9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 850X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee as to why did the petitioner enter into transaction on behalf of Tarlochan Singh who was stranger and had no relationship with the assessee, but they were unable to give any reply much less satisfactory reply – thus, no illegality or perversity could be pointed out in the orders passed by the AO and the CIT – Decided against Assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... course of revision proceedings, Shri Amit Kashyap, Manager of the bank in compliance to the summons issued under section 131 of the Act appeared before the respondent and furnished affidavit dated 28.5.2012 stating that in order to achieve the target of selling the gold coins from his branch, he persuaded the petitioner to permit to enroute the amount of Shri Tarlochan Singh through her account for purchase of the said coins as the purchase of coins was not permitted through NRE account. The CIT vide order dated 28.3.2013, Annexure P.6 dismissed the application for revision of the order passed by the Assessing Officer, making addition of Rs. 24,39,000/-. The petitioner submits that since no appeal lies against the said order, she is before this court through the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that affidavit dated 2.8.2011 (Annexure P.1) of Tarlochan Singh son of Shri Gian Singh from whom the amount had been received was filed before the Assessing authority and affidavit of Shri Amit Kashyap, the Bank Manager with HDFC Bank Kapurthala Branch dated 28.5.2012, Annexure P.2 was also filed. The source of cash deposit of Rs. 24,38,826/- relating to pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not expired, or, in the case of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) or to the Appellate Tribunal, the assessee has not waived his right of appeal; or (b) where the order is pending on an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals); or (c) where the order has been made the subject of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) or to the Appellate Tribunal. (5) Every application by an assessee for revision under this section shall be accompanied by a fee of five hundred rupees. (6) On every application by an assessee for revision under this sub-section, made on or after the 1st day of October, 1998, an order shall be passed within one year from the end of the financial year in which such application is made by the assessee for revision. Explanation: In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of this sub-section, the time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard under the proviso to section 129 and any period during which any proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded. (7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (6), an order in revision under sub-section (6) may be passed at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the denomination of notes withdrawn by S.Tarlochan Singh as mentioned above. To verify these facts, summon under Section 131 was issued to Miss Veena d/o Shri Sham Lal on 10.10.2011. Inspector of this office has reported that she refused to accept this summon but she assured that she will visit the office at 2.30 pm on the same day but she did not attend this office till date. Thirdly she filed return of income for the said year declaring income or Rs. 1,32,000/- after claiming expenses of Rs. 18,000/- from the job work of boutique. Her counsel filed written reply on 23.8.2011 which stated that being bank employee and to achieve the target of gold sale in Diwali period she received a sum of Rs. 25 lacs from S.Tarlochan Singh son of Shri Gian Singh Village Thekriwal PO Nurpur District Kapruthala but she did not declare any salary income received from the bank. A letter bearing No.1636 dated 13.9.2011 issued to the Manager, HDFC bank Limited, MGN Public School, Kapurthala who was requested to intimate the exact date of her joining and relieving. In response to this query her counsel filed written reply on 4.10.2011 stating therein that Miss Veena was never employee of bank at that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rself, it was not possible to confront the assessee with Shri Amit Kashyap who has tried to own the responsibility for maneuvering the entire transaction. I am therefore unable to consider the application of the assessee favourably and the same stands rejected." 9. It is clear from the orders passed by CIT and the Assessing Officer that inspite of opportunity having been provided to the assessee to appear before them, she did not chose to appear and, therefore, Shri Amit Kashyap could not be confronted to the assessee who had tried to own the responsibility for maneuvering the entire transaction. It may be noticed that on a query being put to the counsel for the petitioner as to why did the petitioner enter into transaction on behalf of Tarlochan Singh who was stranger and had no relationship with the petitioner, learned counsel was unable to give any reply much less satisfactory reply. In such circumstances, no illegality or perversity could be pointed out in the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the CIT. Moreover, as regards the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, in the facts and circumstances of that case, the provisions of section 69 were n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
