Read and express views
× Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals in India

These are the latest case laws decided by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.

06-09-2019, Rajesh Madanlal Partani, Section 153A, 271B, Tribunal Pune

  • amit
  • amit's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
4 months 2 weeks ago #10735 by amit
Section - 153A, 271B, 133A, 132
Order Date - 06-09-2019
Favouring - Allowed for statistical purposes
Court - Tribunal Pune
Appellant - Rajesh Madanlal Partani
Respondent - ACIT
Citation - 919Taxpundit64
Appeal No. - ITA Nos.1016 & 1017/PUN/2012
Asstt. Year - 2001-02 & 2002-03



This batch of 31 appeals contains 28 quantum appeals and 3 appeals against penalty imposed u/s.271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) by different but connected assessees for the years captioned above. As some common issues are involved in these appeals, we are, therefore, proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order.

2. The first legal ground raised in lead appeal by Sh. Rajesh Madanlal Partani for the assessment year 2005-06 (ITA No.852/PUN/2012), which is common in almost all the quantum appeals, is against failure to issue and service notice upon the assessee u/s.143(2) of the Act within the time prescribed. On an earlier occasion, this ground was not pressed on behalf of the assessee. However, the assessee has again chosen to press this ground of appeal. The ld. Counsel submitted that notice u/s.143(2) was not issued within the stipulated period of six months before completing the assessment u/s.153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. This was factually controverted by the ld. DR who submitted that the first notice u/s.143(2) was issued in time.

3. We have briefly heard the parties on this issue. The ld. AR fairly pointed out that the Third Member bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in Smt. Sumanlala Bansal vs. ACIT (TM) vide its order dt. 20.5.2015 (ITA no. 525-530/Mum/2008), following the direct judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Ashok Chaddha vs. ITO (2011) 337 ITR 399 (Del), has held that non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) is not a requirement for completing assessment u/s 153A. However, relying on another judgment in CIT VS. N.S. Software (Firm) (2018) 403 ITR 0259 (Delhi), the ld. AR contended that the provisions of section 143(2) apply to the proceedings u/s 153A as well, even though it was not a direct issue before the Hon’ble High Court. In view of the fact that the ld. DR contended that the first notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was, in fact, issued within the stipulated period and further that the ld. AR also evinced interest in keeping the issue alive to be taken up before the higher forums rather than extensively arguing before the Tribunal, we decide this issue against the assessee without going further deep into it. ITA Nos.850-855/PUN/2012 and 1016-17/PUN/2012 –Shri Rajesh Madanlal Partani

4. Briefly stated, the facts of the lead year 2005-06 (in ITA No.852/PUN/2012) which are mutatis mutandis similar to the other seven quantum appeals are that the assessee is a member of Partani group in which a survey was initially conducted u/s.133A of the Act on 04-07-2007, which was converted into search u/s.132 on the same day. The Partani group is engaged in doing business on commission agency and financing of auto rickshaw vehicles through personal finance as well as finance through Shree Gangadhar Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha. Sixteen diaries were found during the course of search and seizure containing details regarding old and new vehicles arranged by the assessee. It had further details of the commission received from each transaction, finances made to the borrowers and interest etc. Statement of the assessee was recorded on 04-07-2007. The assessee made a surrender of Rs.2.00 crore spread over certain years in his individual hands, however the same was not fully offered in the returns filed pursuant to the search. The assessee filed his return for the lead year at total income of Rs.31,55,980/- including the amount surrendered for the year at Rs.26,02,000/-, but the assessment was completed at a total income of Rs.1,63,73,720/- making additions on account of suppressed commission income of Rs.83.78,812/-; interest income of Rs.55,87,963/-; suppressed profit of Rs.14,63,000/-; and suppressed interest of Rs.3,88,967/-. The assessee appealed before the ld. CIT(A) but remained unrepresented, as a result of which this appeal and host of other appeals came to be decided ex parte qua the respective assesses. This is how, the assessee has approached the Tribunal.

5. We have heard the rival submissions and considered the relevant material on record. It is seen that the ld. CIT(A) fixed the appeal of the assessee for hearing on 14-10-2010. Adjournment was sought, which was granted for 22-11-2010. Series of adjournments were taken by the assessee as has been recorded in para 3 of the impugned order. Since the assessee could not represent himself before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. first appellate authority was left with no alternate option but to proceed with the material available on record. That is how, most of the additions came to be countenanced by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR contended that the assessee s father was not keeping good health during the course of relevant proceedings which prevented him from putting in appearance before the ld. CIT(A).

6. The ld. DR vehemently argued that the assessee was given proper opportunity by the ld. CIT(A) but the assessee failed to avail the same. It was thus prayed that the appeals of the assessee be dismissed. It was further pointed out by him that the assessment was getting time barred but the assessee failed to adduce the evidence in time enabling the AO to embark upon proper enquiry. It was thus prayed that the additions so made and sustained be confirmed.

Click to view and download Full Free Judgement of Rajesh Madanlal Partani vs. ACIT

Unable to display Google Map.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.120 seconds

If You Appreciate What We Do Here On TaxPundit, You Should Consider:

We are thankful for your never ending support.

Latest Analysis - High Courts

CIT vs. Media World Wide Pvt. Ltd.

CIT vs. Media World Wide Pvt. Ltd.

CIT vs. Media World Wide Pvt. Ltd. Read More


CIT vs. Zuari Industries Ltd.

CIT vs. Zuari Industries Ltd.

CIT vs. Zuari Industries Ltd. Read More


  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46

Forum Features

Latest Case Laws
Latest Case Laws are instantly updated in the Forum into their respective section
Latest from CBDT
Latest Circulars, Notifications, Orders etc. from CBDT is updated in the Forum
Ask Experts
You can ask questions to the community
Support queries are either replied via mail or in the Forum so that others can be benefited
Press Releases
Latest Press Notes and Press Releases are updated in the Forum
Connect with Members
You can connect with our community members by replying to their queries

Recommended Articles



All content herein is the copyright of Taxpundit. No images, text, or any other content may be, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of Taxpundit.

All Rights Reserved. All Content Copyright.


Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest developments and special offers!

Company Master Data Since 1900. More than 1.75 Million Records. Register/Login to get FREE access. Read more
Toggle Bar