M/s Ambitious Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 123/RJT/2014 | 1997-1998
Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2021 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 12324914 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN AABCA8076C
Bench Rajkot
Appeal Number ITA 123/RJT/2014
Duration Of Justice 7 year(s) 1 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant M/s Ambitious Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT
Respondent The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 12-03-2021
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 12-03-2021
Date Of Final Hearing 03-03-2021
Next Hearing Date 03-03-2021
Last Hearing Date 21-11-2019
First Hearing Date 27-01-2021
Assessment Year 1997-1998
Appeal Filed On 10-02-2014
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH RAJKOT (BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI WASEEM AHMED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) [THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT] ITA. NO: 123/RJT/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1997-98) M/S. AMBITIOUS FINANCE & INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. 107- KAPAD MARKET PARA BAZAR RAJKOT PAN NO. AABCA 8076C THE I.T.O. WARD-2(4) RAJKOT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : WRITTEN SUBMISSION RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. S. RATHI SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 03 -03-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 -03-2021 PER MAHAVIR PRASAD J.M. 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HEREINAFTER CALLED CIT(A)) ORDER NO. CIT(A)-III/0162/2011-12 ORDER DATED 20/11/2013 ARISING OUT OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27/12/2011. ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: ITA NO. 123/RJT/2014 . A.Y. 1997-98 2 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING ORDER PASSED U/S. 144 WHICH IS TOTALLY BAD ON FACTS AS ALSO IN LAW. THE SAME DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN .CONFIRMING ORDER PASSED U/S. 144 DETERMINING INCOME OF RS. 51 95 100/- AS AGAINST RETURN INCOME OF RS. 2 860/- WHICH IS TOTALLY BAD ON FACTS AS ALSO IN LAW. THE SAME DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 3.1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 49 30 000/-. THE ADDITION NEEDS DELETION. 3.2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 11 25 000/- IN THE NAME OF H.K. KESHRIA - HUF. THE ADDITION NEEDS DELETION. 3.3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 27 00 000/- IN THE NAME OF MAGANLAL PADALIA. THE ADDITION NEEDS DELETION. 3.4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 11 05 000/- IN THE NAME OF BHARATBHAI SINGALA. THE ADDITION NEEDS DELETION. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 2 62 241/- WITHOUT ACCEPTING EXPLANATION FURNISHED. THE ADDITION NEEDS DELETION. 5. TAKING IN TO CONSIDERATION THE LEGAL STATUTORY FACTUAL ACCOUNTING AND ADMINISTRATIVE ASPECTS NO ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS. 49 30 000/- AND RS. 2 62 241/- OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED. THE ADDITION NEEDS DELETION. 6. THE LD. C1T(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. CHARGING INTEREST U/S. 234B AND 234C. THE SAME NEEDS DELETION. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. CHARGING INTEREST U/S. 234B AND 234C. THE SAME NEEDS SUITABLE REDUCTION. 8. WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE ASSESSMENT MADE IS BAD IN LAW AND DESERVES ANNULMENT. 9. WITHOUT PREJUDICE NO ADEQUATE SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN PROVIDED WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSMENT NEEDS ANNULMENT. 10. WITHOUT PREJUDICE NO ADEQUATE SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN PROVIDED WHILE PASSING APPEAL ORDER. THE ASSESSMENT NEEDS ANNULMENT. 11. WITHOUT PREJUDICE ALL THE 3 AMOUNTS OF ADDITION MADE HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDED IN THE HANDS OF CONCERN PERSON VIZ SHRI H.K. KESHRIA - HUF BHARATBHAI P. SINGALA AND SHRI MAGANBHAI H. PADALIA. THUS THE SAME AMOUNT CANNOT BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THERE IS VIOLATION OF BASIC PRINCIPALS IN TAXING THE SAME AMOUNT TWICE. THE ADDITION MADE IN THE HAND OF THE ASSESSEE NEEDS DELETION. 12. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD/ALTER/AMEND AND/OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OR ALL GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE THE ACTUAL HEARING TAKES PLACE. 2. THIS IS THE SECOND ROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBINAL EARLIER ASSSESSEE COULD NOT SUBMIT HIS PAPER AND ADVANCED HIS ARGUMENT BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THIS MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THIS CASE AS PER MERIT OF THE MATTER. BUT IN SECOND ROUND ALSO ASSESSE DID NOT FILE ANY SUBMISSION ITA NO. 123/RJT/2014 . A.Y. 1997-98 3 AND ADVANCED HIS ARGUMENT BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. SO ON ACCOUNT OF NON- COOPERATION/NON-APPEARANCE BY THE ASSESSE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION. 3. BEFORE US AS WELL NEITHER ASSESSE NOR ANY ASSESSE REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND FILED A ONE PAPER SUBMISSION BY THE A.R. WHEREIN IT IS MENTIONED THAT AS MENTION THERE IN THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF ADDITION HAS BEEN TAXED IN THE END OF ALL THE 3 PERSONS IN WHOSE NAME THE SAME IS STANDING. IT IS THERE FOR HUMBLY PRAYED THAT ACCEPTING THE DECISION OF HON. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ARAVALI TRADING COMPANY LTD. 220 CTR 0622 (COPY ENCLOSED WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSION FURNISHED) THE HON. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT HAS BEEN PLEASED TO CONSIDER THE GUIDELINES OF HON. SUPREME COURT PROVIDED IN THE CASE OF DAULATRAM RAWATMULL 1972 CTR 411 AT PARA 12 PAGE 5 OF THIS ORDER. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE APPEAL MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED AS PRAYED FOR IN EITHER CASE AS MENTION THERE IN SINCE THE SAME AMOUNT HAS BEEN TAX TWICE ONCE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSES AND SECOND TIME IN THE CASE OF RESPECTIVE CASH CREDITORS IN THE RESPECTIVE CASES MATTER MAY KINDLY BE RESTORED TO THE L.D. A.O. TO ASCERTAIN THE POSITION AND TO DELETE THE SAME FROM THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSE. 5. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION IT IS ONE PAPER SUBMISSION IS OUT OF CONTEXT OF THE MATTER AND NOT HELPFUL TO THE ASSESSE. IN THIS MATTER ASSESSE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF FINANCE. DURING THE YEAR THE ASESSEE HAD RAISED LOANS OF RS. 66 93 550/- FROM 61 PERSONS. THESE LOANS WERE MAINLY RAISED FROM AGRICULTURIST THROUGH AN AGENT. . 6. ON AN ENQUIRY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT IS SEEN THAT ASESSEE FURNISHED DETAILS OF 56 SO CALLED DEPOSITORS. HOWEVER ASSESSE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE DEPOSITOR IN PERSON AND NO SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SUCH AS CREDITWORTHINESS SOURCE OF THE MONEY AND FAILED TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY OF THE PERSONS AND ON ACCOUNT OF NON-COOPERATION BY THE ASSESSE LD. A.O. MADE ADDITIONS. ITA NO. 123/RJT/2014 . A.Y. 1997-98 4 7. THEREAFTER ASESSEE PREFERRED FIRST STATUTORY APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT NO SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE SINCE NEITHER ASSESSE NOR ASSESSE REPRESENTATIVE HAS APPEARED BEFORE US AND NO SUBMISSIONS ETC. MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SO IT CAN BE PRESUMED THAT ASSESSE HAD NOTHING TO SAY IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE. 8. SINCE THERE IS NO MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US IN SUPPORT OF ASSESSE MOREOVER NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSE WHO COULD PLEAD CASE OF THE ASSESSE. THEREFORE IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE HAVE TO CONFIRM THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 9. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 12 - 03- 2021 SD/- SD/- (WASEEM AHMED) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 12 /03/2021 RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR. ITAT AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT RAJKOT