for AYs 2006-07 to 2011-12 due to non appearance on behalf of the assessee by way of composite order. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of challenging the impugned order passed by ld. CIT (A) by filing aforesaid appeals.

5.

We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case.

6.

When the aforesaid appeals were taken up for hearing the ld. AR for the assessee moved a request for adjournment on the ground that “since assessee and her accountant belong to Moradabad and could not travel to Delhi to brief him, it is not possible for him to argue the appeals”. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further stated at Bar that despite numerous messages sent to the assessee, none has come present on behalf of the assessee to assist him to argue the present appeals. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the assessee does not have any case to argue and the AR also conveyed his helplessness to assist the Bench, in these circumstances, the Bench has no option except to dismiss the aforesaid appeals as assessee cannot be allowed to take for a ride the entire system at her whims and fancies. Hence, all the aforesaid appeals stand dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on this 29th day of September, 2017.

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →