M/S ANAGI TRADING PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6(1)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1211/MUM/2020Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 September 2022AY 2013-145 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in making an addition for unexplained investments without considering the vital facts presented by the assessee. The assessee claimed payments were made from accounted sources and supported by documentary evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee company, engaged in textile trading, filed its return for AY 2013-14. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated scrutiny and found that the assessee had purchased immovable property which was not disclosed.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO correctly made an addition for unexplained investments without considering the assessee's submissions and documentary evidence, and if the addition should be limited to the amount paid in the impugned year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH

Before: SHRI BASKARAN BR & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Respondent: Mr. Manoj Sinha.DR
Hearing: 22.09.2022

ORDER

PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM:

1.

The assesse has filed an appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals(CIT(A))- 12 Mumbai passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short “the Act”). The assesse has raised following grounds of appeal.

1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO erred in making the addition u/s 69 of alleged Unexplained Investments of Rs.1,80,53,700/- 2) The Ld. AO, before making the addition of alleged unexplained investments of Rs.1,80,35,700/-, ought to have considered the understated vital facts, being: a) The appellant had made the payments out of accounted and disclosed source of funds; b) The investments are supported with documentary evidences such as registered sale deed, bank loan sanction letters, charge created before Registered of Companies and other documents; 3) Without prejudice, the addition of alleged unexplained investments could utmost be made to the extent of money paid during impugned year since substantial amount had been in subsequent year.

2. The brief facts of the case that the assesse company is engaged in business of trading of textiles and filed the return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 31.10.2013 disclosing a total income of Rs.3,79,917/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny the notice under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act was issued. In-compliance, the Ld.AR of the assesse appeared from time to time and submitted the details and the case was discussed. On perusal of the ITS details, the Assessing Officer (A.O.) found that the assesse has purchased immovable property and it was not disclosed before the Income Tax Department and a show cause notice was issued. Whereas, the assesse has filed the explanations referred at Paragraph 5.3 of the order. Subsequently, the A.O. has issued notice under Section 133(6) of the Act on sub-registrar Phaltan District- Satara, Maharashtra to verify the purchase of the property. On perusal of the information and the property details, the AO has called for the sources of purchase of the property. The A.O. found the explanations filed by the assesse are not properly supported with evidences and the assesse could not explain the sources and the A.O. has made an addition of Rs.1,80,53,700/- as unexplained investment and assessed the total income of Rs.1,84,33,617/- and passed the order under Section 143(3) of the Act dated 13.03.2016. Aggrieved by the order, the assesse has filed an appeal with the CIT(A).

3.

Aggrieved by the order, the assesssee has filed an appeal with the CIT(A). Whereas, CIT(A) considered the grounds of appeal, finding of the scrutiny assessment and since there was no compliance in respect of the notices, the CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer in making disallowance and dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by the order CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal with the Honorable Tribunal.

4. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions. The assessee has a good case on merits and can substantiate with the material evidences and prayed for an opportunity before the lower authorities. Per Contra Learned DR submitted that the assessee has not filed the information before lower authorities and supported the order of the CIT(A).

5.

We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima-facie the CIT (A) has passed the order considering the fact that there is no appearance in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing and the notices were issued. Therefore, the CIT (A) was of the opinion that the assesseee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal and dismissed the appeal ex- parte confirming the action of the assessing officer. We find the Ld. CIT(A) has issued the notices of hearing referred at page 3 Para 3 of the order, but there was no response and thus the Ld. CIT(A) came to a conclusion that the assesseee is not interested and decided the appeal based on the information available on record. We find that the assesseee has raised grounds of appeal challenging the addition of the assessing officer and there could be various reasons for non appearance which cannot be overruled.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →