ABHINEY RAVINDRA SINGH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-22(1)(6), MUMBAI, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRYAssessment Year: 2013-14
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 30.05.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National
Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2013-14. 2. In this case, the Assessing Officer (in short “AO”) reopened case of the Assessee u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice
27.03.2021 u/s 148 of the Act, mainly on the reason that the Assessee during the A.Y. under consideration though has paid amount of Rs. 28,22,059/- through credit card but he neither filed his return of income nor given any response.
Mr. Abhiney Ravindra Singh
2
3. It appears from Assessment Order that the Assessee, though initially in response to the notices issued by the AO, made no compliance, however, subsequently in response to the show cause notice dated 25.03.2022, made compliance by filing its response on 25.03.2022, relevant part of which read as under:
“It is respectfully & humbly submitted before your honor that I have already discharged all my tax liability for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14 and have also filed the return of Income. Hence, it is requested to your honor to kindly drop the re-assessment proceeding. In case your honor still has some issues or doubts then after seeing my ITR for the above period in PAN AKHPS6539D, please inform me and also please provide me some time to gather the information and documents.
However, if your honor's do not agree with the aforesaid submissions and if any adversity is sought to be held against me in any of the above matter, then an opportunity of being heard may kindly be given to the Assessee to submit its further defense. This request being in consonance with the principles of natural justice may kindly be acceded.”
By considering the case of the Assessee, the AO ultimately made the addition of Rs. 28,22,059/- by observing and holding as under: “5. On the basis of information available in AIIMS module of ITBA, it is noticed that the assessee has paid through the credit card to the tune of Rs.28,22,059/- during FY2012-13 relevant to AY2013-14. During the course of hearing he has submitted that he is regular return filer and he has filed return for other PAN and instant PAN was surrendered way back. The fact was verified from ITBA portal/360 and PAN is still active. His explanation is therefore not acceptable. Thus source of such payment remained unexplained and section 69C of the Act is clearly applicable in the case. For better understanding, provision 69C of the Act is reproduced below:- Unexplained expenditure etc. Mr. Abhiney Ravindra Singh
3
69C Where in any financial year an assessee has incurred any expenditure and he offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure or part thereof, or the explanation about the source of such expenditure or part thereof, or the explanation, if any offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, amount covered by such expenditure or part thereof as the case may be may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year.
Plain the reading of section 69C clears that in the case of no explanation of any expenditure made during the year under assessment, expenditure may be treated as deemed income.
Even though source of explanation is given which is not found satisfactory, same may be treated as deemed income for the year under assessment. In the instant case, the assessee has not offered any explanation of source of such payment of Rs.28,22,059/- through credit card. It is therefore treated as deemed income of the assessee and accordingly added to his income which is taxable u/s 115BBE of the Act. I am also satisfied that the assessee has concealed the particular of his income to this extent and Penalty u/s 271(1) of the Act is initiated for the same.
(Additions. Rs.28,22,059/-
Particular
Amount(in Rs.)
Returned Income
:
Add: As discussed in para 5
:
Rs.28,22,059/-
Total income
Rs.28,22,059/-
Assessed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the I.T. Act, 1961. Interest u/s 234A/234B/234C is charged as per provision of the I.T. Act. Demand notice and challan are issue accordingly.
Penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act and penalty notice u/s 274 rws 271F of the Act is are issued. Penalty notice u/s 274 rws 271(1)(b) of the Act is issued.”
The Assessee, being aggrieved and by filling 1st appeal challenged the said addition before the Ld. commissioner, who vide Mr. Abhiney Ravindra Singh
4
impugned order dismissed the appeal of the Assessee and consequently affirmed the addition made by Ld.AO mainly on the reasons that the assessee has not denied ownership of two credit cards with the old PAN number and new one and has furnished the credit card statement for a period of one month from 13.10.2012 to 14.10.2012 only, which shows total transaction of Rs. 3,09,817/- and against total transaction of Rs. 28,22,059/- as per the details available with the Ld.AO.
The Ld. commissioner also held that in absence of the satisfactory explanation and non-furnishing of full particulars of transactions, the Ld. AO was right in the assessing the transaction amounting of Rs. 28,22,059/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69 C of the Act.
The Assessee at the outset has submitted that the Assessee vide intimation dated 11.07.2011, submitted before the Assessing Officer (Juri ictional) has duly informed about new PAN No. AZLPS1696N and vide letter dated 19.02.2018 surrendered the original PAN.
The Ld. DR on the contrary refuted the claim of the assessee by drawing the attention of this Court to the letter dated 19.02.2018, which is rectification application u/s 154 of the Act. 8. Having heard the parties and given thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and rival submissions of the parties. The claim of the Assessee “that his credit card was used by somebody else being friend of the assessee and somehow the assessee could not file the relevant bank statements/credit card statements reflecting repayments made by Mr. Nishant Sharma (Shristi Mr. Abhiney Ravindra Singh
5
Holidays, Raipur), ITR and computation of Mr. Nishant Sharma”, though appears to be genuine, however, for proper and just decision of the case and substantial justice, it requires thorough verification by the Assessing Officer and therefore this Court deem it appropriate to the remand the instant case to the file of the Assessing Officer for said purpose and decision afresh.
9. The Assessee is directed to file copy of such documents before the AO in due course of time, as filed before this Court and referred to above.
10. Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer in the aforesaid terms.
11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11.06.2025. (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
* Disha Raut, Stenographer
Copy to: The Appellant
The Respondent
The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai
The DR Concerned Bench
////
By Order
Dy/Asstt.