9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on behalf of the assessee. On perusal of records, we notice that multiple dates of hearing were scheduled but the assessee failed to appear despite issuance of consecutive notices. Due to absence of the ld. AR or lack of representations, the Tribunal proceeds to decide the appeals based on the materials available on record and also with the assistance of the ld. DR to evaluate the merits of the case. 4. ITA No.213/Pat/2023 for assessment year 2001-02 - First, we take up the issue in respect of ITA No.212/Pat/2023. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. A search and seizure operation u/s 132(1) of the Act was conducted on 19.02.2004 in the case of the assessee as well as his associates/relatives. In this search operation, substantial investments in form of movable and immoveable properties were discovered which was alleged to have been unaccounted income of the assessee. The investigation revealed significant undisclosed income from activities related to examinations and recruitment process such as pre-medical exams, Bank P.O exams etc. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings u/s 153A of the Act and due notices were issued to the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the opinion that despite request the A/R has failed to show the separate existence of any such Indrajeet Kumar / Prasad / Singh. In fact A/R has avoided any submission on this issue'. Yet on the basis of documents presented before the Hon'ble High Court, Patna and other related papers, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Patna observed that there was no existence of Indrajeet Kumar separately and the assessment made in his hands (even without the filing of return by him) was erroneous and prejudicially to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, the A.O. was directed by him to assess the income of the non-existent Shri Indrajeet Kumar in the hands of Shri Kumar Suman Singh and to modify the assessment order passed in the case of Shri Kumar Suman Singh to that extent. An appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Patna, against this order of the Commissioner of Income of Income Tax (Central), Patna passed u/s 263 of the income Tax Act was quashed by the Hon'ble Bench by its order pronounced on 01.02.2008." 5.1 Ultimately, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment by assessing total income of Rs. 9,21,810/- by making certain additions. 6. Aggrieved by the above order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee has used multiple alias names including Indrajeet Singh which is evident from the documents such as LIC policy and bail petition filed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court. He also stated that the Assessing Officer after making detailed enquiries concluded that Indrajeet Singh was not a separate individual but another alias name used by the assessee and accordingly, the income assessed in the name of Indrajeet Singh was assessed in the hands of the assessee. 11. We find that the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of low withdrawal for the assessment year in question. However, the ld. CIT(A) after considering the present issue granted partial relief to the assessee to the extent of Rs. 64,000/- observing as under: "The AO has discussed the rationale of addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of low withdrawal for the AY in question. I find that similar addition has been made by the AO for A.Y 2002-03 as well wherein he has added Rs. 65,000/- on account of low withdrawal. Considering the requirement of consistency, the AO should have taken consistence view regarding the low withdrawal for AY 2001-02 & 2002-03. For AY 2002-03, it is observed that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment year i.e. 2001-02 restricted the addition to the extent of Rs. 64000/-. We do not find any interference in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and deem it correct since no contrary evidence was filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) during the proceedings. Therefore, we sustain the addition made by the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss this ground taken by the assessee. 12. Ground No.3 - In respect of ground no.3 which is relating to inclusion of income by the ld. CIT(A) of Rs. 7,59,520/- in the hands of Sri Indrajeet Singh as income of the assessee, the ld. DR stated that this fact emerged from the bail petition filed before the Hon'ble Patna High Court in Criminal Misc. No.879 of 2006, which shows that the assessee is known as Ranjit Singh/Indrajit Singh. The ld. DR also stated that on perusal of the copy of L.I.C. policy no. 512001452 and policy no. 512001422, it was found that the policy holder is Shri Indrajeet Kumar and nominee/assignee is Shri Shyam Sundar Prasad and column for relative with the policy holder bears the term 'father' and Family chart of the assessee shows that Shri Kumar Suman Singh, S/o Shri Shyam Sundar Prasad has no any bro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssues involved in the present appeal apart from difference in figures of amounts involved are identical to that has been discussed in ITA No.213/Pat/2023 for assessment year 2001-02 except Ground No.3, hence, our findings/directions given in the remaining grounds except ground no.3 will mutatis mutandis apply to the present appeal i.e. ITA No.215/Pat/2023 and we now proceed to adjudicate ground no.3 taken by the assessee in the instant appeal. 20. Ground No.3 - In respect of ground no.3 which is relating to confirmation of the addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- being gift received from grandmother, the ld. DR stated that the assessee's grandmother namely Smt. Pano Devi had no resource which can substantiate the gift given to the assessee at Rs. 3,00,000/- for the assessment year 2003-04 and the ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the ground of the assessee observing as under: "I have considered the findings recorded by the A.O in the assessment order and written submission made by the ld. AR. The ld. AR has objected to the addition, however, he has failed to prove with reference to documentary evidence that grandmother Smt. Pano Devi had disclosed resources to substantiate the gift of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, the addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is not correct and liable to be dismissed. In respect of this ground, the ld. DR stated that while framing the assessment order, an addition of Rs. 80,000/- was made on estimation basis in the hands of the assessee and the assessee did not come forward to submit necessary documents in the relevant assessment year. He further stated that the ld. CIT(A), after considering the facts, found that the Assessing Officer has failed to bring any positive material to prove existence or continuation of onion business and the ld. CIT(A) in the interest of justice granted partial relief to the assessee to the extent of Rs. 40,000/-. 26. We, after examining the facts of the case and submission made by the ld. DR, find that in the instant issue, the Assessing Officer has not brought on record any material or valid proof in order to validate the existence or continuation of onion business of the assessee. Therefore, the alleged addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 80,000/- in the hands of the assessee was not correct and accordingly the instant ground taken by the assessee is allowed. Accordingly, we delete the entire addition of Rs. 80,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal was shown at Rs. 2,68,385/- with narration "as per last balance sheet". The AO after in-depth analysis of the information available before him has held that there was Nil income of the appellant up to FY 1997-98. Accordingly, he was of the view that the appellant could not produce any supporting document to verify the opening balance. Accordingly, the same was treated as appellant's own income for relevant previous year. During the course of appellate proceedings, the AR Shri Suman Kumar Nayak could not produce any documentary evidence except xerox copy of affidavit dated 06.07.2006 which stated that the appellant had sold Bajaj 4-S, Champion Motor Cycle bearing registration no. BR-1E-6695, Chasis No. 31E94E40697 and Engine No. 31M94E39869 on 04.05.1997 amounting to Rs. 35,000/-. Undisputedly, the copy of affidavit submitted was dated 06.07.2006, however, the disputed assessment was passed on 10.02.2006. This affidavit was made subsequent to the date of assessment order. Had there been any genuineness in the claim made in the affidavit, the same should have been filed during the course of assessment proceedings as it has been claimed in the affidavit that the sale was mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
