Mandeep Kaur Chadha, New Delhi v. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1338/DEL/2010 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 26-05-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 133820114 RSA 2010
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 1338/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s)
Appellant Mandeep Kaur Chadha, New Delhi
Respondent ITO, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 26-05-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted E
Tribunal Order Date 26-05-2010
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 26-03-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO. 1338/DEL/10 ASSTT. YEAR 2001-02 MANDEEP KAUR CHADHA 31 TRANSPORT CENTRE ROHTAK ROAD NEW DELHI. VS. ITO WARD 26 (1) NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI SALIL KAPOOR SHIR SANAT KAPOOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SMT. PRATIMA KAUSHIK SR. DR ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV JM: THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE OR DER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 11JANUARY 2010 PASSED FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2001-0 2. THE SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CON FIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5 LACS. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT AO HAD RECE IVED AN INFORM FROM DIRECTORS OF INVESTIGATION INDICATING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 5 LACS THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE BEARING NO. 19715/- DATED 30 TH MARCH 2001 FROM ONE SHRI KESHO RAM. THE SAID CHEQU E WAS ISSUED FROM ITA NO. 1338/DEL/2010 ASSTT. YEAR 2001-02 2 ACCOUNT NO. 1100774 INNOVATIVE BANK WAZIRPUR DE LHI AND IT WAS CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE BEARING NO. 11464 WITH THE CANARA BANK RAJOURI GARDEN NEW DELHI. THE AO ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 148 O N THE BASIS OF THIS INFORMATION. WHEN THIS NOTICE WAS ISSUED AND HOW IT WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE IT IS NOT DISCERNABLE FROM THE ASSTT. ORDE R. THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT U/S 143(2) AND U/S 142(1) WERE SERVED UPON THE ASSE SSEE INFORMING HER THE DATE OF HEARING I.E 23.10.2008. ON THIS DATE NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE AO ON 3.11.2008 SHRI JAT IN MADAN CA ATTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO DIRECTED HIM TO S UBMIT COPY OF THE INCOME TAX RETURNS EVEN IF ALREADY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I N RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 BANK ACCOUNT SHOWING THE ENTRY AND EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF RS. 5 LAC RECEIVED FROM SHRI KESHO RAM. THE CASE WAS ADJOURNE D TO 5.11.2008. ACCORDING TO THE AO ON 5.11.2008 NONE ATTENDED HEA RING WAS ADJOURNED TO 20 TH NOVEMBER 2008. SHRI J.S. DUA CA ATTENDED ON 20.1 1.2008 AND SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT. THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR 26.11.2008. THEREAFTER ADJOURNED TO 3.12.2008. ON 15 TH DECEMBER 2008 AO FRAMED THE ASSTT. HE OBSERVED TH AT CREDIT OF RS. 5 LAC IS NOTHING EXCEPT AN ENTRY TAKE N FROM ENTRY PROVIDER. HE MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 5 LACS IN THE TAXABLE INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. DISSATISFIED WITH THE ADDITION ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) . LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY HAS FIXED THE HEARING FOR 20 TH AUGUST 2009 BUT ACCORDING TO HIS OBSERVATION NOO NE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER HEARING WAS FIXED ON 15 .9.2009 16.10.2009 ITA NO. 1338/DEL/2010 ASSTT. YEAR 2001-02 3 9.11.2009 23.11.2009 AND 8.1.2010. NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE HENCE HE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE AFTER GOING THROUGH THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AO HAS NOT GRANTED SUFFICIENT TIME TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOUR CE OF CREDIT ENTRY. WITH REGARD TO THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT(A) HE SUBM ITTED THAT SERVICE WAS NOT EFFECTED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE THE NOTICES R EMAINED UNCOMPLIED WITH. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS A NEGLIGENT LADY. SHE DID NOT BOTHER TO SUBMIT THE REQUISITE DETAIL BEFOR E THE AO. SHE DID NOT BOTHER TO RESPOND THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE LD. CIT(A). IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES SHE DOES NOT DESERVE ANY LENIENCY AT THE END OF TRIBUNA L. SHE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF CREDIT ENTRY OF RS. 5 LACS TAKEN FROM SHRI KESHO RAM HENCE ADDIT IONS DESERVES TO BE CONFIRMED. 5. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. NO DOUBT ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODU CE ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO I.E. CONFIRMATION FROM SHRI KESHO RAM HIS CREDIT WORTHINESS ETC. BUT WE FIND THAT AO HAS COMPLETED THE INQUIRY ALMOST WITHI N ONE MONTH. HE FAILED TO GIVE SUFFICIENT TIME TO THE ASSESSEE FOR PRODUCING THE REQUISITE EVIDENCE. THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT RECEIPT OF RS. 5 LAC FROM SHRI KESHO RAM IS NOTHING BUT AN ENTRY FROM AN ENTRY PROVIDER. HOWEVER WE DO NOT FIND ANY BASIS IN THE ASSTT. ORDER FOR ARRIVING AT THIS CONCLUSION. HE HAS NOT R ECORDED THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ITA NO. 1338/DEL/2010 ASSTT. YEAR 2001-02 4 KESHO RAM. HE DOES NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENCE INDICATING THE FACT THAT IT IS AN ENTRY TAKEN FROM AN ENTRY PROVIDER. WE FAILED TO UN DERSTAND ON WHAT BASIS LD. AO HAD ARRIVED AT THIS CONCLUSION. 6. ONCE THE ASSESSEE WAS DISSATISFIED WITH THE ADDI TION AND CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL SHE SHOULD HAVE ATLEAST FILED HER AFFIDAVIT CONFIRMATION FROM SHRI KESHO RAM AND OTHER RELATED EVIDENCE ALONG WIT H HER APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. SHE DID NOT BOTHER T O COLLECT THE EVIDENCE AND PRODUCED THEM BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY OR EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT TIME TO FILE THESE EVIDENCES. HOWEVER WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO GRANT AN ADJOUR NMENT FOR THIS REASON. IT IS THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE FILED AGAINST THE ORDER O F LD. CIT(A) DATED 11 TH JANUARY 2010 RIGHT FROM 3.11.2008 WHEN SHRI JATIN MADAN CA APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO SHE IS AWARE ABOU T THE ONUS REQUIRED TO BE DISCHARGED BY HER. INSTEAD OF TAKING STEPS IN THAT DIRECTION SHE HAS LINGERED THE MATTER UNNECESSARILY. WE CONDEMN THE ATTITUDE O F THE ASSESSEE IN HANDLING HER INCOME TAX MATTERS BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. HOWEVER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE QUANTUM OF PUNISHMENT IN THE SHAPE OF TAX INTEREST ON THE ADDITION OF RS. 5 LACS VIS A VIS HE R NEGLIGENCE IN NOT FURNISHING THE REQUISITE DETAILS BEFORE REVENUE AUTHORITIES W E ARE OF THE OPINION THAT SUCH PUNISHMENT IS DISPROPORTIONATE TO HER NEGLIGENCE. T HEREFORE TAKING A LENIENT VIEW WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO FOR READJUDICATION. THE AO SHALL AFFORD DUE OPPORTUNITY ITA NO. 1338/DEL/2010 ASSTT. YEAR 2001-02 5 OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE IS DIRE CTED TO COOPERATE WITH THE AO. SHE WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HER EXPLANATION OF THE CREDIT ENTRY OF RS. 5 LACS. CONS IDERING THE NEGLIGENCE OF ASSESSEE WE IMPOSE A COST OF RS. 500/-. THE ASSESS EE IS DIRECTED TO DEPOSIT THE COST WITH THE AO WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER. IF ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEPOSIT THE AMOUNT HER APPEAL WILL BE DEE MED TO HAVE BEEN DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26.5.2010. SD/- [A.K. GARODIA] [RAJPAL YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VEENA DATED: 26.5.2010 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT