SHRI DAI RAM JINDAL,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2016/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 August 2019AY 2012-135 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not provide necessary details regarding unsecured loans and cash deposits to prove their genuineness. Since the assessee was a habitual defaulter in complying with notices and did not contest the additions, the lower authorities' orders were upheld.

What were the facts?

The assessee, proprietor of Hyat Traders, failed to appear before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) despite notices. The Assessing Officer made additions for unsecured loans and unexplained cash deposits. The CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal due to non-appearance.

What were the issues?

Whether additions made by the Assessing Officer for unsecured loans and unexplained cash deposits are justified in the absence of supporting evidence from the assessee and due to non-compliance with notices.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 68,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Hearing: 08.08.2019Pronounced: 27.08.2019

ORDER Per Suchitra Kamble, J.M.: This appeal is filed against the order dated 09.01.2017 passed by the CIT(A)-16, New Delhi for the assessment year 2013-14.

2.

The grounds of appeal are as under :

1. Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in law and facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.38,09,457/- under the head “Unsecured loan” without considering the submission made by the assessee.

2. Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in law and facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.10,50,000/- on account of cash deposited in the Bank.

3.

The assessee has every right to make, add, delete, modify or alter any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.

3. The assessee is the proprietor of M/s. Hyat Traders. During the year, the assessee has made a sale of Rs.55,33,106/- and reported a net profit of Rs.2,55,235/- as compared to Rs.1,10,89,379/- and Rs.2,32,555/- respectively. The return of income was filed on 31.03.2013 declaring an income of Rs.2,36,570/- which was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act vide order dated 11.06.2013. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s. 143(2) was issued on 17.08.2013 which was duly served upon the assessee. Further notice u/s. 142(1) was issued on 08.10.2014. Further notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 02.12.2014. The assessee filed letter dated 12.02.2015 and 19.02.2015 and raised certain objections regarding the jurisdiction. Objection was disposed of vide letter dated 16.03.2015 by the Revenue. Since the assessee did not attend the proceedings in response to any notice issued, summons u/s. 131 of the Act was issued on 20.02.2015 and served upon the assessee. However, the assessee did not appear. Therefore, the Assessing Officer passed order u/s. 144 of the Act. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.38,09,457/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act as well as made addition of Rs.10,50,000/- under the provisions of section 68 as unexplained cash deposits.

4.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A.) The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee as none appeared before the CIT(A) too despite giving notice.

5.

During the hearing, despite filing the power of attorney, none appeared for the assessee nor was the assessee present before us. Notice for hearing was properly issued and served upon the assessee. Thus, the service was complete but since none is present on behalf of the assessee, we are proceeding on the basis of assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

6.

The ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

7.

We have heard the ld. DR and perused the assessment order and the order of CIT(A). From the perusal of the orders of the lower authorities, it can be seen that the assessee is the habitual defaulter in complying with the notices issued for hearing. None appeared before us as well. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in its appeal. From the perusal of the assessment order it can be seen that the assessee was asked to file the name and complete address of all the persons from whom unsecured loans were taken with their source of income, bank statements, Income-tax returns and computations of income as well as asked to prove their creditworthiness to give unsecured loans. Despite giving the opportunities, the assessee has not filed any details as was asked by the Assessing Officer and has not proved the case before the Revenue Authorities. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has made proper addition in respect of unexplained money u/s. 69A. As regards addition of unexplained cash deposits, the same was also not contested by the assessee during the assessment proceedings by producing any documentary evidence. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has rightly made addition and there is no need to interfere with the observations and conclusion of the assessment order. As regards the order of the CIT(A), the CIT(A) has also given categorical finding, i.e., in absence of evidence, the Assessing Officer has rightly made additions. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). The appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →