Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A” : PUNE
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI GD PADMAHSHALI
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.
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