9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... round of litigation, vide assessment order dated 27th November, 2006 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 254 of the Income-tax Act,1961(hereinafter called " the Act"). 2. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee in ITA No. 63/Alld./2020 for ay:2001-02, in memo of appeal filed with tribunal, reads as under:- "1. That in any view of the matter assessment made on an income of Rs. 5,61,060/- by order dated 27.11.2006 u/s 143(3) /254 of the IT Act is bad both on the facts and in law. 2. That in any view of the matter the Assessing Officer failed to follow the directions of Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dated 07.10.2005 nor proper verification was done by the Assessing Officer made and as per own calculation addition of Rs. 6,02,264/- was made u/s 68 without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee hence the addition made is highly unjustified. 3. That in any view of the matter the Ld. CIT(A) was wrong in passing the order exparte without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee and the Ld. CIT(A) was also wrong in travelling the issue beyond jurisdiction when the said issue was not before the first appellate authority hence the addition as sustained by CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectified the defect by paying short appeal fee of Rs. 4,111/- vide challan number 130( Internet Tax Payment Reference No: 712866953) dated 15th July, 2022 of AXIS Bank-BSR code 6360017 (the application dated 15th July, 2022 was filed by assessee with Registry along with challan of Rs. 4,111/- which is now paced on record in file ). This appeal was finally heard on 22nd July, 2022 with respect to removal of aforesaid defectof deficient appeal fee paid by assessee, but on 22nd July, 2022 again none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application was moved by the assessee, while Department was represented by ld. Sr. DR. This appeal was finally treated as heard as the deficient appeal fee defect was removed by the assessee, which clearly shows that the assessee is fully aware of proceedings but not coming forward to argue the matter nor any written submissions/ explanations/evidences were filed by the assessee in support of its contentions. 4. The only question which is before the tribunal now in this third round of litigation is with regards to the addition of Rs. 64,62,054/- towards fresh deposits raised by the assessee during the Financial Year 2000-01(ay; 2001-0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vant to the year under consideration and make the necessary addition. The AO has gone beyond the direction given by the Hon'ble ITAT in making the addition of Rs. 6,02,264/- and therefore, the addition of Rs. 6,02,264/- is herby deleted. 3. However, it is seen that the AO in the assessment order has observed that deposits made during the Financial Year 2001-02 was to the tune of Rs. 64,62,054/-, therefore, as per the directions of the Hon'ble ITAT the AO should have added this amount to the income of the appellant which she has not done. The Hon'ble ITAT in its order dated 7th October, 2005 in ITA No. 481(Alld)/2004 in Para 21 has observed that: " In view of the above, the submission of the assessee that the amount of Rs. 1,67,51,761/- represents the deposits/instalments made by respective members of the society prior to assessment year under consideration and these being old deposits, no addition can be made under Section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961, is found to be acceptable. However, this version can be accepted only on verification. It may be pointed out that neither the AO nor the ld. CIT(A) had examine the issue from this angle. Hence, we set aside the finding of the ld. CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the second innings of the assessment by the assessing officer question now raised which is far away from the real and correct facts of the case. The question now raised by your goodself was thoroughly examined by the assessing officer who framed the first assessment. That in this case a return was filed by declaring an income of Rs. 6,299.00 by claiming exemption under Section 80-P(c) of the Act. After filing of the return the assessing officer scrutinized the accounts thoroughly and framed the order on 26.03.2004 on a total income of Rs. 1,70,60,110.00. The assessment was made under Section 143(3) of the Act and in computing the above total income the main addition made by the then assessing officer by invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Act and added a sum of Rs. 1,67,51,761/-. The said amount is nothing but belongs to the members who are the regular depositors of instalment against their booking of the flats/plots. The assessing officer examined each and every ledger account of the depositor and found that in all the ledger accounts, there was opening balance and as well as payments during the year. In this regard the assessing officer himself prepared a list and atta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the sides, we are of the view that this issue requires to be investigated at the level of the Ld. CIT(A).Therefore, the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding de novo after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. 4.3 As directed by tribunal vide appellate order dated 19th June, 2008 in second round of litigation, the matter again reached ld. CIT(A) in the third round of litigation. The assessee did not enter appearance before ld. CIT(A), despite several opportunities being granted by ld. CIT(A), who was pleased to confirm the additions vide appellate order dated 06th August, 2019 in ITA No. CIT(A), Allahabad/10004/2006-07, by holding as under: "Notices dated 31.12.2008, 01.04.2014, 01.05.2014, 26.05.2014, 15.09.2015, 03.03.2017, 03.10,2017 and 15.07.2019 fixing the date for compliance on 05.01.2009, 09.04.2014, 12.05.2014, 18.06.2014, 23.09.2015, 20.03.2017, 17.10.2017 and 22.07.2019 were issued through official Income Tax Business Application (ITBA network)/speed post. These notices were served on the e-mail address/speed post submitted by the applicant while filing the appeal. No written submission or any paper books has been filed in support ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Allahabad to re-decide to issue a fresh after giving proper and sufficient opportunity to the assessee with following observations:- 5. After hearing both the parties, we are of the view that this issue requires to be investigated at the level of the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the matter is restored to the file of the Ld CIT(A) for deciding de novo after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. The contents of the AO's and CIT(A) order have been perused and I have no reasons to interfere with the stand taken by the CIT(A) earlier on the issue who gave these following observations:- 3.3 The submission given by the appellant has been perused and I do not find any merit in the submission given by the appellant. In fact the observation of the AO that the fresh deposits cannot be taxed u/s 68 is completely wrong as the Hon'ble ITAT has given a clear cut direction that deposits/installments made by respective members of the Society during the current year has to be investigated and the deposits pertaining to the current year has to be taxed. Thus the contention of the AO that the addition which was made by the preceding AO is not maintainable is based totally on wrong premises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidences in support of the claims made in the grounds of appeal are not filed, explaining as to why this amount cannot be added u/s 68 of IT Act even though this amount was received during the year under consideration. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 64,62,054/- is not interfered with. " 4.4 Now, the assessee has come in appeal before the tribunal in third round of litigation, and the assessee did not appeared before the Bench on 12th July, 2022 and 22nd July, 2022 when this appeal was called for hearing before DB and also that no adjournment application was filed by the assessee. On earlier occasions when this appeal came up for hearing before DB, the assesse sought adjournment on as many as nine occasions which the Bench was pleased to grant. On 12th July, 2022, the DB decided to proceed with adjudication of this appeal on merit, after hearing ld. Sr. DR and perusing the material on record. We heard arguments of ld. Sr. DR who vehemently supported the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A). The ld. SR DR submitted that despite several opportunities being granted to the assessee, no evidences/explanations are filed by the assessee to satisfy the mandate of Section 68 of the 1961 Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
