ACIT, New Delhi v. M/s Siltech Engineering Pvt. Ltd.,, New Delhi

ITA 4296/DEL/2009 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 429620114 RSA 2009
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 4296/DEL/2009
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s)
Appellant ACIT, New Delhi
Respondent M/s Siltech Engineering Pvt. Ltd.,, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 06-01-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted G
Tribunal Order Date 06-01-2010
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 06-11-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA I.T.A. NO. 4296/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF IT VS. M/S.SIL TECH ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. CIRCLE 8(1) FLAT NO.31 KHAN MARKET NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI SK BHARTI SR.DR RESPONDENT BY: NONE( ADJ. APPLI CATION REJECTED) ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV: JUDICIAL MEMBER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE ORDE R OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DATED 04.08.2009 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT LEARNED C IT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.25 LACS MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER UNDER SEC. 144 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961. 2. THE TAX-CONSULTANT OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI RAVINDER MAHAJAN HAS APPLIED FOR AN ADJOURNMENT ON THE GROUND THAT HE IS PRE-OCC UPIED AT PANIPAT. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LEARNED DR WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY AND FIND THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE RE VENUE THEREFORE WE DO NOT DEEM IT NECESSARY TO TAKE ASSISTANCE OF ASSESSEE IN DECIDING THE APPEAL. WE 2 REJECTED THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION FILED BY THE L EARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL EX PAR TE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IS RUNNING INTO ONE AND HALF PAGE. IT READS AS UNDER: RETURN DECLARING A LOSS OF RS.16 394 WAS FILED ON 28.11.2006. THE SAME WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) ON 19.11.2007. TH E CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. STATUTORY NOTICES U/S.143(2) /142(1) WERE ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM TIME TO T IME. FIRST NOTICE U/S.143(2) OF THE I.T. ACT WAS ISSUED ON 10.10.2007 FIXING THE CASE FOR 26.10.2007. NONE ATTENDED ON TH IS DATE. ANOTHER NOTICE U/S. 115WE(2) WAS ISSUED ON 23.10.2007 FIXIN G THE CASE FOR 02.11.2007. NONE ATTENDED ON THIS DATE. ANOTHER NOT ICE U/S.143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 26.11.2007 AT THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS FIXI NG THE CASE FOR 30.11.2007. A FRESH NOTICE U/S.142(1) ALONGWITH QUESTIONNAIRE W AS SENT ON 23.09.2008 AT THE ADDRESS OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE CO MPANY. SH. TARUN CHHABRA HON'BLE COURT2/33 WEST ENCLAVE PITAM AS WELL AS SH. MUNICH KUMAR SHARMA E-18/155 SECTOR 3 ROHINI FIXI NG THE CASE FOR 10.10.2008 BOTH THE NOTICES CAME BACK UNSERVED WIT H THE POSTAL REMARKS LEFT RETURN TO SENDER. FROM THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES AS STATED ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MENTIONED WRONG ADDRESSES IN THE R ETURN OF INCOME AS WELL AS IN THE PAN DATA BASE. WHICH PROVED THAT IT HAS NO INTENTION TO DISCHARGE BE OBLIGATION CAST UPON IT UNDER THE I.T. ACT AND MADE 3 DELIBERATE EFFORTS TO AVOID THE PROCEEDINGS INITIAT ED UNDER THIS ACT. I AM THEREFORE CONSTRAINED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSME NT U/S.144 OF I.T. ACT ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AS THE ASSESSMENT IS GETTING BARRED BY LIMITATION ON 31.12.2008. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS STATED A BOVE ASSESSMENT IS MADE AT RS.25 00 000 U/S.144 OF THE I T ACT. HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF ADDITIONS I AM SATI SFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF IT S INCOME. THE PENAL PROVISIONS OF SEC. 271(1)(B) ARE ATTRACTED IN THIS CASE. ASSESSED AT RS.25 00 000. CHARE INTEREST U/S.234B C & D. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(B) AND 271(1)(C) ARE INITIATED SEPARATELY. 4. ON APPEAL LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS OBSERVED THA T SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BUT IT FAI LED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES THEREFORE ASSESSING OFFICER IS JUSTIFIED TO FRAME AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC.144 OF THE ACT ACCORDING TO HIS BEST JUDG MENT. HOWEVER WHILE DEALING WITH THE ADDITION ON MERIT LEARNED CIT(APP EALS) ON THE STRENGTH OF TWO JUDGMENTS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT REPORTED IN 76 ITR 690 AND 115 ITR 524 RENDERED IN THE CASE OF STATE OF ORISSA VS. MAHARAJ SHRI V.P. SINGH DEO AND PADAM KUMAR VS. CIT RESPECTIVELY OBSE RVED THAT WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 144 THE ASSESSING OF FICER SHOULD BE GUIDED 4 BY RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCI ENCE. THE AUTHORITY MAKING A BEST JUDGMENT ORDER MUST MAKE AN HONEST AN D FAIR ESTIMATE OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE THOUGH SOME ARBITRARINESS CA NNOT BE AVOIDED IN SUCH AN ESTIMATE BUT THE SAME MUST NOT BE CAPRICIOUS. TH E ESTIMATE SHOULD HAVE A REASONABLE NEXUS TO THE AVAILABLE MATERIAL AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE GUESS WORK SHOULD NOT BE WILD BUT REASONABLY CO NNECTED TO AVAILABLE MATERIAL. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) A. O. HAS NOT MADE ANY REFERENCE TO THE AVAILABLE MATERIAL WHILE ESTIMATIN G THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.25 LACS. 5. LEARNED DR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) BE SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUE BE RESTORED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REINVESTIGATION. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE SU BMISSIONS WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN IT BECAUSE IT IS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO OUGHT TO HAVE COLLECTED THE MATERIAL BY EXERCISING HIS QUASI-JUDI CIAL POWERS. THE ITAT WHILE SITTING IN SECOND APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS NOT OBLIGED TO PROVIDE A FRESH INNING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REINVESTIGATE TH E ISSUES. IT IS FOR THE REVENUE TO TAKE RECOURSE PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE IT A CT. WE HAVE CONFRONTED THE LEARNED DR AT THE TIME OF HEARING TO SHOW US TH E MATERIAL WHICH CAN PURSUED US TO REVERSE THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED C IT(APPEALS) AND RESTORE 5 THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER. HE WAS UNABLE TO BRING A NY MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE COULD UNDERSTAND HIS LOGIC IF SOME MATERIAL IN T HE SHAPE OF QUESTIONNAIRE OR OTHER EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WAS ANNEXED WITH THE APPEAL IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE ES TIMATED INCOME AND THE MATERIAL POSSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. LEARNE D ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ONLY MADE A REFERENCE OF DIFFERENT NOTICES AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN OBSERVED THAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS ESTIMATED AT RS. 25 LACS. LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS APPRECIATED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE AND NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06.01.2010 ( SHAMIM YAHYA) ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 06/01/2010 MOHAN LAL COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR