Delhi High Court
Alok B. Mathur vs Appeal Xxviii on 18 July, 2011
Author: A.K.Sikri
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA No.752 OF 2011
% DECISION DELIVERED ON: JULY 18, 2011
ALOK B. MATHUR . . . APPELLANT
VERSUS
APPEAL XXVIII . . .RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Assessee: Mr. V.K. Sabharwal, Advocate.
Counsel for the Revenue: Mr. N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing
Counsel.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed
to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?
A.K. SIKRI, J. (ORAL)
1. This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the orders
dated 30.06.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') affirming the order of
penalty levied under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act
(for brevity 'the Act'), which was affirmed by the Commissioner
of Income Tax (Appeals) as well. The penalty came to be
imposed under the following circumstances:
The assessee had filed income tax return in respect of
Assessment Year 2001-02 declaring income of `1,24,94,515/-.
The assessee had given loan which was not shown as income
tax return. This could not be found in the regular assessment.
However thereafter, the Assessing Officer (AO) received an
information from the ITO Ward 9 (1), New Delhi indicating that
Shri Rajesh Duggal, Managing Director of M/s. Spear Head
Digital Studio Pvt. Ltd. had applied for shares. He arranged
`35,00,000/- to enable him to apply for the said shares. This
money was advanced as unsecured loan to Shri Rajesh Duggal
and the assessee had not shown this loan in the income tax
return. Notice under Section 148 was issued on 10.12.2007,
as according to the AO, the aforesaid information reveals that
income of `35 lacs had escaped assessment.
2. Pursuant thereto, the assessee filed income tax return declared
at `35,45,980/- on asking explanation of sources of laon of `35
lacs given to Shri Rajesh Duggal. He submitted that he was
unable to find old records and to gain peace of mind, he
voluntarily surrendered the amount of `35 lacs for the
Assessment Year 2001-02. In these circumstances, addition of
`35 lacs was made.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee challenged the aforesaid order
before the CIT (A). Initially, the assessee submitted that he
had not filed any return on the counter. The proposed return
was given to the AO during the assessment proceedings and
this return could not be treated as filed under Section 148 read
with Section 139(2) of the Act. According to the assessee, in
the absence of return filed under Section 139(1), notice under
Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act was not valid. The order
should have been passed under Section 144 of the Act and not
under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act. The
CIT (A) rejected this contention on the ground that notice
under Section 143(2) of the Act issued to the assessee was
duly served upon and thereafter, this return was filed. The
assessee also made an attempt to challenge the addition of `35
lacs on merits on the ground that he had sufficient cash
balance in the bank account from where he could issue the
cheque of `35 lacs. This ground was rejected by the CIT (A) on
the ground that no such plea was ever raised before the AO.
The assessee himself filed the return disclosing income of
`35,45,980/- and even paid the tax partly under Section 140A
of the Act.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the above decision of the CIT (A), the
assessee approached the Tribunal. While dismissing the
appeal, the Tribunal accepted the view of the CIT (A).
5. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that no
question of law arises. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(A.K. SIKRI)
JUDGE
(M.L. MEHTA)
JUDGE
JULY 18, 2011
pmc
