9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 459 - AT - Income TaxCondonation of delay Held that - CIT(A) has recorded that the assessee has neither filed any application for condonation of delay, nor has made any ground of appeal regarding the condonation of delay - assessee has not given any reason as to why the appeals were filed late and hence, the appeals were liable to be dismissed, as time barred there was no reason for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by more than one year could be given on behalf of the assessee - there is no reason to disbelieve the panchnama dated 2.1.2009 in support of the claim of the department that the both the assessment orders were served by affixture on 2.1.2009, after the assessment orders were dispatched by speed post on 31.12.2008, and were received back by the department from the postal authorities - the CIT(A) has validly dismissed the appeals. Initiation of proceedings u/s 147 and 148 of the Act Held that - The CIT(A) has passed a well-reasoned speaking order on the issue - the assessments for AY 1994-95 and 1995-1996 were reopened u/s 147 with prior approval of the JCIT and the notice u/s 148 was served on the son of assessee, Shri Devang Sachdev - the reasons recorded by the AO while reopening the assessment proceedings u/s 147 were communicated to the assessee and the assessee could not file any objection - the assessee was from the very beginning aware of all the developments - department has served the notice by affixture at the last known address of the assessee and copy of the panchnama was filed before the CIT(A) by the AO - There is no material to doubt the genuineness of the panchnama regarding service of notices - there is no mistake in the order of the CIT(A) on the issue that the grounds of the appeal are meaningless and dismissed as raised without any basis, and the notices were validly served as stated by the AO in the remand report and the orders have also been served as detailed in the orders of the CIT(A). It is not a case where the assessee was not given opportunity to prove the source of credit entries by the AO and the CIT(A) - The assessee has not even filed confirmation letters from most of the creditors - the onus is on the assessee to prove the identity and credit-worthiness of the creditors and also genuineness of the transactions - the assessee has miserably failed to discharge its onus cast on it under the statute and could not establish the identity and credit worthiness of creditors and genuineness of the transaction - the CIT(A) has passed a well-reasoned speaking order on the merits of the case, and the assessee could not controvert even a single line Decided against Assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Assessment of income against 'nil' returned income. 3. Validity of service of notice under section 148. 4. Validity of additions made beyond the reasons recorded for reopening. 5. Validity of assessment framed beyond four years. 6. Reopening based on information from subsequent assessment years. 7. Addition to the extent of opening balance carried forward in reference to cash credit. 8. Addition despite confirmation and PAN filed. 9. Addition despite repayment to various parties. 10. Discharge of onus by providing complete details of creditors. 11. Failure to issue summons under section 131. 12. Adverse remarks by lower authorities. 13. Validity of approval granted under section 151. 14. Adverse remarks in the appellate order. 15. Charging of interest under sections 234A and 234B. Detailed Analysis: 1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision not to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The assessee claimed that the delay was due to being unaware of the assessment orders served by affixture while residing in the UK. However, the CIT(A) found no valid reason for the delay, noting that the assessee did not file an application for condonation and made incorrect statements about the service date. The Tribunal found no reason to disbelieve the department's claim that the orders were served by affixture on 2.1.2009, and dismissed the appeals as time-barred. 2. Assessment of Income Against 'Nil' Returned Income: The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had considered the appeals on merits despite dismissing them as time-barred. The CIT(A) found that the assessee failed to provide evidence or details to support the returned income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, noting that the assessee did not discharge the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions, leading to the confirmation of the assessed income. 3. Validity of Service of Notice under Section 148: The Tribunal found that the notices under section 148 were validly served on the son of the assessee and by affixture. The assessee's authorized representative had acknowledged the notices by requesting to treat the previously filed returns as responses to the notices. The Tribunal held that the service of notices was valid and dismissed the assessee's claims of invalid service. 4. Validity of Additions Made Beyond the Reasons Recorded for Reopening: The Tribunal held that once the assessment is validly reopened, the AO is entitled to examine the entire assessment. The CIT(A) cited multiple court decisions supporting this view. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, rejecting the assessee's argument that the AO should not go beyond the reasons recorded for reopening. 5. Validity of Assessment Framed Beyond Four Years: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessment framed beyond four years was valid. The CIT(A) found that the reassessment was based on tangible material obtained during the finalization of assessment proceedings for the subsequent assessment year. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s reasoning and dismissed the assessee's claims. 6. Reopening Based on Information from Subsequent Assessment Years: The Tribunal found that the reopening of assessments for the relevant years was based on information obtained during the assessment proceedings for the subsequent year. The CIT(A) held that the reopening was valid as the loans were first raised during the relevant years, and no confirmations were filed. The Tribunal upheld this decision. 7. Addition to the Extent of Opening Balance Carried Forward in Reference to Cash Credit: The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had considered each credit entry and found that the assessee failed to provide evidence to support the opening balances. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm the additions. 8. Addition Despite Confirmation and PAN Filed: The Tribunal found that the assessee did not provide sufficient evidence to support the credit entries, despite filing confirmations and PAN details. The CIT(A) held that the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s findings. 9. Addition Despite Repayment to Various Parties: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessee failed to provide evidence that the money repaid to various parties did not come back to the assessee. The CIT(A) found that the assessee did not discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal confirmed the additions. 10. Discharge of Onus by Providing Complete Details of Creditors: The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide complete details and evidence to support the credit entries. The CIT(A) found that the assessee did not discharge the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. 11. Failure to Issue Summons under Section 131: The Tribunal found that the assessee did not request the AO to issue summons under section 131 during the assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) held that the assessee had ample opportunity to provide evidence but failed to do so. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s findings. 12. Adverse Remarks by Lower Authorities: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the adverse remarks were based on the assessee's failure to cooperate and provide evidence during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order. 13. Validity of Approval Granted under Section 151: The Tribunal found that the approval granted under section 151 was valid. The CIT(A) held that the higher authorities had given approval based on the reasons recorded by the AO. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s reasoning and dismissed the assessee's claims. 14. Adverse Remarks in the Appellate Order: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the adverse remarks were justified based on the assessee's non-cooperation and failure to provide evidence. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order. 15. Charging of Interest under Sections 234A and 234B: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to charge interest under sections 234A and 234B, noting that the assessee had committed defaults leading to the imposition of interest. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order. Conclusion: The appeals for both the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 were dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on all issues, including the validity of reopening the assessments, the additions made, and the imposition of interest. The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperation and failure to provide evidence throughout the proceedings.
|
