Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a proprietor of M/s. Raghav Corporation, filed his return declaring a total income of Rs. 90,260/-. The Assessing Officer made various additions and disallowances, increasing the total income to Rs. 11,47,400/-. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the business expenditure claim and did not provide cogent evidence for cash credits. The lack of substantiation meant the assessee failed to discharge the onus placed upon them.
Key Issues
Whether the disallowance of business expenditure and additions for unexplained cash credits amounting to Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 11,43,000/- were justified, given the assessee's failure to provide substantiating evidence.
Sections Cited
143(2), 142(1), 143(3), 250, 251(2), 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
(Assessment Year: 2011-12) Kashinath Tapuriah ACIT-CC-2, Mumbai 9, Rowdown Street, Udyanchal Bldg., Flat No. 20, 5th Floor, Kolkata, Vs. Karnataka – 700017. PAN/GIR No. ABUPT5665K (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee by : None : Shri. P. D. Chougule, SR. DR. Respondent by : 19.02.2025 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 47, Mumbai (‘ld. CIT(A)’ for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2011-12.
As there was no representation on behalf of the assessee inspite of several opportunities, we hereby proceed to dispose off this appeal by hearing the learned Departmental Representative (‘ld. DR’ for short) and on perusal of the materials available on record.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs.41,345 business expenditure.
2. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.50,000 on account of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of Income tax act.
3. The learned commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.11, 43,000 on account of unexplained cash credit under section 68 Income tax act.
The appellant prays that a. The addition of Rs 41,345 of Business expenditure may be deleted. b. The addition of Rs 50,000 on account of un-explained cash credit may be deleted. c. The addition of Rs 11, 43,000 on account of un-explained cash credit may be deleted. d. Any other relief yours honors may deem fit.” 4. Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual and proprietor of M/s. Raghav Corporation and had filed his return of income dated 19.03.2013, declaring total income at Rs. 90,260/-, having income from investments in the nature of interest and dividends. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were duly issued and served upon the assessee. The learned Assessing Officer ('ld. A.O.' for short) passed the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 28.03.2014, declaring total income at Rs. 11,47,400/- by making various additions/disallowances. 5. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, who vide order dated 01.06.2018, had dismissed the grounds raised
by the assessee on various grounds, for the reason that the assessee has failed to furnish all the relevant documentary evidence for which the assessee contends that the assessee as well as his wife Mrs. Chandrika Tapuriah were summoned by the Enforcement Director of Mumbai during (A.Y. 2011-12) Kashinath Tapuriah the first week of March, 2011 and subsequently, the assessee was arrested and under judicial custody till 24.03.2011 due to which the assessee was prevented from filing all the relevant documentary evidence in respect of his claim. The ld. CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s contention and upheld the addition/disallowance made by the ld. AO.
6. The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A).
7. The first ground raised by the assessee is on disallowance of business expenditure amounting to Rs. 41,345/-. It is observed that the assessee being the proprietor of M/s. Raghav Corporation has claimed expenses towards interest, banks charges, Motorcar insurance and printing and stationery amounting to Rs. 41,345/- claimed was as business expenditure. The ld. AO observed that the assessee has not done any business during the year under consideration and the ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the ld. AO. On perusal of the P & L account, it is observed that the assessee has claimed bank charges amounting to Rs. 384/-, interest paid Rs. 34,411/- and office expenses of Rs. 6,550/- which the assessee has failed to substantiate that the same was incurred for the purpose of his business. Neither before the lower authorities nor before us, the assessee has substantiated the said claim by cogent evidence. In the absence of the same, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and we therefore dismissed the ground no. 1 raised by the assessee.
8. Ground no. 2 pertains to addition on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 50,000/-. It is observed that the bank statement maintained by the assessee with Axis Bank for F.Y. 2010-11 was furnished to the ld. AO during the assessment proceeding, where it was found that the assessee has deposited cash (A.Y. 2011-12) Kashinath Tapuriah amounting to Rs. 50,000/- and the source of the cash deposit has not been explained by the assessee during the assessment proceeding. Though the ld. AO at para 6 of the assessment order has held the same to be unexplained cash credit in the computation but has erroneously failed to make addition of the impugned amount to the total income of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) took note of the same and made an enhancement after duly giving notice to the assessee u/s. 251(2) of the Act to the income of the assessee by making addition of Rs. 50,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act on the ground that the assessee has failed to explain the source of the cash deposit made in the assessee’s bank account. As the assessee has failed to explain the source of the said cash credit even during the appellate proceeding before us, we deem it fi to upheld the addition made by the ld. AO on the ground that the assessee has failed to discharge the initial onus casted upon him, thereby dismissing ground no. 2 raised by the assessee.
Ground no. 3 pertains to the addition on unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 11,43,000/-. The facts of this ground are that the assessee had declared income under the head ‘Income from other sources’ towards interest from bank amounting to Rs. 3,101/- and income from share trading amounting to Rs. 1,48,500/-. During the assessment proceeding, the assessee stated that he had purchased the shares from three parties dated 02.09.2010 who had made the payment only on 04.02.2011, after a time lapse of 6 months. Further, it is observed that the assessee has sold the shares and only after that made the payment to the parties from whom the shares have been purchased and the assessee is said to have donated the sale proceeds to Raibahadur Moongtulali Trust amounting to Rs. 10 lacs. The lower authorities alleged that the same (A.Y. 2011-12) Kashinath Tapuriah is a sham transaction, where the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the said transaction. The ld.AO made the addition and the same was upheld by the ld. CIT(A).
On perusal of the facts of this issue, we are inclined to hold that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction by cogent documentary evidence and has not discharged the onus casted upon him u/s. 68 of the Act. We therefore dismiss ground no. 3 raised by the assessee.
Ground no. 4 is general in nature and requires no separate adjudication.