9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 396X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the ld. AO for further adjudication - AO shall provide proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in set aside proceedings. The evidence/explanations submitted by assessee in its defence shall be admitted by the ld. AO, and adjudicated by the ld. AO on merits in accordance with law. - I.T.A. Nos.697 to 699/Asr/2019 And I.T.A. Nos. 560 to 561/Asr/2017 & ITA 681/Asr/2019 And I.T.A. Nos. 607/Asr/2017 & ITA No.680/Asr/2019 And I.T.A. Nos. 608/Asr/2017 And I.T.A. No.233/Asr/2018 And I.T.A. No. 691/Asr/2019 - - - Dated:- 12-5-2023 - Dr. M. L. Meena, Accountant Member And Sh. Anikesh Banerjee, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Sh. Tarun Bansal, Adv. For the Respondent : Sh. RadheyShyam Jaiswal, Sr. DR ORDER PER: BENCH: A batch of appeal of the different assessees was filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ludhiana, [in brevity the CIT (A) ] order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act]. The impugned orders were emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Moga, (in brevity the ld. AO), order passed u/s 143(3)/144 of the Act. 2. At the outset, all the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the revenue do not have on record notice u/s 148 and reasons recorded u/s 148 and approval u/s 151 from Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, as mentioned in (Para-2.6 of the A.O's order being revenue could not provide copies thereof to the appellant under RTI even after filing of RTI second appeal dtd. 28-10-22 and is bad-in-law and does not lead to valid jurisdiction. 2. That the assessment/addition is based on report of CBI dtd. 01-09-06 and certain loose papers as provided by CBI to Revenue (as per Para-6.3 of CIT(A)'s order for A.Y. 2005-06 ) and further ignoring the request of the appellant that books of accounts are impounded by CBI and the assessment/addition made without taking cognizance of Books of Accounts and on the basis of Loose papers (Refer pages 12 to 15 of CIT(A)'s order for A.Y. 2007-08 dtd. 01-08-19) is bad-in-law. 3. That Ld. A.O. wrongly considered ICICI bank account in the hands of Richa Kawatra w/o director and made addition of Rs. 168480/- of deposit in her hands being this account was opened on the directions of the company to facilitate smooth functioning of the family business/company i.e. appellant and said bank account belon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not lead to valid jurisdiction. 2. That the assessment/addition is based on report of CBI dtd. 01-09-06 and on the basis of certain loose papers as provided by CBI to Revenue (as per Para-6.3 of CIT(A)'s order for A.Y. 2005-06 ) and further ignoring the request of the appellant that books of Accounts are impounded by CBI hence assessment/addition made without taking cognizance of Books of Accounts of appellant and on the basis of Loose papers(Refer page 12 to 15 of CIT(A)'s order for A.Y. 2007-08 dtd. 01-08-19 ) is bad-in-law. 3. That Ld. A.O. wrongly considered ICICI bank account in the hands of Richa Kawatra w/o director and made addition of deposits of sale proceeds of Rs. 689246/- in her hand being this account was opened on the directions of the company to facilitate smooth functioning of the family business/company i.e. appellant and said bank account belongs to appellant and be assessed in the hands of appellant only being otherwise tantamount to double addition. 4. That Ld. A.O. wrongly considered Centurion bank account in the hands of Roshan Lal Kawatra director of appellant company and made addition of l/3rd = Rs. 146072/- in his hands out of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompleted for all the captioned appellants. The addition was made amount to Rs. 99, 59, 270/- for AY 2005-06 against M/s Gold Star Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but remained unsuccessful. Being dissatisfied the assessee filed appeal before us. 5. During the hearing, the ld. AR for the assessee withdraw ground no. 1, challenging the notice u/s 148 r.w.s. 151 of the Act. Accordingly, the rest of the Ground nos. 2, 3 and 4 of ITA No 697/Asr/2019 with Ground nos. 4 5 of ITA No 698/Asr/2019 and Ground nos. 5 6 of ITA No 699/Asr/2019 are duly adjudicated after hearing both the parties. Rest of the grounds are common and factually similar. 6. The ld. AR filed a written submission with application U/R 29 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rule, 1963 (in short Rule) which are kept in the record. The ld. AR first informed that the assessment was completed on the basis of the loose sheet and the report received from the Central Bureau of Investigation. The copy of the report is annexed in pg. No. 12 to 20 of APB . The ld. AR further invited our attention in order of the ld. CIT(A) page 24 para 6.3.1: 6.3.1. After careful consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e end of the assessing authority. The ld. AR further argued that the entire books of accounts are impounded by the CBI. The assessment was completed without taking cognizance with books of accounts, the appeal only on basis of loose papers. The assessment was completed just bad in law. Accordingly, the entire verification of the revenue is malicious. 6.2. The ld. AR argued and placed that related ground nos. 4 5 of ITA No 698/Asr/2019 and Ground nos. 5 6 of ITA No 699/Asr/2019 the addition was itself arbitrary and not related to the individual assessee. In this respect the ld. AR filed Affidavit of assessee before the bench by execution the direction of Rule 29 of the Rule. The submission is first time placed before the bench and was not filed before the lower authorities. The Affidavits are duly annexed in the APB which are as follows: - SL NO NAME OF APPELLANT APB PAGE NO 1 M/s Gold Star Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd 39-55 2 Mrs. Richa Kawatra 56-57 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
