Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE- & MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद �यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद �यायपीठ अहमदाबाद �यायपीठ ‘A’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद �यायपीठ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT AND MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2008-09 Smt. Pratima M. Amin, The ADIT (Intl. Taxn.), 604, Palm View, Nr. Manisha Chokdi, Vs Ahmedabad Vasana Road, Baroda-390020 PAN : AIOPA 5687 P अपीलाथ�/ (Appellant) �� यथ�/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, AR Revenue by : Shri M.M. Garg, Sr DR. सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 29/06/2022 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement: 27/07/2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT :
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad [“CIT(A)” in short] dated 20.03.2015.
The relevant facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee is an individual who is a Non-Resident Indian. During the course of assessment proceedings in the case of M/s. Balaji Fiber Reinforce Pvt. Ltd. for Assessment Year 2008-09, it was found that the assessee has given unsecured loan to the said company on which interest of Rs.14,53,652/- was earned during the year under consideration. Since no return for the year under consideration was filed by the assessee, the assessment was reopened by the Assessing Officer and a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act” in short] was issued by him to the assessee after
Smt. Pratima M Amin Vs. ADIT AY : 2008-09 2 recording the reasons. In response to the said notice, the return of income for the year under consideration was filed by the assessee on 08.05.2011 declaring a total income of Rs.39,22,390/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noted by the Assessing Officer that cash aggregating to Rs.11,97,000/- was deposited by the assessee in the joint account maintained with her mother-in-law with HDFC Bank. Although the assessee claimed to have received the said cash from M/s. Jalsa Food Park, the said explanation could not be supported and substantiated by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer, therefore, treated the cash deposits found to be made in the bank account of the assessee as unexplained and an addition of Rs.11,97,000/- was made by him to the total income of the assessee in the assessment completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide an order dated 21.12.2011.
Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, an appeal was filed by the assessee before the learned CIT(A) challenging the validity of the said assessment as well as disputing the addition of Rs.11,97,000/- made by the Assessing Officer therein on account of unexplained cash deposits found to be made in her bank account. As noted by the learned CIT(A) in his impugned order, no material contention was raised by the assessee in support of the issue raised by her challenging the validity of the assessment made by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. The learned CIT(A), therefore, did not find merit in the issue raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment made under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act and proceeded to uphold the validity of the said assessment. He also confirmed the addition of Rs.11,97,000/- made by the Assessing Officer to Smt. Pratima M Amin Vs. ADIT AY : 2008-09 3 the total income of the assessee on account of unexplained cash deposits found to be made in the bank account of the assessee observing that the assessee could not file any documentary evidence to prove that the cash so deposited in her bank account was received from M/s. Jalsa Food Park as claimed by the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. Although in Ground No.1 of her appeal the assessee has raised a preliminary issue challenging the validity of reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act, no material arguments were raised on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing before us to support and substantiate the case of the assessee on this issue. It is observed that even before the learned CIT(A), similar was the position inasmuch as inspite of raising a specific ground, no material arguments were advanced on behalf of the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment made by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. We, therefore, find no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) upholding the validity of the assessment made by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act and dismiss Ground No.1 of the assessee’s appeal.
As regards the other issue involved in this appeal of the assessee relating to the addition of Rs.11,97,000/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) on account of unexplained cash deposits found to be made in the bank account of the assessee with HDFC Bank, the learned Counsel for the assessee has reiterated before the Tribunal the submission made before the learned CIT(A) that the assessee and her family
Smt. Pratima M Amin Vs. ADIT AY : 2008-09 4 members had made substantial investment in Jalsa Food Project in the earlier years, but due to illness of the assessee’s husband, the project could not take off and other partners of the project took undue advantage of the situation by misappropriating the funds from the project. He has submitted that a Civil Suit was also filed by the assessee and her relatives for recovery of their investment made in Jalsa Food Project and other steps were also taken to recover the said investment whereby a miniscule amount of Rs.11,97,000/- could be recovered in cash. He has contended that the said cash was eventually deposited by the assessee in the bank account and there was no reason for the authorities below to treat the cash deposit found to be made in the bank account of the assessee as unexplained. It is, however, observed that a similar explanation offered by the assessee before the learned CIT(A) was not accepted by him in the absence of any evidence to support and substantiate the same. Even before the Tribunal no evidence whatsoever has been furnished by the assessee to establish that the cash of Rs.11,90,000/- in question found to be deposited in her bank account was recovered from Jalsa Food Project as claimed. Even the concept of materiality pressed into service by the learned Counsel for the assessee in support of assessee’s case on this issue, in our opinion, is of no help to the assessee since the relevant provisions of Section 68 of the Act are very clear to the effect that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income- tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. We, therefore, find no merit in the case of the assessee on this issue; and, rejecting the same, we uphold the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) confirming the addition
Smt. Pratima M Amin Vs. ADIT AY : 2008-09 5 of Rs.11,97,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash deposit found to be made in the bank account of the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 27th July, 2022 at Ahmedabad.