DILIPKUMAR BIKAMCHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 174/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 September 2018AY 2010-116 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, proceeding ex-parte, partly allowed the appeals by modifying the additions for household expenses. However, the additions for unexplained credits were confirmed as the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not appear before the ITAT despite proper service of notice. The appeals were filed against the order of the First Appellate Authority concerning additions made for household expenses and unexplained credits.

What were the issues?

Whether additions made for household expenses and unexplained credits are justified in the absence of assessee's appearance and explanation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘SMC’ MUMBAI

Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Bepari-DR
Hearing: 05/09/2018

आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This bunch of six appeals is by the assessee for Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2012-13 against the impugned order dated 31/10/2017 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai.

2.

During hearing of these appeals, none was present for the assessee in spite of service of registered AD notice (acknowledgment returned by the postal authorities and duly signed by the assessee is available on record). The assessee neither presented himself nor moved any adjournment petition. It seems that the assessee has nothing to say, therefore, we have no option but to proceed ex-parte, qua the assessee, tend to dispose of this appeal on the basis of material available on record. On the other hand, the Ld. DR, Shri S. K. Bepari, defended the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal).

1.

2.1. We have considered the submissions of Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. The first ground raised pertains to addition of Rs.1,00,000/- each for Assessment Year-2007-08 and 2008-09, Rs.1,50,000/- each for Assessment Year 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 and Rs.2 lakhs for Assessment Year 2012-13 on account of house hold expenses. The Ld. DR invited out attention to the finding recorded in the assessment order as well as in the impugned order by defending the addition so made in the respective Assessment Years.

2.2. We have perused the record and found that before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) also the assessee did not appear except on 08/08/2017 when the assessee was asked to file certain details. The assessee either did not appear on the appointed date or the person who was not authorized to appear, ask for adjournments as has been mentioned in para-3 of the impugned order. In para-4 of the order under challenge, there is a finding that on the stipulated dates of hearing, no one appeared before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and there was no communication till the passing the order. As mentioned earlier, before this Tribunal also, the assessee did not appear on the appointed date. It seems that the assessee is deliberately avoiding its appearance and presumably has nothing to say. So far as, the addition on account of household expenses is concerned, we have perused the statement recorded by the Department of the wife of the assessee with respect to owning of certain goods and in para-4.1 with respect to expenses of the assessee.

The Ld. Assessing Officer made addition for respective Assessment Years. Since, the assessee did not appear before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and also before this Tribunal, no leniency is required and further the assessee did not explain at any stage, still by taking a lenient view, the addition, considering the standard of the family and the normal day-to-day expenses and other attendant circumstances, the addition, with respect to house hold expenses is modified as under:-

Assessment Year Addition made on account Reduced by the of house hold expenses Tribunal 2007-08 1,00,000/- Rs.95,000/- 2008-09 1,00,000/- Rs.95,000/- 2009-10 1,50,000/- Rs.1,15,000/- 2010-11 1,50,000/ Rs.1,15,000/- 2011-12 1,50,000/ Rs.1,15,000/- 2012-13 2,00,000/- Rs.1,50,000/- 2013-14 2,00,000/- Rs.1,50,000/-

The Ld. Assessing Officer is directed to adopt the aforementioned figures. This ground of the assessee is partly allowed.

3.

The next ground raised by the assessee is with respect to unexplained credits lying in the bank, amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- (Assessment Year 2007-08), Rs.13,48,000/- (Assessment Year 2008-09), Rs.1,84,500/- (Assessment Year 2009-10), Rs.5,20,000/- (Assessment Year 2010-11), Rs.6,24,000/- (Assessment Year 2011-12) and Rs.25,000/- (Assessment Year 2012-13). In the assessment order, there is a finding that the unexplained cash and other deposits were found in the accounts of the assessee for various years for which no evidence with respect to the source was produced. Similar is the situation before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as before this Tribunal. As per section 68 & 69 of the Act, it is the duty of the assessee to explain the same. In the absence of satisfactory explanation, the addition so made is confirmed. Thus, this ground of the assessee in the respective appeal is dismissed.

Finally, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed.

This order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of the ld. DR at the conclusion of the hearing on 05/09/2018.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →