9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 860X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee. - ITA No:- 1089/Del/2017 - - - Dated:- 18-10-2019 - Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava, Judicial Member And Shri Anadee Nath Misshra, Accountant Member For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM [A]. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned appellate order dated 23.12.2016 passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [in short, Ld.CIT(A) ] pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- (1) That the Ld. C.I.T.(A) has erred in sustaining the assessment as Best judgement assessment u/s 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961, as the assessee has not given an opportunity of being heard and a right to question the correctness or the relevancy of the materials on the basis of which the Ld. A.O. proposes to make the best judgment assessment. 2. That the Ld. C.I.T.(A) has erred in sustaining the baseless addition on account of purchase of Bonds/Debentures of ₹ 20,00,000/- as unexplained investme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after taking into account all relevant material gathered during the course of search and seizure operation and available on record. The return of income is downloaded from ITD system of department. The assessee filed its return on 21.05.2014 on an income of ₹ 3,99,800/-. The Individual Transaction Statement downloaded from ITD system of department shows following transactions: S. No. Summary Count Nature of Transaction Amount 1. AIR 1 Purchase of bone/debentures from M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. 2000000 2. CIB 18 Purchase of equity share of various listed companies 6807900 Total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t without further confirming the transaction from concerned persons . From the assessment order I find that the AO has observed That there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee in response to notice u/s 153C of the Act dt. 26.08.2015, nor was there any compliance to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dt. 12.01.2016; the appellant did not comply or respond even to the notice u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act dt. 12.02.2016 and the AO even imposed penalty of ₹ 10,000/-, and therefore the order was passed u/s 144 of the Act. At the appellate stage as well, in terms of provisions of S.250(2) of the Act sufficient time was afforded to the appellant to present and argue his case, which the appellant has apparently failed to avail. 3.2.2 Even for this year the AR enclosed copy of the bank account statement of the appellant of a/c no.0191104000201285 with IDBI Bank Ltd., B-4, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-3. New Delhi for the period 06.12.2013 to 30.09.2014, but this statement is for re period not relevant to the Previous Year relevant to AY 2013- 14. While presenting fruitless arguments the appellant s AR has not submitted any explanation of the source of investment of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the return required . (b) fails to comply with all the terms (c) having made a return, fails to comply . the Assessing Officer, after taking into account all relevant material which the Assessing Officer has gathered, shall, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, make the assessment of the total income or loss to the best of his judgment and determine the sum payable by the assessee on the basis of such assessment: .......................................... Thus, an assessment under section 144, opportunity of being heard has to be given to the assessee. An assessment under section 144 - which is a quasi judicial act and which is to be done after forming the best judgment - that the assessee should be given an opportunity of being heard in respect of any material gathered by the A.O. What section 144 requires the A.O. to do in the case of a defaulting assessee is to make an assessment of his total income to the best of the A.O. s judgment, after taking into account all relevant material which he has gathered. An assessment to the best of judgment is a quasi-judicial proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... less addition on account of purchase of Bonds/Debentures of ₹ 20,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 as the Ld. A.O. has made the said addition merely on the basis of information, without proving the investment has been made by the assessee 2. Ground No. 3 - That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the baseless addition on account of purchase of Equity Shares of ₹ 68,07,900/- as unexplained investment u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 as the Ld. A.O. has made the said addition merely on the basis of information, without proving the investment has been made by the assessee . It Is submitted that the Ld. A.O. has made the said addition on account of purchase of equity share of various listed companies of ₹ 68,07,900/- on the basis of merely Individual Transaction Statement downloaded from ITD system of department. Here, it is submitted that Individual Transaction Statement provides only information which may be true or false? No any information may be declared of the assessee without further confirming the transaction from the concerned person, here, various listed companies and here, the Ld. A.O. has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing Officer and sustained by the learned CIT(A) merely on the basis of individual transactions statement from ITD system of Income Tax Department. However, on perusal of records, we find that the assessee has brought no material on record to prove that the aforesaid investment amounting to ₹ 20 Lac was not made by the assessee (or made out of explained sources of income/wealth); despite the opportunities available to the assessee before Assessing Officer (during assessment proceedings, or during appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) and or now in ITAT). In the written submissions filed by the assessee it has been further contended that the addition of ₹ 68,07,900/- in equity shares has been made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) merely on the basis of individual transactions statement from ITD system of Income Tax Department. However, once again on perusal of records, we find that assessee brought no material on record to prove that the aforesaid investment amounting to ₹ 68,07,900/-was not made by the assessee (or made out of explained sources of income/wealth) despite the opportunities available to the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
