SUMEET VIJAY PAWAR,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD -3(3), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 164/PUN/2022Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 July 2022AY 2011-123 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 upheld the additions made by the lower authorities regarding professional/technical receipts and unexplained cash deposits. The assessee failed to rebut the additions or provide supporting evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals concerned assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14. The Assessing Officer added a portion of professional/technical receipts and treated cash deposits in bank accounts as unexplained. The assessee did not provide necessary explanations or expenditure details.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made on account of professional/technical receipts and unexplained cash deposits were justified in the absence of supporting evidence from the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI S. S. GODARA

For Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Hearing: 26.07.2022Pronounced: 27.07.2022

ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM: These assessee’s three appeals for assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14 arise against the CIT(A)-3, Pune’s as many orders; all dated 22.05.2019, passed in cases nos.PN/CIT(A)-3/ITO Wd.3(2)/333/18-19/91, PN/CIT(A)-3/ITO Wd.3(2)/332/18-19/92 and PN/CIT(A)-3/ITO Wd.3(2)/331/18-19/93; respectively in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2 to 166/PUN/2022 2. Delay of 963 days each in all these three appeals filed on 10.03.2022, stands condoned since majority of the prescribed period of limitation falls in Covid-19 Pandemic outbreak only. 3. The assessee’s identical twin substantive ground raised in all these three appeals seek to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ action assessing him for professional/technical receipts as well as treating cash deposits made in his bank accounts as unexplained; involving varying sum(s), respectively.

4. It is noted with the able assistance coming from the Revenue’s side in lead appeal that this assessee runs a proprietary concern under the name and style of “M/s. Expert Services” executing industrial safety consultancy(ies) and turnkey projects. Both the learned lower authorities inter alia added 15% of the contract receipts, 50% of professional/technical receipts and similar 50% of balance receipts; coming to Rs.81,527/-, Rs.7,24,420/- and Rs.3,57,416/-; respectively on estimation basis. There is no rebuttal coming to correctness thereof from the assessee’s side. Nor has he placed on record all the corresponding details regarding the expenditure in issue. Face with this situation, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned addition(s) in all these three assessment years.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →