Dilip Kumar Agarwal v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolakta-11 & Ors

OD-4 WPO No.1159 of 2021IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTAConstitutional Writ JurisdictionORIGINAL SIDE DILIP KUMAR AGARWAL Versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLAKTA-11 & ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN Date : 6[th] December, 2021. APPEARANCE:Mr. Rano Jain, Adv.Mr. Venketesh Chaurasia, Adv.Mr. Siddhartha Das, Adv.Ms. Swapna Das, Adv.For petitioner.Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv.…for respondents. The Court: Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. In this matter, the petitioner has challenged the impugned orderdated 20[th] March, 2020 passed by the Principal Commissioner of IncomeTax under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 who has passed adetailed and reasoned order and after giving an opportunity of hearing tothe writ petitioner, as appears from the writ petition as annexure-P-1. Thepetitioner had filed the revision application under Section 264 of theIncome Tax Act against the assessment order dated 21[st] December, 2018under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 raising a demand ofRs.8,35,95,846/- which was an appealable order but the petitioner hadchosen to file revision under Section 264 of the Act. I find from theimpugned order under Section 264 of the Act that the aforesaidassessment order and demand in the assessment order has been upheld by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax by recording the facts indetail in its order and concluding part of the said order is recordedhereunder: “As discussed above, the assessee did not declare the deposits inhis bank accounts in the original return filed on 12/03/2012 but hedeclared Rs.13,40,74,834/- in the return of income filed on 20/04/2018in response to the notice u/s 148 of the I. T. Act. Further, he hasadmitted during the proceedings u/s 264 that the figure ofRs.13,65,620/- declared in his return of income is imaginary and notreal. But there is no mention of the said amount of Rs.13,40,74,834/- inhis submission dated 03/03/2020. The examination of documentsavailable on record and the assessee's submission dated 03/03/2020shows that the total deposits in his different bank accounts during theyear comes to Rs.8,44,98,093/-. There are no supporting evidences onrecord regarding the figures of Rs.13,65,620/- and Rs.13,40,74,834/-shown by the assessee in his two returns of income. This being the case,only the bank deposits appear to be his income for the year underconsideration. As such, it is to be taken that he has concealed thedeposits in three bank accounts. As per the original return of income forthe year under consideration, the assessee is maintaining his books ofaccounts on mercantile basis (please see 1 of Part A - 01 of the return ofIncome). In his original return of income filed on 12/03/2012, theassessee has written in the relevant column of return of Income that he isliable to maintain his accounts as per section 44AA of the I. T. Actwhereas he has submitted during the proceedings u/s 264 that he is notmaintaining the books of account as stated in Para B(j) of page 3 of theassessee's submission dated 03/03/2020. The assessee is also notproducing any bank statements except the copies provided the A. O. tohim during the assessment proceedings. He has claimed that the saidbank accounts are closed, and he has no documents relating to thesethree bank accounts. Further, he has submitted that he is not in positionto obtain the said bank account statements as they are now old. The A.O. had also tried to obtain the bank account statements, but he did notpursue the matter as indicated in his assessment order. But the factsremain that the above mentioned deposits in his bank accounts are not in dispute. It appears that the assessee is deliberately not furnishing thedetails of the so-called buyers, suppliers and supporting documentsthereof. The onus is on the assessee to provide the relevant documents tothe I. T. Authorities and to substantiate his various claims, the figuresdeclared in his returns of income, and to explain the sources of incomeincluding bank deposits. The assessee has not explained the sources ofvarious deposits in his three bank accounts. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of theview that the assessment made by the AO appears to be in order.Therefore, I hereby decline to interfere with the said assessment orderpassed by the Assessing Officer.” In view of the detailed reasons recorded in impugned orderconfirming the order of assessment and demand, this Court, sitting inconstitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia should not substitute its own finding with the finding of theCommissioner under Section 264 of the Act by acting as an appellateauthority over the same, more so, when the impugned order of theCommissioner under Section 264 of the Act is a speaking order and aftergiving an opportunity of hearing and it is not a case of violation ofprinciples of natural justice or the case of inherent lack of jurisdiction onthe part of the authority who has passed such order it will not be properon the part of Writ Court to interfere in such type of cases.In view of the discussion made above, this writ petition beingWPO/1159/2021 is dismissed. (MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.)