M/S. SUPRABHA CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NASHIK
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A” : PUNE
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI GD PADMAHSHALI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A” : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GD PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.888/PUN./2017 Assessment Year 2012-2013 M/s. Suprabha Construction The ACIT, Circle-2, Co. Pvt. Ltd., Nashik. Nashik. PAN AALCS1811K Maharashtra. C/o. S.B. Boob & Associates, vs. F-1, Sumangal Plaza, HDFC Cross Road, Canada Corner, Nashik - 422 005. Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent)
For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Date of Hearing : 25.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 29.08.2023
ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012- 2013, arises against the CIT(A)-2, Nashik, Nashik’s Order Appeal No.Nsk/CIT(A)-2/61/15-16, dated 13.02.2017, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
2 I.T.A.No.888/PUN./2017 2. We find with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the assessee has pleaded the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :
“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore the order passed by the CIT(A) is ab-initio- void, illegal and unlawful. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer, treating the cash deposited and the loan given to the appellant company as the income of the appellant whereas, those money had never been travelled back to the respective directors and shareholders. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the assesses appeal, without discussing the merits of the case. 4. The assessee craves leave to add to, modify delete or amend any or all of the above grounds of appeal.”
3 I.T.A.No.888/PUN./2017 3. Mr. Murkunde next invited our attention to the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion upholding the Assessing Officer’s findings making sec.68 unexplained cash credits addition of Rs.3,94,06,098/- (representing unsecured loans) as under :
“
4 I.T.A.No.888/PUN./2017
5 I.T.A.No.888/PUN./2017
Suffice to say, it has come on record that the assessee has not been able to prove genuineness of the impugned unsecured loans resulting in sec.68 addition of unexplained cash credits. We rather note from a perusal of the Assessing Officer’s detailed discussion in his assessment dated 03.03.2015 that he had duly considered the statements recorded by the concerned parties (relatives of the director) in response to sec.131 summons wherein the latter had admitted the assessee’s cash deposits as unexplained. That being the case, we are of the considered view that the mere fact of the assessee having filed only the bank statements or the alleged confirmation of all the parties could hardly be held to have discharged it’s onus as per Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214
6 I.T.A.No.888/PUN./2017 ITR 801 (SC); CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) and PCIT vs. NRA Iron and Steel [2019] 412 ITR 461 (SC). Their lordships have made it clear in all the foregoing landmark decisions that any explanation tendered in the course of income tax proceedings has to be considered in the light of human probabilities; after removing all blinkers; and mere filing of documentary evidence would not itself amount to discharging onus to prove genuineness of the concerned parties in issue. Faced with the situation and more particularly in light of the fact that this assessee has nowhere discharged it’s primary onus in respect of genuineness of the unsecured loans to the tune of Rs.3,94,06,098/-, we find no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion affirming the Assessing Officer’s action invoking sec.68 unexplained cash credits addition. Ordered accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 29.08.2023.
Sd/- Sd/- [GD PADMAHSHALI] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Pune, Dated 29th August, 2023 VBP/-
7 I.T.A.No.888/PUN./2017
Copy to
The applicant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A)-2, Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Road, Nashik. 4. The Pr. CIT-2, Nashik. 5. D.R. ITAT, Pune “A” Bench, Pune 6. Guard File.
//By Order//
// True Copy //
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.
S.No. Details Date 1 Draft dictated on 25.08.2023 Sr.PS 2 Draft placed before author 28.08.2023 Sr.PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Author .08.2023 J.M. 4 .08.2023 A.M. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS .08.2023 Sr.PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on .08.2023 Sr.PS 7 Date of uploading of Order .08.2023 Sr.PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk .08.2023 Sr.PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order
