Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Rajeev Goyal,, New Delhi vs Ito, New Delhi on 18 April, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH 'SMC' NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.5081/Del/2016
Assessment Year 2011-12
Mr. Rajeev Goyal, Vs. ITO, Ward-48(3),
Flat No.226, Pocket A-4, New Delhi.
Konark Apartments,
Kalkaji Extension,
New Delhi.
PAN: AHJPG 8283Q
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Revenue by : Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri,
Sr.D.R.
Assessee(s) by : Shri Umesh Gupta, CA.
सुनवाई क तार ख/ Dateof Hearing : 17/04/2017
घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronouncement: 18/04/2017
ORDER
This appeal of the assessee arises from the order of learned CIT(A)- XXVIII, New Delhi dated 15.06.2016 for assessment year 2011-12.
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal.
"1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts because the facts have been ignored and the order has been passed with a biased mind and accordingly, it deserves to be quashed.
2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts whereas notice u/s.143(2) was not served on the assessee within stipulated time period accordingly whole assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) are bad in law and assessment order deserves to b quashed.
3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and under the circumstances of the case in not allowing the complete HRA exemption as mentioned in form 16 of the assessee.
4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and under the circumstances of the case in upholding the additions amounting to Rs.5 lacs u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, treating the same as un-explained Gift, whereas this is gift from the assessee mother."
3. The learned AR has not pressed ground no.3 and the same is dismissed as not pressed.
ITA No.5081/Del/2016 24. Ground No.1 is general in nature, therefore, does not require any adjudication.
5. As regards ground no.2, learned counsel for the assessee argued that notices dated 1.8.2012 and 17.08.2012 were never received to the assessee before the due date, i.e., 30th September, 2012 and as per internet report on record the delivery was booked by the department on 30th March, 2016 available at paper book 95 whereas in the second notice consignment details were not available with the post office. Therefore, the learned counsel for the assessee argued that notice having not being served on the assessee, therefore, the AO does not acquire the jurisdiction to make the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act and same is required to be quashed.
6. Learned DR, on the other hand, argued and pointed out the remand report of the AO at pages 3 and 4 of the learned CIT(A) where it is recorded that notices dated 01.08.2012 and 17.08.2012 were sent through speed post article numbers were mentioned on the addresses of Mohali Ropar, Punjab and also New Delhi. These notices were uncomplied with but later on the notices sent were duly served upon the assessee and assessee responded from time to time and she pointed out the order of the AO in paragraph 2 which is reproduced hereinbelow.
"2. The case was selected for scrutiny. Notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued on 01.08.2012 and was duly served on the assessee. Subsequently, notice u/s.142(1) of the Act alongwith questionnaire were issued. In response, the assessee attended the assessment proceedings from time to time and filed the requisite details and produced the requisite documents called for. The documents produced and verified on test check basis and the case was discussed in details."
7. From the perusal of the record and the argument of the parties, it is evident that the assessee has been served notices at the right address as assessee has participated in the assessment proceedings and requisite details have been produced and no objection in that regard has been raised before ITA No.5081/Del/2016 3 the AO in this regard. Accordingly the legal ground raised in ground no.2 is dismissed.
8. As regards ground no.4, the brief facts of the case are that the assessee has claimed to receive a sum of Rs.5 lac from his mother Mrs. Dayawati who has deposited cash in her bank account and issued the cheque to the assessee. The mother is not the income tax assessee which the assessee claims that she is below taxable limits and educated.
9. The AO not being satisfied with the explanation treated the same as unexplained gift and added back u/s.68 of the Act, which action of the AO confirmed by the learned CIT(A).
10. Learned counsel for the assessee could not bring on record the genuineness of the transaction or creditworthiness of the creditor to prove that in fact the mother of the assessee was capable of depositing Rs.5 lac in her bank account. Proving only the identity and not the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction will go to prove that the said transaction is just an accommodation entry and is unexplained and has rightly been treated by the AO as unexplained deposit by the assessee and I find no infirmity in the order of learned CIT(A) who has rightly confirmed the action of the AO. Thus, ground no.4 of the assessee is dismissed.
11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on this day 18th April, 2017 Sd/-
(B.P. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 18/04/2017 Prabhat Kumar Kesarwani, Sr.P.S.