Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed three appeals challenging an order related to assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06. The assessee did not prosecute the appeals, leading to an ex-parte hearing. The AO made additions for business profits and unsecured loans, which were confirmed by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence to discharge the burden of proof for unsecured loans under Section 68. Similarly, no material was furnished to contradict the financial statement regarding business profits. The adhoc addition for AY 2003-04 was also upheld due to lack of explanation for loans given to related companies.
Key Issues
Whether the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) for business profits and unsecured loans were justified, given the assessee's non-cooperation and failure to furnish evidence.
Sections Cited
133A, 68, 147, 148, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN
The assessee has filed these three appeals challenging the common order dated 24-12-2009 passed by Ld CIT(A)-3, Mumbai and they relate to the assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We notice that these appeals were filed in the year 2013. Since the assessee did not prosecute these appeals, the bench adjourned them sine die in the year 2015. Subsequently, these appeals were again fixed for hearing in August, 2024, but the notices sent to the assessee were returned unserved. In these circumstances, we proceed to dispose of these appeals ex-parte, without the presence of the assessee.
We heard Ld DR and perused the record. The assessee is engaged in the business of film production and direction. A survey u/s 133A of the Act was undertaken in December, 2006 in the cases of M/s Dhariwal Films P Ltd, to 812/Mum/2013 Mahendra Dhariwal M/s Evershine Films P Ltd and the assessee in order to find out compliance of various TDS provisions. Consequent thereto, these three assessment years were taken up for scrutiny. But the assessee did not co-operate with the AO. 3.1 Accordingly, the AO made adhoc addition of Rs.25.00 lakhs in AY 2003- 04. 3.2 In AY 2004-05, the AO noticed that the assessee is the proprietor of M/s Evershine Films and he has produced a film named “Tauba Tauba” in that concern. During the course of survey operations, financial statements relating to the above said concern were recovered from the computer system and it disclosed a profit of Rs.1,41,22,073/- therein. The AO assessed the same. Besides the above, the Balance sheet disclosed unsecured loans to the tune of Rs.73,02,500/-. In the absence of any explanation, the AO assessed the same u/s 68 of the Act. 3.3 In assessment year 2005-06, the AO noticed that the assessee has availed unsecured loans to the tune of Rs.52,03,380/-. In the absence of any explanation, the AO assessed the same u/s 68 of the Act.
Before Ld CIT(A), the assessee appeared and made certain submissions. However, the first appellate authority was not convinced with the submissions made by the assessee. Accordingly, he dismissed all the three appeals of the assessee. Hence, the assessee has filed these appeals.
We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. With regard to the additions made u/s 68 of the Act in AY 2004-05 and 2005-06, we notice that the assessee did not furnish any evidences to discharge the burden placed upon him u/s 68 of the Act. Accordingly, we are of the view that the tax authorities have rightly assessed the unsecured loans u/s 68 of the Act. 5.1 With regard to the addition of business profits, we notice that the same was based upon the financial statement recovered from the computer of the assessee. We notice that the assessee did not furnish any material to contradict the above said financial statement before the tax authorities and also before us. Accordingly, we confirm the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue. to 812/Mum/2013 Mahendra Dhariwal 5.2 With regard to the addition of Rs.25.00 lakhs made on adhoc basis in AY 2003-04, we notice that there was no material available with the AO to make the above said addition. At the same time, the assessee also did not appear and co-operate with the AO. We notice that the AO was constrained to make the above said addition for the reason that the assessee had given loans through three of his proprietary concerns to certain related companies. There should not be any dispute that it is the responsibility of the assessee to explain the sources of the loans so given, but the assessee has failed to give any explanation. Hence, the Ld CIT(A) has confirmed this addition. In the facts of the case, we are of the view that the order so passed by Ld CIT(A) does not call for interference.
In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17 March, 2025.