Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HONBLEShri Iqbal Usmangani Khatri
O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income–tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 19.12.2017 for the A.Y. 2009-10.
Assessee has raised the following grounds in its appeal: - “Ground No.1: unexplained cash Credit u/s. 68. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Dy. CIT (AO) earned in making addition of ₹.4,28,000/- arbitrarily by treating peak of cases credit of ₹.4,28,000/- as deemed Income of the appellant The Ld. CIT (A) was not justified
(A.Y: 2009-10) Shri Iqbal Usmangani Khatri to upheld the addition made by AO. Appellant prays addition of ₹.4,28,000/- may please be deleted. Ground No.2: Unexplained Cash Credit u/s 69B. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Dy CIT (AO) erred in making addition of ₹.12,97,012/- arbitrarily on account of unexplained investment in jewellery and watches u/s 69B of the Act. The-Ld. CIT (A) was not justified to upheld the addition made by AO. Appellant prays addition of Rs. 12,97,012/- may please be deleted.”
In spite of service of notice by RPAD, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was moved. I dispose of this appeal by hearing the Ld. DR.
Ld. DR submits that the assessment was reopened u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act and the re-assessment was completed on 29.03.2016 determining the income of the assessee at 32,74,996/- as against income of Rs. 15,49,984/- assessed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 16.03.2011. Ld. DR submits that Assessing Officer while completing the assessment disallowed ₹.4,28,000 u/s. 69A of the Act and ₹.12,97,012/- u/s. 69B of the Act. An addition of Rs. 4,28,000/- was made as deemed income as sources of peak credits in bank accounts could not explain by the assessee. Ld. DR submits that the assessee has not given any explanation on the investment made in gold and diamond jewellery and watches and therefore, the investments shown in the balance sheet to the extent of ₹.12,97,012/- was treated as under stated investment by the Assessing Officer and accordingly brought to tax u/s. 69B of the Act
(A.Y: 2009-10) Shri Iqbal Usmangani Khatri 5. Ld. DR submitted that, even before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee could not provide the evidences and explanation to prove that the investments were made out of accounts money, therefore, he strongly placed reliance on the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) and prayed that the additions be sustained.
On hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the orders of the lower authorities. I find that the assessee has not given proper explanation on the investments made by him. The Ld. CIT(A) considering the submissions of the assessee sustained the above observing as under: -
“5.1 Ground No.1: This ground is against addition of Rs.4,28,0007- as deemed income as sources of peak credits in the two Bank A/c. could not be explained by assessee. In Deurtsche Bank, total credits of Rs.47,10,000/- were there. AO has already given benefit of telescoping to assessee as per details mentioned is para 4.1 of the order (Page 5 of the AO's order) and only Peak credit of Rs.3,00,000/-- is added back. Since assessee could not explain sources of this peak, the addition was made by AO. Even is Appeal, no details have been submitted to explain sources of credit of peak amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. Second addition of Rs.1,28,000/-- is of the Bank A/c. of ICICI Bank, was on the ground that assessee could not prove its sources. Thus there was total addition of Rs.4,28,000/-. In absence of any explanation details filed by assessee regarding sources of there 3,00,000/- and Rs.1,28,000/- the addition made by AO is upheld and Appeal filed by assessee is dismissed. In any case AO has been reasonable and has already allowed benefit of telescoping to assessee, thus no further relief is possible assessee. 5.2 Ground No. 2 2nd ground of addition of Rs.12,97,012/- is on account of on explained investment is Jewellery and watches. The facts are discussed is para (page 6 & 7 of the AO's order). During the year the amount of investment in the jewellery (including watches) as per Balance sheet was Rs.43,81,500/- A.Y. 2009-10 - Rs. 67,63,750/- A.Y. 2008-09 - Rs.23,82,250/- During the F.Y. Rs.43,81.500/- AO has given a finding that during assessment proceedings, could submit bills of only Rs.39,87,000/-. Thus remaining investment as per Books of Rs.3,94,500/-was not verifiable and not substantiated with the proof of source of payments. Hence Addition of Rs.3,94,500/- as unverifiable was made. Further, as per the information received from Inv. Wing, total investment during the year was actually Rs.52,84,012/-. Assessee could not explain sources of investment of Rs.9,02,512/- (Rs.52,84,012-Rs.43,81,500/-).
(A.Y: 2009-10) Shri Iqbal Usmangani Khatri Thus these two values of Rs.9,02,512+Rs.3,94,500/- totaling to Rs. 12,97,012/- were added u/s.69B. In appeal proceedings also assessee could not submit any documents/Bills etc. for the verification of the same. Hence the addition made by AO is upheld and appeal of assessee is dismissed.”
None of these findings have been rebutted before me, hence I sustain the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and reject the grounds raised by the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on the 12th April, 2019