Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.
Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A. No.99/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09
Sh.Mohd. Muzaffar Beigh, Vs. ITO- Ward 3(5), Friends Colony Baghat Barzulla Baramulla. Srinagar [PAN:`1AIUPB3486D] (Respondent) (Appellant)
Appellant by None. Respondent by Sh. Radhey Shyam Jaiswal, Sr.DR
Date of Hearing 12.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement 20.12.2022
ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM:
The instant appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jammu, [in brevity the ‘CIT(A)’] bearing appeal No.167/16-17, date of order 07.08.2018, the order passed u/s 250(6)of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Y. 2008-09.The impugned order
I.T.A. No.99/Asr/2019 2 Assessment Year: 2008-09
was emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(5),Baramulla, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 144/147 of the Act date of order 29.03.2016.
Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay of 101 days
wherein, the ld. Sr. DR has not made any strong objection for condonation of
delay. Therefore, the delay of 101 days is condoned.
Brief fact of the case is that the assessee’s case was reopened u/s 148 on
basis of the information from Annual Information Report/Central Information
Branch for investment in purchase of share/mutual funds/RBI Bonds aggregating
to amount of Rs.1,79,91,721/-. The investment was made in previous years. The ld.
AO during assessment calculated the purchase of shares invested by the assessee
amount of Rs.5 lac and the capital gain on sale of share under short term capital
gain was worked out amount of Rs.2 lac. So, the total addition was made Rs.7 lacs.
Further, the interest amount was added back Rs.1,23,412/-. The assessee only
challenged the investment in share and STGC of the shares amount of Rs.7 lacs
before the bench. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) by
challenging the assessment order. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO.
Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us.
I.T.A. No.99/Asr/2019 3 Assessment Year: 2008-09
During hearing the assessee was called for hearing but no one was present
on behalf of the assessee. The matter was fixed in several dates. In view of the
above and considering the nature of dispute, we proceed to dispose the appeal of the assessee ex-parte qua after hearing the learned DR and on the basis of material
available on the record.
We heard the submission of the ld. Sr. DR and considered the documents
available in the record. The assessee first challenged the jurisdictional ground for
reopening u/s 148 but the issue was well settled by the ld. CIT(A) and speaking
order was passed. The ld. Sr. DR first pointed out the relevant paragraph of the
order of the ld. CIT(A) page no. 8 which is extracted below: “..............It has also been noticed that the Assessing Officer has duly issued notice under section 143(2) of the Act and it is wrong on the part of the learned AR of the assessee to allege that no notice under section 143(2) of the Act has been issued in this case. As per provisions of section 292B/292BB of the Act, even non-issuing of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act cannot be challenged at this stage. As the assessee did not furnish any evidence to prove his initial investment or for earning of short- term capital gain from business of trading in shares, I do not find any fault in the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment in this case and thereafter making impugned
I.T.A. No.99/Asr/2019 4 Assessment Year: 2008-09
additions. So, the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment in this case and thereafter making both the impugned addition of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of unexplained initial investment in share trading business and Rs.2,00,000/- on account of undisclosed short term capital gain cannot be said to be unjustified and as such all the actions of the Assessing Officer with regard to reopening of assessment and making impugned additions are, therefore, upheld. In the result, the grounds No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of appeal taken by the assessee are dismissed. 7. The ground no. 7 of appeal taken by the assessee is general in nature and do not require any separate adjudication.”
In factual position the assessee has already transacted the share/mutual funds
in amounts of Rs.1,79,91,721/- for relevant financial year. In quantum assessment
the assessee had not contradicted the transaction amount with ld. AO. The ld. AO
has correctly calculated the investment part in share amount of Rs. 5 lacs. Further,
during the year the assessee had liquidated the investment and had incurred the
STGC amount of Rs.2 lacs. The source of investment amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- is
remained unexplained before the bench. We find no infirmity in the order of the
I.T.A. No.99/Asr/2019 5 Assessment Year: 2008-09
ld. AO. The assessee had not able to submit any contradictory fact or any
calculation against the order of the ld. AO. The ld. CIT(A) has discussed both the
legal and factual issue in the order. We are not intervening in the order of the
revenue authorities in this stage. Accordingly, the addition made by the assessing
authority is upheld.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.99/Asr/2019 is
dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20.12.2022
Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) Accountant Member Judicial Member
AKV Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T.