MAHENDRA HARI DALVI,RAIGAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, PANVEL

Coming to the assessee‟s former appeal for assessment year 2008-09, learned counsel pressed for his first and fourth substantive grounds only. His first and foremost grievance is that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the Assessing Officer‟s action treating an amount of Rs.6 lacs involving Shri Ajit Tukaram Mhatre as unexplained thereby affirming the Assessing Officer‟s finding in his assessment order dated 06.05.2011. We note in this factual background that the CIT(A) had duly sought for the Assessing Officer‟s remand report which came to be filed on 30.05.2014. The Assessing Officer had seriously doubted the source of Shri Ajit Tukaram Mhatre therein as he was not found to be having such means to the extent of Rs.6 lacs in issue.

Learned counsel vehemently argued that the impugned sum in fact is in the nature of advances against sale of land received in the regular course of business. We invited his attention to the impugned assessment year 2008-09 and almost 15 years time period elapsed since then to find out as to whether this sum of Rs.6 lacs has ever been recorded in any land transaction or not. No satisfactory reply has come from assessee side. Faced with this situation, we conclude that the learned lower authorities have rightly made the impugned addition in assessee‟s hands for want of satisfactory explanation. This first and foremost substantive ground is rejected.

Next comes the assessee‟s fourth substantive grievance reading as under:- “4. Without prejudice to Ground Nos.1, 2 and 3, the Learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee had declared Additional Income of Rs.35,62,000/- for A Y 2010-11 in his statement recorded on 10.03.2010, during the course of Survey under section 133A on account of investments made by him and also the fact that he had disclosed this income in his return for A Y 2010-11”.

Learned counsel strongly argued that the impugned addition amount has already been assessed in assessment year 2010-11 assessment going by the assessee‟s corresponding search statement and therefore, the same amounts to double addition. Learned counsel could hardly pinpoint this clinching fact in the assessee‟s search statement of having declared the impugned sum as belonging to assessment year 2008-09 only. Faced with this situation, we find no merit in the assessee‟s instant latter grievance. His instant former appeal fails therefore.

Next assessee‟s latter appeal 2009-10. Delay of 183 days in filing thereof stated to be attributable to various communication gaps stand condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice as held in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

Learned counsel next stated very fairly that the assessee has raised similar substantive grounds in the instant latter case as decided against him in preceding assessment year 2008-09. We thus, follow judicial consistency to decline the same. This latter appeal also follows the suit.

These assessee‟s twin appeals are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.