Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA
Captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 16th August 2013, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–30, Mumbai, pertaining to the assessment year 2009–10.
2 Shri Ajay Doshi
The dispute involved in the present appeal is confined to the addition of ` 1,59,44,000, as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act").
When the appeal was called for hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee to represent the case. As could be seen from the order sheet entries, from the first date of hearing of appeal on 16th September 2015 till 24th June 2019, though, the appeal was fixed for hearing on several occasions, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee to represent the case. Therefore, the Bench was compelled to adjourn the hearing of appeal repeatedly. However, there is no improvement in the situation. Even, the notice of hearing issued per registered post as directed by the Bench vide order dated 2nd May 2019, has returned back unserved with the postal remark “left”. The aforesaid facts clearly indicate that the assessee has no interest in pursuing its appeal before the Tribunal. In these circumstances, we have no other alternative but to proceed with the hearing of appeal ex–parte qua the assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and on the basis of material available on record.
Brief facts are, the assessee, an individual, filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year on 30th September 2009, declaring total income of ` 9,74,590. During the assessment
3 Shri Ajay Doshi proceedings, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to furnish the details of source of investment in various assets like mutual funds, shares and stock, immovable and movable properties, etc. In response to the query raised by the Assessing Officer, the assessee made some submissions explaining the source of investment. After perusing the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer found that as per assessee’s claim, it has made investment of ` 80 lakh from the amount of ` 55 lakh from Ajinkya Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. and ` 25 lakh from Viva Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. However, on going through the ledger account of Ajinkya Multitrade Pvt. Ltd., he found that in the relevant previous year, the assessee has received total amount of ` 1.02 crore and ` 25 lakh on the same date i.e., 3rd April 2008. As alleged by the Assessing Officer, to verify the genuineness of these transactions though the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 133(6) of the Act, however, such notices returned back unserved. Thus, the Assessing Officer treating the aggregate amount of ` 1.27 crore claimed to have been received from the aforesaid two parties as bogus added back to the income of the assessee. Similarly, he found that to explain some other investment the assessee had stated that he has received an amount of ` 58,38,000 for land dealing from four parties, however, as observed by the Assessing Officer, notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act to all the four parties for verifying the genuineness of 4 Shri Ajay Doshi assessee’s claim, returned back unserved. Accordingly, he treated the amount of ` 58,38,000, as bogus. On the basis of the aforesaid reasoning, the Assessing Officer added back the amount of ` 1,27,00,000 and ` 58,38,000 aggregating to ` 1,85,38,000, as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Being aggrieved with such addition, the assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority.
After considering the submissions of the assessee in the context of facts and material on record, learned Commissioner (Appeals) called for the remand report from the Assessing Officer. After taking note of the remand report and the submissions of the assessee and other material on record, learned Commissioner (Appeals) granted partial relief to the assessee by sustaining addition of ` 6 lakh in respect of credit standing in the name of Shlok Traders Pvt. Ltd. Further, he deleted credit of ` 15 lakh standing in the name of Shri Jignesh Gopani. Similarly, he deleted the credit amount of ` 6.30 lakh standing in the name of Rajvi Trading Co. However, he sustained all other credit amounts aggregating to ` 1,59,44,000, appearing in the name of four parties.
The learned Departmental Representative taking us through the observations of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order as well
5 Shri Ajay Doshi as in the remand report and the observations of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) submitted, the assessee has failed to establish the genuineness of the credit entries appearing in the name of the four parties. Therefore, the addition made is justified.
We have considered the submissions of the learned Departmental Representative and perused the material on record. As could be seen, before the Assessing Officer the assessee failed to furnish any evidence to prove the genuineness of the outstanding creditors to prove the source of investment. Before learned Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee furnished some evidence on the basis of which a remand report was called from the Assessing Officer. On examining the evidences furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer submitted his report before learned Commissioner (Appeals). Upon considering the remand report and other materials on record, learned Commissioner (Appeals) having found that part of the credit amount appearing in the books have been proved to be genuine, deleted the addition to that extent. However, as regards the balance credit amount of ` 1,59,44,000, appearing in the name of four parties, the assessee could not furnish clinching evidence to prove either the genuineness of the transaction or the creditworthiness of the creditors. Therefore, on factual verification of the aforesaid aspect, learned Commissioner (Appeals) sustained the addition to that extent. Factual position
6 Shri Ajay Doshi remains unaltered before us as the assessee has neither appeared nor furnished any evidences to controvert the factual finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). That being the case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue. Grounds raised are dismissed.
In the result, appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 03.07.2019