Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI
ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Thane [ in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 28/06/2019 for the assessment year 2012-13.
The notice of hearing of the appeal was sent to the assessee through RPAD at the address mentioned in Form No.36. Despite repeated notices, neither the assessee nor the Authorized Representative of the assessee has ever appeared on any of the date of hearing. The date of hearing of appeal and the date of issue of notice are tabulated herein under:
Notice sent through Date of hearing of appeal RPAD on 16/03/2021 14/04/2021 21/06/2021 12/08/2021 24/09/2021 14/10/2021 10/11/2021 09/12/2021 28/03/2021 13/04/2022 29/04/2022 09/06/2022 None of the notices sent through RPAD have been received back unserved from the Postal Authorities. Therefore, the notices are deemed to be served. Despite repeated services of notice the assessee has not bothered to respond to any of the notices. No letter seeking adjournment has been ever filed either by the assessee or his Authorized Representative. It seems that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal, therefore, this appeal is taken up for hearing with the assistance of ld.Departmental Representative and the material available on record.
The assessee in appeal has assailed addition made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’) on account of unexplained cash deposits/cash credits as under:-
(i) Rs.7,50,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits; (ii) Loan of Rs.89,99,900/- from Shri Vishwanbharan K; (iii) Loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from Shri. Mohan Nair; and (iv) Loan of Rs.3,50,000/- from Shri Satish R.
Shri Hosang B. Irani representing the Department vehemently supporting the impugned order submitted that assessee has been non-co-operative during assessment proceedings. A perusal of the assessment order would show that either the assessee has not complied to the notices or has furnished incomplete information. The Assessing Officer after examining the documents furnished by the assessee made addition under section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash deposit and unexplained cash credit. The assessee has not been able to discharge its onus in proving genuineness, creditworthiness and identity of the lenders. Even before the First Appellate Authority the assessee has not been able to show genuineness of the loan transaction and the lenders. The ld.Departmental Representative prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee.
We have heard the submissions made by ld.Departmental Representative and have examined the material available before us. We find that in assessment proceedings Assessing Officer had made various additions including addition under section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash deposit in the bank account of assessee with Federal Bank and on account of unproved cash credits in respect of unsecured loans from the following parties:
Name of the loan lender Amount of Loan. (Rs.) M/s. Goodwin Jewellers 65,00,000 Sunil Kumar HUF 45,00,000 Mohan Nair 10,00,000 Satish R 3,50,000 Vishwanbharan K 1,22,69,900 Total 2,46,19,900 Apart from above addition/disallowance were also made by the Assessing Officer under section 37(1) of the Act. Further addition of Rs.1,06,49,387/- was made on account of unexplained investments under section. 69 and 69B of the Act. In first appellate proceedings the CIT(A) deleted the addition wherever the assessee could explain the source and substantiate the expenditure, as the case may be by furnishing cogent evidences. However, where the assessee failed to discharge its onus in proving genuineness of the transaction, creditworthiness of the lenders/source of deposit of cash, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition. No material is available before us to controvert the findings of the CIT(A). In the absence of any contrary material the addition made by CIT(A) are upheld and appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on Thursday the 9th day of June, 2022.