Vinod Kumar Gupta, Kanpur vs Assessee

1

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH "A", LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.529/LKW/2014 Assessment year:2005 -2006 Sri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - V, 51/55, Shakkarpatti, Kanpur Kanpur PAN:AABHV9738F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Asish Jaiswal, Advocate Revenue by Shri Punit Kumar, Senior DR Date of hearing 23/03/2015 Date of pronouncement 30/04/2015 ORDER PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.

This is assessee's appeal directed against the order of Learned CIT (A) - I Kanpur Dated 23.04.2014 for A.Y. 2005 - 2006.

2. Effective Grounds are as under:-

"1) Because on facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the order of AO that the proceedings before The Settlement Commission has abated u/s 245HA of The Income Tax Act, 1961.

2) That the proceedings before The Settlement Commission had been rejected as non - maintainable due to nonpayment of additional tax payable as one of the requirement as per section 245 (1) (b) of The Income Tax Act, 1961.

3) That the addition based on confidential portion under Rule 44CA(1) which could only be available on abatement of the proceedings u/s 245HA of The Act is invalid and unlawful.

4) That the addition confirmed by the LD CIT (A) based on additional income offered to buy peace and Protract Litigation under the confidential portion to Settlement Commission cannot form any basis of addition unless otherwise proved. Specially when during the course of entire assessment and appellate proceedings nothing was found unexplained and the addition confirmed are based on presumption.

5) That the proceeding of assessment as well as addition made in assessment order to the extent confirmed in 1st appeal is bad in law as well as on fact and appropriate relief deserves to be allowed.

2 3. Learned AR of the assessee submitted that the proceedings before The Settlement Commission has not abated for the reasons stated in the grounds. Learned DR supported the orders of the lower authorities.

4. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that as per clause (iv) of sub section (1) to section 245HA, the proceedings before The Settlement Commission shall abate if no order under sub section (4) of section 245D was passed within the time specified under sub section 4A of section 245D. The assessee could not show that any order was passed under sub section (4) of section 245D within the time specified under sub section 4A of section 245D. Hence, the proceedings before The Settlement Commission shall abate. As per sub section (3) of section 245HA, the income tax authority shall be entitled to use all material and other information produced by the assessee before The Settlement Commission. Hence in our considered opinion, there is no infirmity in the order of learned CIT (A), that the proceedings before The Settlement Commission has abated and the amount offered by the assessee before proceedings before The Settlement Commission of Rs. 3 lacs was correctly added by the A.O. Hence, we decline to interfere in his order.

5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. (Order was pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page) Sd/. Sd/.

(SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated:30/04/2015 *C.L.Singh Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., Lucknow Asstt. Registrar