TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 850X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and had no relationship with the assessee, but they were unable to give any reply much less satisfactory reply – thus, no illegality or perversity could be pointed out in the orders passed by the AO and the CIT – Decided against Assessee. - CWP No. 1270 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 24-1-2014 - Ajay Kumar Mittal And Anita Chaudhary,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ravish Sood ORDER Ajay Kumar Mittal,J 1. Challenge in this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for quashing the assessment order dated 5.12.2011, Annexure P.3 and order passed by the respondent - Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jalandhar (CIT) dated 28.3.2013, Annexure P.6 in revision under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act ). 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner, an individual was engaged in a small business of running a boutique and thereafter, she was employed as a clerk with HDFC Bank - The Mall Road, Kapurthala Branch. She filed her income tax return for the assessment year 2009-10 on 29.10.2009 declaring net taxable income of Rs. 1,32,000/- which was process ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hyap, Manager of the bank in compliance to the summons issued under section 131 of the Act appeared before the respondent and furnished affidavit dated 28.5.2012 stating that in order to achieve the target of selling the gold coins from his branch, he persuaded the petitioner to permit to enroute the amount of Shri Tarlochan Singh through her account for purchase of the said coins as the purchase of coins was not permitted through NRE account. The CIT vide order dated 28.3.2013, Annexure P.6 dismissed the application for revision of the order passed by the Assessing Officer, making addition of Rs. 24,39,000/-. The petitioner submits that since no appeal lies against the said order, she is before this court through the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that affidavit dated 2.8.2011 (Annexure P.1) of Tarlochan Singh son of Shri Gian Singh from whom the amount had been received was filed before the Assessing authority and affidavit of Shri Amit Kashyap, the Bank Manager with HDFC Bank Kapurthala Branch dated 28.5.2012, Annexure P.2 was also filed. The source of cash deposit of Rs. 24,38,826/- relating to purchase of gold coins by the petitioner on be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) or to the Appellate Tribunal, the assessee has not waived his right of appeal; or (b) where the order is pending on an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals); or (c) where the order has been made the subject of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) or to the Appellate Tribunal. (5) Every application by an assessee for revision under this section shall be accompanied by a fee of five hundred rupees. (6) On every application by an assessee for revision under this sub-section, made on or after the 1st day of October, 1998, an order shall be passed within one year from the end of the financial year in which such application is made by the assessee for revision. Explanation: In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of this sub-section, the time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard under the proviso to section 129 and any period during which any proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded. (7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (6), an order in revision under sub-section (6) may be passed at any time in c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Singh this amount was given to Miss Veena for purchase of gold. Instead of depositing she kept this amount in her house. The above explanation is not reliable. Secondly deposited denomination of notes are not tallied with the denomination of notes withdrawn by S.Tarlochan Singh as mentioned above. To verify these facts, summon under Section 131 was issued to Miss Veena d/o Shri Sham Lal on 10.10.2011. Inspector of this office has reported that she refused to accept this summon but she assured that she will visit the office at 2.30 pm on the same day but she did not attend this office till date. Thirdly she filed return of income for the said year declaring income or Rs. 1,32,000/- after claiming expenses of Rs. 18,000/- from the job work of boutique. Her counsel filed written reply on 23.8.2011 which stated that being bank employee and to achieve the target of gold sale in Diwali period she received a sum of Rs. 25 lacs from S.Tarlochan Singh son of Shri Gian Singh Village Thekriwal PO Nurpur District Kapruthala but she did not declare any salary income received from the bank. A letter bearing No.1636 dated 13.9.2011 issued to the Manager, HDFC bank Limited, MGN Public School, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urthala or Jalandhar. 5. Position being so, I find that practically there is not much difference in the situation which has been presented before me and that which existed before the AO. Further, in the absence of the assessee herself, it was not possible to confront the assessee with Shri Amit Kashyap who has tried to own the responsibility for maneuvering the entire transaction. I am therefore unable to consider the application of the assessee favourably and the same stands rejected. 9. It is clear from the orders passed by CIT and the Assessing Officer that inspite of opportunity having been provided to the assessee to appear before them, she did not chose to appear and, therefore, Shri Amit Kashyap could not be confronted to the assessee who had tried to own the responsibility for maneuvering the entire transaction. It may be noticed that on a query being put to the counsel for the petitioner as to why did the petitioner enter into transaction on behalf of Tarlochan Singh who was stranger and had no relationship with the petitioner, learned counsel was unable to give any reply much less satisfactory reply. In such circumstances, no illegality or perversity could be point ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
