Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
Sh. Puneet Bedi, Ludhiana vs Dcit, Cc-I, Ludhiana on 15 February, 2019
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,च डीगढ़ यायपीठ "बी", च डीगढ़
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH "B", CHANDIGARH
ी संजय गग , या यक सद य एवं डा. बी.आर.आर, कुमार, लेखा सद य
BEFORE: Sh.SANJAY GARG, JM & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, AM
आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 1426/Chd/2017
नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2011-12
Mr. Puneet Bedi बनाम The DCIT
Prop. M/s V.V. Bhalla & Co. Central Circle-I
E-64, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana Ludhiana
थायी लेखा सं./PAN No: AGAPB9766C
अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent
नधा रती क ओर से/Assessee by : Shri. Pankaj Bhalla
राज व क ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri. G.S. Phani Kishore
सन
ु वाई क तार#ख/Date of Hearing : 28/11/2018
उदघोषणा क तार#ख/Date of Pronouncement : 15/02/2019
आदे श/Order
PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, A.M:
The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana dt. 17/12/2014.
2. In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds:
1. That The Ld. C.I.T.(A)-5, Ludhiana has wrongly passed the order u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against law and facts of the case.
2. That the Ld. CIT(A)-5 erred in law & facts in holding that appeal of assessee is filed beyond the limitation period of 30 days as specified u/s 249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2.1 That the Ld. CIT(A)-5 erred in law & facts in assuming the date of service of order on 18.11.2013 against actual date of service i.e. 22.05.2014. 2.2 That the Ld. CIT(A)-5 erred in law & facts in failing to appreciate that there was no valid service of assessment order on 18.11.2013 on facts of the case.
3. That The Ld. C.I.T. (A)-5, Ludhiana has erred in law & facts in summarily rejecting the application for condonation of delay, if any, in filling appeal u/s 246A before first appellate authority, without any base and reasons thereof.
4. That The Ld. C.I.T. (A)-5, Ludhiana has erred in law & facts in confirming income at Rs. 7,98,81,765/-without appreciating the material on record.
4.1 That the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that Assessing Officer had gravely erred in law and facts of the case in assuming jurisdiction and framing assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4.2 That the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that Assessing Officer had gravely erred in law and facts of the case in framing assessment under section 144 of the 'Act' without affording any opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4.3 That the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that Assessing Officer without carrying out a valid service of the impugned notice(s) under section 143(2)/142(1) of the 'Act' had therein gravely erred in law and facts of the case by assuming jurisdiction and framing assessment under section 144 at the back of the assessee. 4.4 That the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that Assessing Officer had most arbitrarily proceeded with the 'Special Audit' under section 142(2A) of the 'Act' without affording any opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4.5 That the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that Assessing Officer had gravely erred in law & facts of the case in rejecting the 'Books of Accounts' of the assessee and therein taking recourse to assessment u/s 144 of the 'Act'. 4.6 That the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that AO gravely erred in law and facts of the case by most arbitrarily drawing adverse inferences as regards the credit/cash entries in the bank accounts, and therein making an addition of Rs. 3,23,22,403/- u/s 68 of the 'Act' in the hands of the assessee. 4.7 That the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that AO gravely erred in law and facts of the case by most arbitrarily making an addition of Rs.1,841/- as the undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee.
4.8 That the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that AO gravely erred in law and facts of the case by most arbitrarily making an addition of Rs. 9,330/- u/s 69C of the 'Act' in the hands of the assessee.
4.9 That the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that AO gravely erred in law and facts of the case by most arbitrarily making an addition as regards the impugned value of jewellery of Rs. 47,74,720/- u/s 69A of the " Act' in the hands of the assessee.
4.10 That the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that AO gravely erred in law and facts of the case by most arbitrarily assuming the amount of Rs. 2,72,30,326/- as ' Deemed Dividend' u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act.
4.11 That the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that AO gravely erred in law and facts of the case by most arbitrarily making an addition of Rs. 2,70,28,821/- (sic Rs. 2,72,30,326/-) as ' Deemed Dividend' u/s 2(22)(e) in the hands of the assessee. 4.12 That the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that AO gravely erred in law and facts of the case by most arbitrarily making an addition of Rs. 1,47,93,095/- as ' Deemed Dividend' u/s 2(22)(e) in the hands of the assessee.
4.13 That the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that AO gravely erred in law and facts of the case in assessing the income of assessee at Rs. 7,98,81,765/- as against latters 'Returned income' of Rs. 7,50,050/-.
4.13 That the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that AO gravely erred in law and facts of the case in raising a demand of Rs. 3,37,93,470/- towards Tax' and 'Interest' u/s 234A, 234B & 234C of the 'Act' in the hands of assessee.
3. At the outset the appeal is barred by 918 days. The similar matter stands examined in the case of Puneet Fashions Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1129 and 1130/CHD/2017 for the A.Y. 2007-08 and 2011-12 respectively. Further the similar matter in the case of Puneet Fashions Pvt. Ltd and others also stands adjudicated in ITA No. 1065 to 1067/CHD/2017 relating to A.Y. 2008-09 to 2010-11 by order dt. 31/10/2017. Accordingly the delay in filing the appeals is condoned on the same footing and of the same lines, the impugned orders of the CIT(A) are hereby set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for assessment denovo.
3
4. The Revenue authorities may also invoke all the provisions of the Act mentioned under Chapter XXI and XXII as deemed fit while giving proper opportunity to the assessee to present their case.
5. In the result, the appeal is treated as set aside.
Order pronounced in the open Court.
Sd/- Sd/-
संजय गग / (SANJAY GARG ) डा. बी.आर.आर, कुमार / ( DR. B.R.R. KUMAR)
या यक सद य/ Judicial Member लेखा सद य/ Accountant Member
Date: 15/02/2019
AG
Copy of the order forwarded to :
1. The Appellant,
2. The Respondent
3. CIT,
4. DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH,
Guard File